Parliament showing respect – UPDATED

I have just started listening to the debate on the marriage equality Bill.

It is good to find that MPs are listening respectfully – as they should –  to speakers who have a range of views on the issue.

You can listen here.

UPDATE: The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill has passed its first reading 78 – 40. UPDATE: 80 – 40.

I was impressed by the reason and sincerity of speeches on both sides of the debate.

Update: Kiwiblog has who voted how.

Dr Paul Hutchison’s speech:

11 Responses to Parliament showing respect – UPDATED

  1. Andrei says:

    Watching a nation commit suicide and too stupid to understand why


  2. Gravedodger says:

    Andrei, hyperbollocks, Welfare is always going to do far more damage to marriage as you and I would define it, than a couple of poofs wanting to get a couple of Mothers in Law from a totally degraded chaotic definition of an institution that as Ele points out had its origin in male dominance, chattel possession and an attitude that ignores more than 50% of human potential.
    I have often crossed swords with Big Bruv at his blog but I agree with him on this, just do this minor adjustment as to how the law defines Marriage and get to grips with the real issues that are destroying the security children deserve in their formative years. Two adults defining and delivering the nurturing environment and providing it for all the time required. Welfare as it has developed in this and many other Nations has destroyed it, that is where the battle needs to be fought.

    Btw just as a point of interest, should a mother be killed or die and the biological father admits to a homosexual orientation and sets up a home with another male, what would you consider as an appropriate state response.
    Stoneing, beheadings, or some other stone age response.

    Why was I not surprised when I clicked on the comments for this post and there you are again, let it go and fight where a victory if achieved will actually make a difference.


  3. Andrei says:

    Telling me to shut the F up are you GD?

    It’s not going to happen

    Those other issues you raise are important but they are housekeeping.

    This is something else, another whole level entirely – it is existential. We are playing with fire here mate.

    You can try and explain why this is wrong through economics and demographics and how we are on the brink of disaster already, dry dreary mathematics makes the case.

    Those of us who have a spiritual dimension to our make up can see other forces at play here, we can smell the sulphur.

    Anyway there is no doubt it will get passed – cultures come and cultures go, New Zealand as you knew it is on its way out and what replaces it will be no Garden of Eden and that’s a fact,

    Hi ho hi ho – over the cliff we go but I’ll be in my grave before it happens so what the heck


  4. cracker666 says:

    Gee Andrei, you lost me at ‘spiritual dimension’. What upsets me most is how no-one wants to appear to be cast as homophobic by interjecting on this Bill but we have the most obnoxious interjections on any other Bill. This country has become so PC it is not funny anymore.


  5. homepaddock says:

    Andrei – I believe the Bible has to be taken in its historical and cultural context for some (mostly Old Testament) things eg an eye for an eye. My faith is based mostly on the New Testament which says God is love, that which you do for one of these you do for me, do unto others as you would have them do unto you . . .

    Cracker – I think MPs are generally more respectful during conscience debates, though I might be proved wrong with tonight’s on the purchase age.


  6. Gravedodger says:

    No Andrei I did not even hint you should hush but 30 days hath September and it will be a long month indeed if every post on every blog has another repetitive comment that the world will end because society allows same sex ‘marriage’.

    Marriage has been progressively devalued and casualised throughout my life and increasing welfare however well intentioned as a concept will be the catalyst as it continues to be consigned to history.

    I admire your commitment to your values but the tide will ebb and flow, marriage will continue to be submerged in modern society as welfare dilutes much of the positive that comes from a committed couple working to resolve issues and maintain the stable environment the spawn need to take the best advantage that life has to offer.


  7. Andrei says:

    God is love, that which you do for one of these you do for me, do unto others as you would have them do unto you . . .

    Well Ele thats sounds suspiciously like the argument my kids would deploy when they were denied liquorice allsorts for breakfast instead of weetbix.

    God is love, a loving Father and wants what is good for us, and like any loving parent knows what is best for us in the long term.

    It is not unloving for example to tell your kids not to smoke, you are not being a big meanie or a joy killer when you stop them from taking up tobacco – it might seem that way to them when you do, I suppose,

    I have zero interest in stopping people living their lives however they want to – don’t care.

    Social institutions do not exist in a vacuum, they serve a purpose.

    The purpose served by marriage is the propagation of the species and not that of the validation of non fecund sexual lifestyles.

    Any culture that does not place the raising of the next generation at its heart is doomed.

    My mother the matriarch of our family died in her own bed, surrounded by her children and grandchildren, kept clean and comfortable by my daughter, who had just graduated as a nurse, her education funded by being a carer in a nursing home where people died alone because they hadn’t got families who cared enough to take care of them, if they had families at all. And therin in lies the key to a life well lived – despite surviving hardships that nobody alive can imagine, famines and wars, death and destruction.

    But promoting the good and wholesome and reinforcing that in these enlightened times defines you as being a bigot


  8. homepaddock says:

    Andrei – I agree with you on the importance of family and like Gravedodger blame the welfare system, in part, for its breakdown.

    It isn’t unloving – and is loving – to give children boundaries and do your best to stop them doing things for good reason eg too many sweets, smoking. But Paul Hutchison said in his speech he couldn’t find a good reason to oppose the change in law and I can’t either.

    “The purpose served by marriage is the propagation of the species and not that of the validation of non fecund sexual lifestyles.” Where does that leave the marriages of people who marry for love and can’t have children?


  9. Andrei says:

    Where does that leave the marriages of people who marry for love and can’t have children?

    Throughout human history being a childless couple was considered a misfortune, a curse actually – we chemically induce infertility these days shrug.

    We got married according to the old Byzantine rite, full of litanies with petitions for healthy children and lots of grandchildren.

    I guess that is why a lot of my energies and resources went into my children and why they are prospering now – it was encultured into me that that is what was important and thus took precedence over having a good time. Not that it was not worth it, they are my real treasure of course

    This I know I’m here because the people who came before me put the energies of their adult lives into raising children, in circumstances of incredible hardship by modern standards and in a hostile world full of dangers man made and otherwise.

    21st century New Zealand is behaving like an heir to a fortune squandering it with no thought for building on it to hand to future generations. As a nation we are behaving like Paris Hilton perhaps – and trying to live our lives like a cheap romance or characters in a soap opera. It is also why so many people need anti depressants, it is all hollow


  10. homepaddock says:

    For many infertility still is a misfortune, that doesn’t make the marriage of those couples any less valid.


  11. Andrei says:

    For many infertility still is a misfortune, that doesn’t make the marriage of those couples any less valid.

    No it doesn’t but neither does the validity of those marriages imply that a marriage between two men is valid that is a huge logic fail and a non sequitur.

    The children born between 1945 and 1964 did not produce enough children to replace themselves and nor have their children which is not too serious until these people retire as they are starting to do now and will in ever increasing numbers over the next 15 years

    And there are not enough people to keep this cohort in the style to which they are accustomed! This is no secret but it is something that every Government for more than 20 years has batted away for someone else to deal with later.

    And what had to happen a long time ago was for people to be encouraged to marry and raise children. It takes twenty years to raise a child to be ready for the work force.

    Now here we are with an impending crisis and instead of encouraging and reinforcing procreative couples and behaviour, the only real way to ameliorate the problem, we are ignoring the problem all together (or our vapid Government is) and going into mickey mouse things like same sex marriage for which there is no rational reason apart from a cheap Mills and Boon concept of “love”., which if it exists for anyone gays included does not need a piece of paper to validate since it would be self validating


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: