- Date published:
8:43 am, August 31st, 2012 - 51 comments
Categories: alcohol, equality, gay rights, minimum wage - Tags:
Soon, a 18-year old gay man will be able to get married and, then, celebrate by having a drink. If Jacinda Ardern’s Bill passes, he’ll be able to adopt his husband’s child (why do they portray it as about couples adopting unrelated children? It’s mainly about legal recognition of homosexual step-parents). And, if David Clark’s Bill passes – he can then earn $15 an hour at his minimum wage job!
It really is the conservative’s nightmare at the moment. I’m loving it.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
A socially liberal, free market, capitalist society where economic inequality is maximised.
A neo liberal wet dream.
All the bedroom freedoms you want, with whomever you want, accompanied by a chilled bottle of Krug standing by in an ice bucket.
What could be better.
Not as much as conservatives are enjoying the Labour party joining them in the fight against lazy, lay about bludgers.
I don’t think you know what “conservative” means. In fact from what you write here I don’t think you know much at all.
Classic Felix. Being a dick for the sake of being a dick.
Meh. Just telling the truth.
Nationals exit stategy from afghanistan big home our solders in body bags. Good family people one with four children now the solo mum will will be hounded by pitbull benefit basher while the children grow up with out a father because National Couldn’t afford the right equipment to protect our brave men while shonkey runs away to the USA taking every photo op he can mange skiting in the cook islands that TV3 is his friend yeah the $43 million is paying dividends.
BUT and its a big Butt TV3 is in dire financial circumstances running up over $300 million dollars worth of loss this recent financial reporting period and its getting worse. TV3 is having to repeat all its shows because it can’t afford to buy new shows so its going to bleed viewers head over heals
making the losses compound.
So we might not ever see our $ 43 million payed back!
Labour through out their last cycle in power prosecuted as many if not more people who were playing the system so whats new primitive primate you must be drooling again.
I’m enjoying seeing the bigots in the National caucus stand up and say they’re bigots.
Now the so-called “social liberal” Nats like Nikki Kaye who make political capital out of appealing to young people who don’t know what the National Party is will have to stand shoulder to shoulder with all those horrible bogans like Mike Sabin and Mark Mitchell and David Bennett, and say “these are my mates, this is the party I chose to join.”
Cris findlayson voting against gay marriage
Which is a pretty out of it stance for a gay man such as himself……….
Yes, except there seems to be this ‘binary’ kind of dynamic going on where people assume because one is/might be ‘gay’, they are incapable of being just as bigoted as any ‘straight’ person.
I can turn up at a gay bar with a friend (who happens to be gay), talk to the surrounding – and some (referred to in the community as twinks) assume I want to screw them, when in fact to me they happen to be the most sexually unappealing specimens I’d ever come across. Similarly (as I understnd it) – many a gay man’s challenge and conquest is to get with a straight man!
There isn’t necessarily any sort of binary thing going on between gay “marriage” good or bad, or any other issue where emotions and human preferences are involved. It simply has to come down to how some sort of majority or consensus falls
So Chris Finlayson (not that I like what the guy stands for – ESPECIALLY one of his recent comments about how he got sensible and became a Tory), is quite entitled to be gay – IF that is what he is – and be for OR opposed to same-sex marriage. The PROS can think he’s a bigot, and the AGINS can think he’s principled.
I happen to be completely disappointed in the guy for other reasons but if he aspires to be a toff, so be it. John Key also aspires to be a toff – one day he’ll get a label that describes him as such but he’ll always be an embarrassment to toffdom, and to NZ
The so-called 1980s+ “neoliberals”, are made up of an uneasy alliance between old style social conservatives, neocons and the more socially liberal, free-marketeers. I have always thought that such an uneasy alliance could not hold for any length of time before it fractured and fell apart. The GFC may be putting too much pressure on the alliance for it to hold, with old style conservatives like NZ First, opposing many aspects of neoliberalism.
The architects of the “neoliberal” philosophy realised they needed such a broad alliance in order to get any kind of electoral success. They drew into their discourse support of social liberalism, because it was very popular. It was something that arose out of activism largely on the left, but the neolibs/cons creamed of the bits of LGBT, feminist, racial/ethnic diversity etc, that could fit into their philosophy of individualism.
But I’m not sure what will happen to the socially liberal ACToids if they split with old style conservatives.
However, the left should be aiming to include diverse kinds of people into a loosely networked, humane society, where everyone gets a fair go, where individuality is valued, but an extreme focus on competitive and divisive individualism is frowned upon.
I don’t care anymore about the Latte Labour party. They’re f*#k’d! Having the marriage bill front & centre at a time when the country’s on it’s knees and bleeding money/debt, real unemployment at 9.1% economy is dead, asset sales & water rights are the real battle ground, the TPPA being put together in secret and has killed off any new trade deals since 2008. An incompetent government that spends money on go nowhere programmes and the Latte club can’t get a target in their sites! Roll on the Greens & Mana,NZ First coalition!
you don’t understand how members’ bills work.
Non-ministers can each put one bill in the ballot each time there are empty slots in the members bill sheet. Bills are then drawn at random.
Labour didn’t ‘put gay marriage front and centre’ – it was one of 34 bills they put in the ballot and it happened to be one that was pulled.
Labour has other bills on bigger issues. They had one to prevent future asset sales in the House just this Wednesday. But the Government voted it down.
LGBT people are in all classes, not just the latte-drinking liberals. And the left is not just made up of heterosexual white men. To me left wing politics is about inclusion: about the collective standing by and for the good of all.
Consider what it’s like for LGBT young people today, in a world when their ways of being and having relationships are kind-of accepted, but not totally. Consider what it’s like for LGBT people at lower socioeconomic levels, and/or who are unemployed. The partial acceptance (and in some circles, rejection and demonisation) is an extra stress on top of the struggle to survive financially, and/or to find work
Many speeches in the first reading of the marriage equality bill focused on the high suicide rate amongst youth, but especially LGBT young people. And this is the tip of the iceberg of demoralisation and depression that impacts on every area of these people’s lives – at work, in education, etc.
Marriage is not something I’m interested in, but marriage equality, giving the same choice to everyone in law, sends a message of inclusion.
A wee look inside the tent.
clever! i thanked you for your links yday Joe but it may have got lost in the ether
NT-mercy triumphs over judgement so i do not know what empty words some hear
or for those who prefer gold and Jewels-compassion moderation humility
Crikey Joe. It is the degree of intense gullibility of those who might otherwise be
‘normal” folk next door that gets me. Faith trumps science may be a common factor. And I wonder what is in it for the propagandists? Are they all genuinely gullible as well or in it for the money?
and read some philosophy of science: science is faith
No, it’s not. It’s measuring and describing what’s observable.
science is faith?
Measuring, describing, observing and explaining something that demonstrably exists is the opposite of faith.
Science (or perhaps scientism) is a faith, political orthodoxy and a belief system as much as anything else. As Planck said, science advances one funeral at a time.
Science is the method in which we gather knowledge and use it to build an explanation about the world around us.
It does not require nor does it allow faith.
You do know that such absolute statements are a hallmark of faith-based beliefs?
Let me clarify – you are talking about the ideal concept of the scientific method. Which is fair enough. But the scientific method is only a small part of the practice, the politics, and the application of science.
If you read about the ins and outs of who gets the Nobel Prizes for science, and who gets left out in the cold, its very clear that the core science itself plays just a small role in the whole affair.
“If you read about the ins and outs of who gets the Nobel Prizes for science, and who gets left out in the cold, its very clear that the core science itself plays just a small role in the whole affair.”
What does that have to do with science? Science is not bound by creed, colour, sex or race. You are talking politics, not science.
As I said, the only part of science you are talking about is the ideal concept of the scientific method. Which is a tiny miniscule part of how science is used within and affects society.
Of course science (as a societal phenomena) is bound by creed, colour, sex and race. You only need to look at the history (and present) of scientific endeavour and scientific focus to see that.
Well done CV
And one could have faith in that process of measurement. ie; faith in the scientific method vs faith in an invisible mythological entity.
The scientific method produces repeatable, observable and physical evidence. Science is evidence based.
Belief in a invisible mythological entity that is untestable, unobservable and not physical therefore is faith based.
But the universe is not wholly repeatable, observable nor physical.
Be careful mate, your mantra of faith has utility, but also severe limitations.
You should review the field of epistemology.
We can disagree on politics but science is science,
You seem to wish to define science extremely narrowly, which is entirely up to you (although I should say its a very typical scientism approach – define the subject how you wish it and ignore/isolate everything else around it in the name of objectivity).
IMO you can’t properly understand the philosophy of science if you don’t understand the key points of epistemology and delve into the nature of knowledge, or being able to know something.
Science, by definition, requires no faith. Science works whether you believe in it or not.
Science is a method, not a belief system. Science is evidential.
While extending science into the philosophical realm of epistemology is valid, science at its very heart requires no such introspection to hold true.
While extending science into the philosophical realm of epistemology is valid, science at its very heart requires no such introspection to hold true.
lol. The second half of that statement. Epistemoligical or scientific?
You’d be on more fruitful turf in this discussion if you started talking about the differences between scientific thought and other approaches with regard to the things they take on faith. ie, how does science deal with its presupositions? Are their diffrences in the meaning of ‘faith’ that are relevant?
Science makes three basic assumptions about the world, or presuppositions if you like:
1) We assume the Universe exists
2) Assuming the Universe exists we can then learn something about it which means,
3) What ever has the most predictive power, based on what we have learned, is the most valid theory.
You’ll note the most basic assumption, the first basal assumption of science is “The universe exists”.
It would be easy, and somewhat correct even, to say that we have ‘faith’ in the universe existing however unlike faith we can make demonstrable predictions about reality which are repeatable and measurable.
Faith has no predictive power.
You do realise of course that there is nothing new under the sun. Humans in various forms of society have been around for eons – much longer than any of us keyboard nuts.
So given that fact, how can you be sure that moving from the type of society we had to the type of society you portray is moving to something better for society as a whole? I mean, why did society’s previous settings develop? What were they intended to do? And how have those requirements for those settings changed? Is the conservative always behind the 8-ball? Or is the conservative in fact the bulwark against which useless changes founder and which keeps society on a steady keel? Are these changes going to make for a better stronger society in the long term, and if so, where is the evidence of this occuring in the past? Or will these changes have effects not yet realised which may be detrimental?
Or we could just keep shouting slogans at each other…
Nice comment, but to be honest I don’t see any downside to allowing gay adoption. Having said that, the perspective you have just presented should be used on all policies. Too often policies are cherry-picked from other countries without taking into account our context.
This post is a bit confusing for me, I think most conservatives would be for $15 minimum wage, and against gay adoption. Whereas neoliberals would be against $15 minimum wage and for gay adoption. I’m not sure there is one group in society that would dislike all these policies…maybe redneck neoliberals?
And really, $15 is still a joke when compared to other wages…therefore, I think lefty sums it up well – http://thestandard.org.nz/the-conservatives-nightmare/comment-page-1/#comment-515482
“And, if David Clark’s Bill passes – he can then earn $15 an hour at his minimum wage job!”
That’s a very big IF unfortunately.
soon they will begin their nosedive into anti-scientific, racist drivel to make things interesting.
What, gay adoption and gay marriage?
Next they will be giving women the vote and saying that people with dark skin should not be discriminated against.
Then we are on the long slippery slope of having environmental standards for nuclear reactors and a progressive taxation system.
Heresy I tell you, heresy.
I can’t see many Conservatives in Parliament; traditional attitudes/values, cautious about change, but I know what Z means. I’d have said it’s a Fascists nightmare. I can see Tolley’s mouth pinch tight and Sabin clench his fists at two men holding hands while pushing the pram to the bar. That they might be 18 would have them in knots. For the Fascist mindset its, ‘If you can’t control that, what can you control.’
– he can then earn $15 an hour at his minimum wage job!
Not sure how banning two adults to enter into certain contracts is liberal?? With you on the others.
Certain contractual relationships have to be limited to recognise imbalances of bargaining power and knowledge. There is also a recognition that capitalist markets generally behave in ways which serve capital, not labour (the ordinary worker).
“It really is the conservative’s nightmare at the moment. I’m loving it.”
All gleeful and gloating there.
Nice way to deflect focus off the tattered Left – all they can come up with is defining marriage out of existence and a few more peanuts in the paw in an economy that has been sliding down the ranks for 2 generations, Left or Right at the helm alike.
Bugger me! How does one UNtick the box that asks whether one wants to be notified by email of follow-up posts?