NZ Green Party
MPs said ‘we do’ to marriage equality

greens

 

We are all celebrating today at Parliament after an amazing night in which love was the winner.

 

A huge number of people came to watch the marriage equality debate and vote. The queue stretched around the building and people were bubbling with excitement to see such happy history being made.

Queues of people coming through security to watch the debate

Queues of people coming through security to watch the debate

The speeches made by the MPs were almost all supportive of the bill.

Our MPs Kevin Hague and Mojo Mathers both spoke on the bill. Kevin talked about his experience of getting together with his partner Ian 28 years ago when being gay was illegal, and how necessary this bill is to people in the LGBTI community. He talked about what marriage really is about and finished by issuing a challenge to MPs as to which side of history they want to be standing on.

Mojo talked about how important this bill was to her family, especially the fact that both of her daughters will have the same rights to marry who they love, regardless of their sexuality. She talked about all of the other parents of young gay and lesbian people who she had heard from, who shared her hopes for their kids to feel embraced by society for who they are.

Kevin Hague and Tau Henare – who worked together as part of the cross party group to achieve marriage equality

Kevin Hague and Tau Henare – who worked together as part of the cross party group to achieve marriage equality

National MP Maurice Williamson was a bit of a star speaker on the night, hypothesising about what the “gay onslaught” so feared by this bill’s opponents would look like; specifically whether it would “come down the Pakuranga Highway as a series of troops”. On the other hand Chester Burrows won the tease of the night award. He got a huge response when he said he had changed his view on the bill and everyone in the House thought he was going to vote in support. But a minute later said he would vote against the bill anyway.

You can listen to all the speeches here.

Metiria Turei – as mother of the bride

Metiria Turei – as mother of the bride

Last night was momentous moment in our political history. We were so privileged to be a part of passing this bill and in that passing sending a strong message from Parliament about equality and the right to live free from discrimination.

63 thoughts on “MPs said ‘we do’ to marriage equality

  1. I would like to congratulate Kevin Hague for refraining from insulting and ridiculing opposition to this bill.

    While I personally believe that some of the submitters opposed were clearly of an extremist position, there is a principle involved that should restrain representatives in the house from the ridicule and mockery they engaged in toward NZ citizens.

    If there is a God that judges the nations, maybe it isn’t gay marriage that is the sin, but the way the debate was handled.

    While Kevin Hague has a position very different to my own, I would gladly hear him out over someone like Maurice Williamson who I consider a vile politician.

    And for the record, I would rather stand up for what I believe in with determination and passion and then later find out I am wrong, than to be a bloody battery hen sitting in the cage society has made for me.

    The only thing worse than those of a different opinion changing something you believe in is people that don’t believe in anything at all.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 (+2)

  2. “And for the record, I would rather stand up for what I believe in with determination and passion and then later find out I am wrong, than to be a bloody battery hen sitting in the cage society has made for me.”

    Of course though, I’m not wrong.

    https://vimeo.com/40479721

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  3. Shunda says “I would gladly hear him out over someone like Maurice Williamson who I consider a vile politician.”

    Surely when the church tells Williamson he will “burn in hell for eternity” if he votes for gay marriage, it’s not only Williamson’s right, but his duty, to poke fun at such an extreme view.

    I agree with frog – I thought Williamson was a star speaker last night. He used humour very well to point out that the people protesting loudest against the bill won’t actually be affected by it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 (+2)

  4. Nice one, Kevin.

    A big drama over something that makes no difference to anyone, other than gay people wanting to marry, although why they want in-laws is beyond me :)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 (+5)

  5. Another WIN for personal freedoms/equality !

    Maybe Cannabis law reform might be the next ?

    Kia-ora

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  6. Arana: Exactly. It so far removed from real issues–issues that actually materially affect people’s lives–it’s not funny.

    If only our homosexual politico’s could care about something outside their own narcissistic love nests…and focused on giving something real to society, rather than playing the victim game. Then they might get some deserved extra respect.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 (-3)

  7. What’s a joke exactly, Andrew?
    Promoting equal rights for all citizens in a civil society?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 (+5)

  8. Gregor: In real terms they have equal rights. An empty symbolic bit of paper is all it is…it won’t “change attitudes” in itself. We have infinitely better things to worry about.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 (-5)

  9. To my earlier statement Andrew, you miss the point. The actual change in law itself is essentially academic (notwithstanding practical applications to adoption for instance).

    It’s the message the change sends – and potentially behavioral precedent it sets – about treating members of society fairly and equally before the law, without the State legislatively interfering in peoples personal relationships and in line with the States obligations to the individual under the NZBORA, that is important.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 (+4)

  10. Could be please keep “bride” & “bridegroom” on the marriage documents for the straights and an alternative version documenting “person one” & “person two”, or whatever is being proposed, for the rainbow community? Shouldn’t be too much to ask now should it?

    Trads are entitled to some say in life.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  11. I don’t give a damn about the symbology of gay marriage…but if it somehow equates to homosexual men being able to adopt babies then I am against it. A baby should be given to a straight woman – not a homosexual man. You are violating natures way with homosexuals adopting babies, and likewise playing with fire. It is not fair on the child. Who would want to be adopted out to two homosexual men, instead of a heterosexual couple? NO ONE.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 (-2)

  12. And there we have it Andrew, your objection laid bare.

    It’s not about whether or not a “real issues” is involved or whether it revolves around gay peoples ” own narcissistic love nests”.

    It’s about your own – entirely expected – venal bigotry.

    You might be quite happy to relegate an entire section of our society to being treated as sub-citizens with fewer rights on the basis of their sexual orientation, but most of us aren’t.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 (0)

  13. Gregor:

    My opinion actually has more to do with a concern for unnecessary maternal deprivation on a baby. A woman is far more physiologically and neurologically tuned to taking care of a baby. This is what “natures way” means. Get it?

    If you don’t believe that homosexuals adopting babies is unnatural and questionable then you have absolutely no instinct and natural perspective. I am not against gays. Only gays adopting babies, and for the babies sake. This concern is not about gay rights – it’s about the rights of a baby who cannot speak for itself.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 (0)

  14. A woman is far more physiologically and neurologically tuned to taking care of a baby. This is what “natures way” means. Get it?

    So what about widowers then, Andrew? Or solo Dads.
    Do you propose forcing them to remarry to raise kids?
    After all – it’s nature’s way, right?

    Think of the children!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 (+3)

  15. If you don’t believe that homosexuals adopting babies is unnatural and questionable then you have absolutely no instinct and natural perspective.

    what about a lesbian couple?
    Two vaginas are better than one when it comes to raising a baby right?
    Twice as maternal.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 (+3)

  16. Heterosexual couple is best. Lesbians aren’t as bad for adoption as the male version, because they are woman, and how the baby is taken care of in those earliest months and years is absolutely vital.

    It boils down to a “other things being equal” problem. The child to be adopted out should get the best scenario that we can give them. And that is a heterosexual scenario.

    In time you will agree with me, Gregor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 (-3)

  17. In time you will agree with me, Gregor.

    I will never agree with you Andrew, until you present facts backed by research rather than bigotry couched as informed opinion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 (+2)

  18. Gregor: Don’t call me a bigot – YOU are the bigot. You are the one doing the name-calling just because I do not believe what you believe.

    I recommend you read one of Desmond Morris’s books for s start…he explicitly describes the mechanics between mother and a baby. Don;t try to tell me that handing a baby over to a man rather than a woman is not violating natures way. It is. It is a risky “experiment”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  19. The real problem with this gay marriage issue lies in the religious link. The state should recognise civil union and ONLY civil union. And civil union should be between same-sex couples if they wish for it.

    Marriage is a religiously linked thing, and it should conform to the dictates of religious institutions. It should not have legal effect. Although I think all religion is group-think on steroids invented in the age of superstition (which we are sadly still in), the fact remains if a Christian same-sex couple wants to get married then they may have to reconsider their religious affiliations if they want that to happen.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but what is going on is the state is effectively redefining the christian religion by allowing same-sex couples to wed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  20. “Correct me if I’m wrong, but what is going on is the state is effectively redefining the christian religion by allowing same-sex couples to wed.”

    You are wrong. Aside from the fact that many Christians believe same-sex marriage is compatible with their beliefs, the state isn’t requiring any religion to change its doctrines, no matter how daft.

    Marriage has been practised by confirmed atheists for decades or centuries. The religious link has already been severed for a large chunk of the population. If you are going to assert that same-sex couples shouldn’t marry because marriage is a religious ceremony, you might as well ban atheists from giving kids Easter eggs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  21. “We have infinitely better things to worry about.”

    Stop worrying about it then.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  22. And I don’t worry about it. I just think it’s wasting political time. Unless, as I said, it equates to gays adopting babies.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  23. “What is the debate about then?”

    What debate? Your the one who started posting about it. It seems to me to be a simple matter of clarification of the legal position – civil unions appeared to be a different form of institution – this act just makes it clear that everything applies to anyone.

    “I just think it’s wasting political time.”

    Stop posting about it then.

    “I though the bible describes homosexuality as abominable?”

    Don’t recall that. Got a reference?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  24. A big drama over something that makes no difference to anyone, other than gay people wanting to marry, although why they want in-laws is beyond me :)

    No, it will make a difference to all of society over time. Just as no one now questions the obviousness of allowing women to vote, and only a few still question the more recent change to repeal the law that outlawed homosexuality, this change will help reinforce the normality of people just being who they are. A few generations from now, there will be many fewer hetero people like Shunda who feel threatened that non-hetero couples can do as they do. A few more generations after that, when people have been allowed for a while to adopt based on their character alone and not their sexual orientation, people like Andrew will will exist in far fewer numbers as well.

    I look forward to both.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 (+3)

  25. Andrew,

    What exactly do men lack which makes them unfit for raising babies? For example, if my wife had died in child birth would it have been preferable for me to adopt my baby to a heterosexual couple rather than raise her myself?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 (+7)

  26. Gregor: Don’t call me a bigot – YOU are the bigot. You are the one doing the name-calling just because I do not believe what you believe.

    Andrew – you clearly don’t understand the meaning of the word ‘bigot’.

    What we are having is an argument. You present opinion as facts which myself and others demolish because of their logical flaws. I don’t agree with you because you are wrong.

    Uninformed bigotry pretty accurately describes your comments as you desperately flail around looking for any post to hitch your horse to – swerving from disparaging sneering, to a ‘Men don’t have vaginas!’ appeal to science, to a ‘The bible says so!’ appeal to religious authority, all in order to defend your view as to why homosexual men (or by your extended logic, any men) are incapable of raising children without women. It’s pathetic and a little embarrassing.

    Furthermore, if I was going to get into name calling I’d call you an idiot.

    But I won’t, because that would be gilding the lily.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 (+4)

  27. To me, gay marriage is inconsistent with nature.

    I’m aware of the fact that a good many people will differ with me, yet I’ve to say what I believe to be true through the method of Scientific Induction.

    I believe in living by keeping harmonization with nature.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 (-3)

  28. First, you must be referring to homosexuality, as marriage of any kind is a human cultural invention, not part of nature. Second, science shows that homosexuality is entirely natural with evolutionary explanations for why it exists in various species, not just humans.

    You’re not using science, just plan old predjudice.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  29. No, it will make a difference to all of society over time.

    Yes, it will enable an extremist ideology to take hold more effectively. This was never really about gay marriage, and it’s nice to see you actually admit that. It’s clearly about social and political capital to enable completely different agendas.

    Just as no one now questions the obviousness of allowing women to vote,

    A right that would never be refused once gained, yet several gay MPS have stated that they will not get married. This is the acid test to determine between actual human “rights” issues and “feelings” issues. The state does not exist to regulate the feelings of its citizens.

    this change will help reinforce the normality of people just being who they are.

    Bullshit.
    Just like Sue Bradford ended child abuse with her anti smacking law?
    Normal people don’t need the state to tell them who they are unless they see the state as a supreme authority figure…whoops! there’s the TRUE agenda again….

    A few generations from now, there will be many fewer hetero people like Shunda who feel threatened that non-hetero couples can do as they do.

    You just don’t have a clue do you. Try looking around your blinkers for five minutes before you start smearing me as your favorite model right wing boogieman.
    I feel threatened by dangerous ideology and extremists, not gay couples minding their own business.

    I look forward to both.

    I bet you do, such is the way of the ideologically extreme.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 (-3)

  30. First, you must be referring to homosexuality, as marriage of any kind is a human cultural invention, not part of nature.

    So no evidence of animal species that mate for life then?

    Second, science shows that homosexuality is entirely natural with evolutionary explanations for why it exists in various species, not just humans.

    So what? Homosexuality is still an anomaly within a wider group. Science also shows that minorities within a wider population of the same animal species get persecuted or killed simply for being different or having a small defect, yet you say it is wrong for humans to do it? Why?

    You’re not using science, just plan old predjudice.

    Ha! unfortunately, prejudice is rife in the animal kingdom, so “plane old prejudice” is more ‘scientific’ than you think.

    For the record, my beliefs go against nature and say we should protect the vulnerable and help the poor ;).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  31. So no evidence of animal species that mate for life then?

    One doesn’t need to get married to mate for life.

    So what? Homosexuality is still an anomaly within a wider group. Science also shows that minorities within a wider population of the same animal species get persecuted or killed simply for being different or having a small defect, yet you say it is wrong for humans to do it? Why?

    Because we can reason.

    Ha! unfortunately, prejudice is rife in the animal kingdom, so “plane old prejudice” is more ‘scientific’ than you think.

    Not when used by humans to justify non-reason.

    For the record, my beliefs go against nature and say we should protect the vulnerable and help the poor ;)

    It’s great that you can overcome your prejudice sometimes at least! :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  32. Yes, it will enable an extremist ideology to take hold more effectively. This was never really about gay marriage, and it’s nice to see you actually admit that. It’s clearly about social and political capital to enable completely different agendas.

    There’s nothing to admit. It was always about marriage equalty, about human rights. That’s the agenda and it’s not extremist.

    A right that would never be refused once gained, yet several gay MPS have stated that they will not get married.

    I know plenty of people who choose not to vote, just as they might choose not to get married.

    This is the acid test to determine between actual human “rights” issues and “feelings” issues. The state does not exist to regulate the feelings of its citizens.

    You’re barely making sense, let alone revealing an acid test.

    Bullshit.
    Just like Sue Bradford ended child abuse with her anti smacking law?

    No, it has nothing to do with that.

    Normal people don’t need the state to tell them who they are unless they see the state as a supreme authority figure…whoops! there’s the TRUE agenda again….

    This law keeps the state from telling people who they AREN’T, not who they are.

    You just don’t have a clue do you.

    My clues come from your posts. You most definitely seem threatened and have said as much for years on this blog.

    Try looking around your blinkers for five minutes before you start smearing me as your favorite model right wing boogieman.

    Sorry, you’ve never been my favourite.

    I feel threatened by dangerous ideology and extremists, not gay couples minding their own business.

    Your words suggest otherwise.

    I bet you do, such is the way of the ideologically extreme.

    It must be frustrating seeing things that only you can see.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  33. Your words suggest otherwise.

    Correction, your personal interpretation of my words suggest otherwise.

    It is typical of you to talk such arrogant twaddle, but the reality of the matter is (as always) considerably different.
    The simplistic approach of smear and demonize does indeed work well for the left, so I don’t expect it to stop.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 (-3)

  34. One doesn’t need to get married to mate for life.

    So you admit that marriage can reflect the natural order after all.
    Good grief.

    Because we can reason.

    Oh good lord.
    Do you think you could come up with something less arbitrary?

    Not when used by humans to justify non-reason.

    Then it isn’t “natural” in the sense you defined, you have no basis for your version of human rights based on “science” and therefore any conclusion you come to is completely baseless.

    It’s great that you can overcome your prejudice sometimes at least!

    A shame you can’t do it ever.

    The politics of envy is an ugly beast, and few make it uglier than NZ’s social progressives.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  35. Shunda – you accuse Valis of talking arrogant twaddle, then the Left of smearing and demonizing…I just wonder if your self-awareness button might need a re-set?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  36. Correction, your personal interpretation of my words suggest otherwise.

    Goes without saying.

    It is typical of you to talk such arrogant twaddle, but the reality of the matter is (as always) considerably different.

    A big claim that you probably won’t even try to back up.

    The simplistic approach of smear and demonize does indeed work well for the left, so I don’t expect it to stop.

    I said you appeared to be threatened by marriage equality. That’s pretty mild really, hardly a smear or demonizing. Yet you so casually leap to the hyperbole that I must be part of a left-wing conspiracy. So whose demonizing here?

    I guess when you lose respect for people that constantly lie and deceive the civility of the tone can deteriorate.

    WTF? What lie?

    I don’t think he has a self-awareness button, greenfly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  37. Goes without saying.

    Brilliant.

    A big claim that you probably won’t even try to back up.

    Read the first post on this thread.

    I said you appeared to be threatened by marriage equality. That’s pretty mild really, hardly a smear or demonizing.

    You referenced me as a pariah in your first post ffs!

    I don’t think he has a self-awareness button, greenfly.

    At least I can remember what I wrote.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  38. Read the first post on this thread.

    So? I’ve been reading your posts on this topic for years.

    You referenced me as a pariah in your first post ffs!

    Would you please quote where I implied you were a pariah rather than feeling threatened?

    At least I can remember what I wrote.

    I guess that’s something.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  39. Valis. He does (have such a button). I’ve met Shunda in person and regard him a friend. He’s very thoughtful. This argument puzzles me.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  40. Glad to hear it, greenfly. I guess some people come across very different in print.

    It’s the sheer frustration of the debate (or lack thereof) surrounding this topic.

    Perhaps I am projecting some of my frustration unfairly, I don’t know, but you referencing me the way you did in your first post kinda pissed me off.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  41. Ha! I see now. I agree with you, Shunda. That was gratuitous and unfair.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  42. But not really worth getting on a high-horse over. Valis must not have realised the hurt it might cause so sensitive a soul as you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  43. I am nothing like the worst of the religious opposition to this bill and resent being pushed into that corner, I have not even attempted to make a religious argument against marriage redefinition because I don’t see it as necessary.

    If politicians want social capital to help lower the suicide rate of gay youth (among other things) shouldn’t we actually talk about that instead of redefining my marriage?
    How is redefining marriage going to stop any of these negative outcomes? it just seems like such a long bow to draw as to be completely pointless.
    Gender specific institutions are all over the place, on any other day the gay community loves the fact that they are different and celebrate that fact with ‘gay’ abandon (oh that is an awesome pun!) so to say this is inconsistent seems like the understatement of the century.

    Diversity is good, no? so why not diversity among separate genders? exclusive heterosexual marriage being just one expression of diversity.

    Like I said before, I am not threatened in the least buy a gay couple enjoying life together, I would just like them to not feel so threatened by me.

    Is that so damned sinister?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  44. But not really worth getting on a high-horse over. Valis must not have realised the hurt it might cause so sensitive a soul as you.

    Perhaps, you know me!

    One thing is for sure, watching the marriage redefinition speeches live the other night certainly helped me peel a lot of Kowhai seed.
    I’ve sown them now and after they have grown for a bit I might take a couple of trees around to Kevin and Ian’s place as genuine marriage redefinition bill Kowhai!

