Gay marriage gets PM's full support

[CCS]

Actually, I'm surprised that Christopher Finlayson voted against.

[Torka]

so white males aged between 40 and 60 are the worst people

who would have thought

[fixed_truth]

I know it's only the first reading, and maybe my hierarchy of what's important is a lot different than others; but how do people continue to vote for a party that evidently doesn't even have equality and non-discrimination as a core principle?

The only reason I can think of is that it's another dead rat to swallow as the alternative is worse overall?

[chiquelet]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I know it's only the first reading, and maybe my hierarchy of what's important is a lot different than others; but how do people continue to vote for a party that evidently doesn't even have equality and non-discrimination as a core principle?

The only reason I can think of is that it's another dead rat to swallow as the alternative is worse overall?

Seriously? A LOT of New Zealanders don't believe in marriage equality. It's one thing to believe that gays shouldn't be discriminated against in general, but allowing them to "marry"? Hell no. Even people who are otherwise liberal believe that the line should be drawn at marriage equality. Heck, I have family members who don't believe in marriage equality or in allowing gays to adopt/artificially have kids, even though they have gay kid/s. For some people it's just too much of a leap. Acceptance will increase with time, but there are still far too many people out there who believe that homosexuality is a "choice". Mind boggles.

[doppelgänger of someone]

wait, so you think gay people are "born this way"? AFAIK there is no conclusive scientific evidence suggesting gay people are born gay. There is evidence, evolutionary explanations, but nothing conclusive.

I'm not arguing against gay marriage, I'm all for it, but "born this way" simply isn't an established scientific fact, it is a combination of nature and nurture.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by chiquelet

Seriously? A LOT of New Zealanders don't believe in marriage equality. It's one thing to believe that gays shouldn't be discriminated against in general, but allowing them to "marry"? Hell no. Even people who are otherwise liberal believe that the line should be drawn at marriage equality. Heck, I have family members who don't believe in marriage equality or in allowing gays to adopt/artificially have kids, even though they have gay kid/s. For some people it's just too much of a leap. Acceptance will increase with time, but there are still far too many people out there who believe that homosexuality is a "choice". Mind boggles.

Well the question was more aimed at National voters that know there's really no solid argument for denying gay people to get married.

[madmaxii]

I think Chris Finlayson (who is gay) got it right on TV3 last night when he said that Marriage is of religious significance, not civil. He was therefore voting against the bill. That gets my vote.

[CCS]

Religo.

[chiquelet]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger of someone

wait, so you think gay people are "born this way"?

I think some people are attracted to members of the same sex, and have been for as long as they can remember. So yeah, they are born that way. What, you think people choose which sex they're attracted to?

Originally Posted by madmaxii

I think Chris Finlayson (who is gay) got it right on TV3 last night when he said that Marriage is of religious significance, not civil. He was therefore voting against the bill. That gets my vote.

This is 2012, not 1980. Try telling all the New Zealanders who get married by a celebrant in a secular ceremony that marriage is of "religious significance". Just because he's gay doesn't mean that he can't be a dumbass.

[Torka]

the born-or-not debate is a dumb red herring, it doesn't matter

even if it was entirely a choice there'd still be nothing wrong with it

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by chiquelet

What, you think people choose which sex they're attracted to?

I think "choose" is the wrong word to use - there may be some element of choice involved in it but theres a number of other factors which may lead to that outcome, which whilst not genetic, are not a direct "choice" (in terms of agency) but are also not biologically linked.

I'm definatly in the social construction camp as opposed to essentialism school of thought. As Torka said though its a red herring in terms of this particular debate.

Pixie

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I know it's only the first reading, and maybe my hierarchy of what's important is a lot different than others; but how do people continue to vote for a party that evidently doesn't even have equality and non-discrimination as a core principle?

The only reason I can think of is that it's another dead rat to swallow as the alternative is worse overall?

Meh. It's a conscience vote. It's not the party that does not hold equality and non-discrimination as core principles, it's some individuals within that party. If those who voted 'no' want to be bigoted cunts then they're entitled to do so. Don't go tarring every voter of a particular party with the same brush as some of the individual members in that party just because you're a hand-wringing do-gooder fagget.

Besides; Labour, Green and Mana are a bunch of fucking muppets who I wouldn't trust to organise an orgy in a brothel and that's worse than a bunch of bigoted cunts. Same goes for NZF.

[chubby]

so...'members' voted for their 'consciences'.
hur.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Ab

Votes against marriage equality:

Labour: 3
ACT: 0
United Future: 0

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by CCS

Meh. It's a conscience vote. It's not the party that does not hold equality and non-discrimination as core principles, it's some individuals within that party. If those who voted 'no' want to be bigoted cunts then they're entitled to do so.

Half the MPs representing National voted no. IMO it's a bit of a stretch to reconsile that National stands for equality and non-discrimination and the fact that it's loaded with Mps who don't.

Originally Posted by CCS

Don't go tarring every voter of a particular party with the same brush as some of the individual members in that party just because you're a hand-wringing do-gooder fagget.

Settle down precious I'm not tarring any voters as bigots. In fact I specifically qualified that I wasn't - " National voters that know there's really no solid argument for denying gay people to get married."

Originally Posted by CCS

Besides; Labour, Green and Mana are a bunch of fucking muppets who I wouldn't trust to organise an orgy in a brothel and that's worse than a bunch of bigoted cunts. Same goes for NZF.

That answers my question. Dead rats it is. You're entitled to your priorities.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Half the MPs representing National voted no. IMO it's a bit of a stretch to reconsile that National stands for equality and non-discrimination and the fact that it's loaded with Mps who don't.

I am absolutely unconvinced that Labour as a political party (for example) is any more GENUINELY committed to equality and discrimination. Just look at who put up the foreshore and seabed legislation.

[fixed_truth]

I agree that Labour were wrong to pander the the majority vote back then.
And in the terms since then they probably gave their voters some more dead rats. Though I'm happy that when it comes to the social issues that I think are deal-breakers (particularly the gay marriage issue); they've come through.

Not that I'm planning on voting for them any time soon.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by madmaxii

I think Chris Finlayson (who is gay) got it right on TV3 last night when he said that Marriage is of religious significance, not civil. He was therefore voting against the bill. That gets my vote.

How does that make sense?
Marriage is indeed of religious significance traditionally, but the status of married versus union means different things to the state.

I'd be perfectly happy with "marriage" being a vanity title in name only, one that means nothing to the state, but it currently does.

Take a hypothetical where marriage was strictly for religious people. I know I'd be fucked off if someone told me I couldn't adopt a child as a couple with my partner because I didn't believe in god, due to the state not recognizing my relationship as 'fit' to adopt as a couple.

Is he sitting on a "Marriage is of religious significance... so we won't treat it any differently to a civil union" bill that I don't know about?

[Ab]

Summary: Finlayson is either a) fucking retarded, or b) a hypocrite, or c) both.

[Spoon1]

Originally Posted by madmaxii

I think Chris Finlayson (who is gay) got it right on TV3 last night when he said that Marriage is of religious significance, not civil. He was therefore voting against the bill. That gets my vote.

Soooo gay people don't deserve religious equality?...

[Spink]

ask god

[aR Que]

Previously God has stated that man shall not lay with another man as he lays with a woman.

So to answer your question, direct from the man himself, No, He doesn't think gays deserve religious equality. In fact, he detests it.

[A Corpse]

Oh shit, so it was God who said that? Was there a handwriting expert who confirmed that that wasn't some bigoted arsehat with his own agenda that jotted that down?

[CCS]

Turns out god is a bigoted arsehat.

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by CCS

Turns out god is a bigoted arsehat.

[aR Que]

Originally Posted by A Corpse

Oh shit, so it was God who said that? Was there a handwriting expert who confirmed that that wasn't some bigoted arsehat with his own agenda that jotted that down?

I dunno man, if i was omnipotent (which indeed i am) and someone went around saying i'd said some shit, that i didn't say, i'd probably, you know, send them some plagues, maybe a flood? Some smiting at the least.

[Lightspeed]

Marriage shouldn't be a legal institution.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Marriage shouldn't be a legal institution.

Bingo.
It should be a vanity title given to you by whatever church you belong to.

But you know, I'd be here all day if I went about listing the areas where religion is ingrained into legal institutions despite efforts to separate church and state. It's not going to change any time soon.

[crocos]

Marriage was around LONG before the Christian cult came about - heck, it preceeds the Jews. Not saying it's not a religious-originated institution, nor that most Western marital law is based on the Judeo-christian form of marriage, but those that claim marriage is solely for the religious are deluding themselves.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Marriage shouldn't be a legal institution.

Inheritance, power of attorney, confidentiality privilege at trial, right-to-decide-the-life-support-gets-turned-off, etc etc.

[fixed_truth]

^A civil union could cover all that legal stuff. Then marriage could be strictly a religious ceremony for those with a civil union who choose to have one privately. Though iirc only marriages have legal status in certain overseas countries.

[Cyberbob]

Option A: Keep marriages legal worth, but make marriage status more available. Religious or not, straight or not.

Option B: Keep marriages available only open to those that are straight, but decrease its uniqueness by increasing the worth and status of unions. Unions can do everything that a marriage can do. Still retains the segregation for segregation's sake though.

[StN]

Originally Posted by Ab

Inheritance, power of attorney, confidentiality privilege at trial, right-to-decide-the-life-support-gets-turned-off, etc etc.

And everybody deserves a mother-in-law.

[fixed_truth]

'Smoking healthier than gay marriage'

Answering a question from a student on the relevance of his views, he said health statistics among the gay community were worse than those for smokers.
"The life of smokers is reduced by something like seven to 10 years and yet we tell all our kids at school they shouldn't smoke."

Fo real?