    So that’s one positive I guess, West Coast Kowhai will increase dramatically because of this bill.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  45. And their flowers will add a gay touch to the Coast, thanks to you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  46. I am nothing like the worst of the religious opposition to this bill and resent being pushed into that corner, I have not even attempted to make a religious argument against marriage redefinition because I don’t see it as necessary.

    That might just be why I went no where near acusing you of doing so.

    Is that so damned sinister?

    I don’t think you’re sinister, but I honestly find your logic so twisted that I’m at a loss for words.

    I’m sure it’s been said, but how about this. I’m a hetero male, married for nearly three decades. Neither I nor my wife care a bit what any other another couple want to call their commitment to each other. We’re happy they want to do so and think the state should recognise only the commitment and not determine what they call it.

    Why is that sinister? (I mean other than it obviously marks us as part of the great left-wing conspiracy, of course.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  47. Missed this doozy:

    So you admit that marriage can reflect the natural order after all.
    Good grief.

    Good grief is right. That marriage might in some cases “reflect” a natural order simply doesn’t support the original argument that science shows gay marriage to be unnatural. Marriage was invented by humans to deal with cultural needs like the recognition of commitment, property ownership, inheritance, etc. To confuse it as being the same as biological pair bonding is terribly confused.

    Oh good lord.
    Do you think you could come up with something less arbitrary?

    In the end, reason is all that makes us different from the other animals. And from the ability to reason comes logical thought. That you think it irrelevant explains a lot.

    Then it isn’t “natural” in the sense you defined, you have no basis for your version of human rights based on “science” and therefore any conclusion you come to is completely baseless.

    Where did I claim there was a scientific basis for human rights? That people should have the same rights is a human cultural construct just like marriage is. I’ve only argued against using science as a reason to hang onto your prejudice.

    The politics of envy is an ugly beast, and few make it uglier than NZ’s social progressives.

    All the ugliness is on your side of the debate. Wanting it to be different doesn’t make it so.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  48. I’m sure it’s been said, but how about this. I’m a hetero male, married for nearly three decades. Neither I nor my wife care a bit what any other another couple want to call their commitment to each other. We’re happy they want to do so and think the state should recognise only the commitment and not determine what they call it.

    You just made a wonderful argument for civil unions, and one that I wholeheartedly agree with you on.

    It is a shame that the heterosexual tradition of marriage has been redefined and the diversity of NZ relationships reduced for the sake of a completely separate agenda.

    That you can’t understand this angle is very revealing of your own extremest position, a position that declares human rights are about ‘feelings’ more than logic and reason.

    So don’t lecture me on “reason” because you are certainly not being reasonable.

    This (like the section 59 nonsense) is about ideology change at a state level, in real terms it has little to do with state recognition of gay relationships.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  49. Good grief is right. That marriage might in some cases “reflect” a natural order simply doesn’t support the original argument that science shows gay marriage to be unnatural.

    I never said it was “unnatural” that was someone else back up the thread.

    Marriage was invented by humans to deal with cultural needs like the recognition of commitment, property ownership, inheritance, etc. To confuse it as being the same as biological pair bonding is terribly confused.

    I think that is a profoundly ignorant statement. You really are a child of the 60′s/70′s aren’t you.

    In the end, reason is all that makes us different from the other animals. And from the ability to reason comes logical thought. That you think it irrelevant explains a lot.

    No, I said your reasoning was irrelevant to this issue, and it is.
    in any case, on balance, human ‘reason’ has not been of any real advantage to our species, don’t you and your friends believe we are killing the planet?

    That people should have the same rights is a human cultural construct just like marriage is. I’ve only argued against using science as a reason to hang onto your prejudice.

    Because we should use ‘hurt feelings’ as the basis for human rights, yes I know.

    All the ugliness is on your side of the debate. Wanting it to be different doesn’t make it so.

    Ha! that is hilarious.

    I can’t stand either extreme to be honest, but the fact that you can’t even see both extremes simply again causes me to marvel at the effectiveness of those blinkers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  50. You just made a wonderful argument for civil unions, and one that I wholeheartedly agree with you on.

    No I didn’t, I said we’re happy with ANY name they choose and that the state should NOT determine what it is. That’s close to being the opposite of an argument supporting your position, ffs!

    It is a shame that the heterosexual tradition of marriage has been redefined and the diversity of NZ relationships reduced for the sake of a completely separate agenda.

    There’s that “agenda” again. You get pissed when people lump you with the right wingers (even when they don’t!), but you are quite happy to lump others with whatever group you think makes their position look bad. Whenever you can’t argue one on one, out comes “the agenda”. It’s pathetic.

    That you can’t understand this angle is very revealing of your own extremest position, a position that declares human rights are about ‘feelings’ more than logic and reason.

    You keep saying “feelings”, which is crap. I’ve always said it’s about equality. That you wish to deny equality is the extremist position.

    So don’t lecture me on “reason” because you are certainly not being reasonable.

    You need heaps more lecturing on “reason” given your inability to apply it.

    This (like the section 59 nonsense) is about ideology change at a state level, in real terms it has little to do with state recognition of gay relationships.

    I know if the unreasonable Kevin Hague can’t convince you, I never will. Fortunately for the gay community, you’re not the one who decides what recognition of their relationships might entail.

    I never said it was “unnatural” that was someone else back up the thread.

    You argued against my statement that marriage wasn’t part of nature.

    I think that is a profoundly ignorant statement. You really are a child of the 60′s/70′s aren’t you.

    So explain to me how marriage in human culture is no different than biological pair bonding in animals.

    No, I said your reasoning was irrelevant to this issue, and it is.

    You said that “reason” was arbitrary when I gave it as the explanation for why it is wrong for humans to persecute or kill minorities as happens in the animal world. You are very clearly wrong.

    in any case, on balance, human ‘reason’ has not been of any real advantage to our species,

    Not been of any real advantage? Can you be serious? This is possibly the dumbest thing you’ve ever said. The Enlightenment, also known as The Age of Reason, is what followed the dark ages. Without it, we’d still be cowering in total superstition with little understanding of the natural world. All modern medicine, technology, knowledge of the cosmos, and on and on, only came about due to our ability to string together logical thoughts. If you think these things have been no real advantage, you’re an idiot.

    don’t you and your friends believe we are killing the planet?

    Fallibility is part of the human condition. We do often let our prejudices overrule our reason. But that’s a ludicrous excuse for discounting the nearly existential importance of being able to reason in the first place.

    Because we should use ‘hurt feelings’ as the basis for human rights, yes I know.

    Equal rights is not equivalent to hurt feelings.

    I can’t stand either extreme to be honest, but the fact that you can’t even see both extremes simply again causes me to marvel at the effectiveness of those blinkers.

    Calling my desire to establish equal rights extremism is just your attempt to justify your prejudice.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  51. And what is this crap about reducing the “diversity of NZ relationships”? Before the law change, we could have 1) hetero defacto, 2) same sex defacto, 3) hetero civil union, 4) same sex civil union, and 5) hetero marriage. Now we’ve added 6) same sex marriage. That’s an increase not a decrease!

    Oh yes, you want exclusive hetero marriage, as though that somehow increases diversity. The same logic used to be employed in the States to justify segregation. “Separate, but equal” they called it. Why can’t whites have exclusive use of some public facilities if others are provided for blacks, they asked, not unlike your argument for exclusive use of “marriage” when the separate “civil union” can be used instead. The answer wasn’t that it hurt feelings, but because it went against equal rights. And no, I’m not claiming you’re racist in employing similar logic, or even that this issue is as big as that one was, only that the logic is just as flawed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  52. Beware the Agenda my son!
    The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
    Beware the Jubjub bird, and shunda
    The frumious Bandersnatch!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>