About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

August 15, 2010 8:00am by David Farrar

General Debate 15 August 2010

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment146

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (146)

Login to comment or vote

Chuck Bird

Laciia, specific Case? Most women over 60 cannot have children. Many women of that age get married although most through death of a spouse or divorce. Is their marriage not as valid as a younger couple?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 5:42pm
Viking2

30 Million Handout to look after someone else’s babies.

SFO investigates KidiCorp
NZPA
Last updated 11:32 15/08/2010

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is investigating the country’s biggest early childhood provider over the way it spends $30 million of taxpayer money.

KidiCorp has 100 centres nationwide, catering for more than 9000 children.

It receives $30m from the government and a nine-month Ministry of Education audit into how it claims funding for qualified staff has recently concluded.

That had led to the SFO investigation, the Herald on Sunday reported.

SFO spokesman Adam Feeley said the investigation started a few weeks ago.

“It does receive state funding so that is one factor we will have regard to,” he told the newspaper.

Taxpayer funding for early childhood centres is based on their number of qualified staff; those who have at least 80 percent of their teachers registered get more funding than those with fewer registered teachers.

Kidicorp owner Wayne Wright told the newspaper he had not seen anything of concern, and that a disgruntled former staffer was behind the investigation.

Minister of Education Anne Tolley had been briefed on the investigation.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 5:47pm
Chuck Bird

eszett, I suggest you think of what Ex pat kiwi (United States) thinks of your logic.
Ex pat kiwi (United States)
01:55PM Sunday, 15 Aug 2010
I live in California, so I think it’s safe to say I know what I am talking about. You have not been 100% honest with your New Zealand Herald readers. You talk about Prop 8 being promoted by the religious right, and that is indeed correct. But it is not the entire story.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10666067&pnum=2

Their may be many people who are in a mixed race marriage in this country who find your line of argument offensive. I am sure there are a lot of people of different races who have unfairly suffered discrimination who fine you are trying to use their legitimate grievance to further your cause.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 5:53pm
Steve

Lucia Maria,

A little bit of Religion is ok, even quite a bit is ok. Just becomes overbearing when 4 or more people hijack the whole GD.
You must admit that some days it is just a lot of raving self centered shit, especially on and around a full moon
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 5:53pm
reid

Kidicorp owner Wayne Wright told the newspaper he had not seen anything of concern, and that a disgruntled former staffer was behind the investigation.

I’m starting to think the nice and apparently very keen young man heading the SFO might have a limited future, if this turns out like Hubbard’s.

And Simon might have to do some explaining.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 5:54pm
eszett

If we are still talking cannon law (which predates and inspired the Wests legal system) then the intent to not have children is grounds for annulment of the marriage, ie – there was no marrage to begin with.

And thankfully we are not governed by such an antiquated law.

The ability or willingness to bear children or not is completely irrelevant to the eligibility of marriage. Yet if you wish to view your marriage under such narrow definition, you are free to do so.

But we live in a secular state with secular laws where you are free to marry before your God, as much as I am free to marry without any God. Your marriage is no better or worse than mine.

And the same goes whether you can or want to bear children, it can be relevant for you, but it does and should not be relevant to everyone.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 5:56pm
Chicken Little

Jimbob – Once Petes ‘scientists’ have to start admitting that the link between CO2 and temperature is, at best, tenuous and that the maths used by the IPCC to arrive at their “2 – 6 degrees warming this century” is a fiction, things are going to get really interesting.

When John “$200k in 3 months air travel’ Key, his mate Nick and their pet lap dog Sir Pete Gluckman have to explain to NZ WHY they have gathered hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes for a problem that doesn’t really exist, that will be a day I enjoy.

National will never, ever live it down, specially while I’m alive 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 5:57pm
Steve

So Rex,
Pearson is staying at your place so you can tell him he has been a bad boy? You would hide this maggot from those who want to hunt him down and exterminate him
What happened to Darwin’s thingy, survival but get rid of dead wood?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 6:02pm
krazykiwi

National will never, ever live it down, specially while I’m alive

That makes two of us Chicken Little.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 6:03pm
eszett

Their may be many people who are in a mixed race marriage in this country who find your line of argument offensive. I am sure there are a lot of people of different races who have unfairly suffered discrimination who fine you are trying to use their legitimate grievance to further your cause.

That’s very funny, Chuck, because it is not me that is using that line of argumentation, but you are. You are the one who is rehashing the old arguments from 60 years ago. If anything, mixed race couples should be offended by you bring the same old bullshit that were once used against them now against another minority.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 6:04pm
andrei

But we live in a secular state with secular laws where you are free to marry before your God, as much as I am free to marry without any God.

You dolt – don’t obviously don’t realize that if a culture doesn’t breed it will be overcome by one that does.

And you don’t have to be Einstein to figure out what’s waiting in the wings to overcome our civilization as we surrender our birthright.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 6:05pm
reid

…the same goes whether you can or want to bear children, it can be relevant for you, but it does and should not be relevant to everyone.

Well whether you like it or not the facts are the institution of marriage evolved and remains mostly focused upon children. The numbers of marriages without children and children without marriage has been growing since the sixties when the Communist-designed feminism hit the scene, but for centuries, eons and just fucking ages before that, it was children all the way, baby.

And that’s rather inconvenient to people who’d like to pretend that history never even existed, isn’t it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 6:08pm
Lucia Maria

Chuck, divorce automatically renders any subsequent marrige invalid. Given that nothing is impossible with God, it could be that older marriages are valid (as long as both man and woman aren’t neutered) but I’m not sure . I’ll have to research.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 6:10pm
eszett

You dolt – don’t obviously don’t realize that if a culture doesn’t breed it will be overcome by one that does.

And you don’t have to be Einstein to figure out what’s waiting in the wings to overcome our civilization as we surrender our birthright.

Remind me again, andrei, is it a right or an obligation?
You don’t seem to know the difference. Or care.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 6:10pm
eszett

Well whether you like it or not the facts are the institution of marriage evolved and remains mostly focused upon children.

Thanks, reid, for supporting my argument. Mostly is not solely
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 6:15pm
andrei

Marriage is not a right and never has been.

If it were then everybody who was neglected and rejected could get married and there are those who don’t who would love to but nobody wants them.

Of course such people are tragic but they are not a victim class like the gays so people just look down upon them.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 6:21pm
krazykiwi

The numbers of marriages without children has been growing since the sixties when the Communist-designed feminism hit the scene

I think it’s more that that reid. Rampant capitalism of the kind that tells you and I we must buy more of this, and do more of that has convinced quite a few couples that kids are not a sensible economic investment. It costs plenty to raise kids… and that means sacrifice of some time, some money, and some invidivual ambition

I know a few professional couples who have been quite open about their choosing not to sacrifice any lifestyle, and yet their lives seem to become more sad by the year. Long after the point of no return they start talking incessantly about their nieces and nephews, while their increasingly perfect homes become mausoleum-like. It’s fun to see this happen to friends.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 6:21pm
reid

“Thanks, reid, for support my argument. Mostly is not solely”

Yes but eszett firstly that wasn’t the point I was making anyway and secondly, the point I actually was making seems to have slipped by as well.

See, the overwhelming bulk of history says marriage was always and is always about children. Period. Case closed. No argument possible.

This means there is an anomalous blip in our very period of time when throughout history it has been perfectly stable and has been the main reason for the overwhelming success of civilisation as we know it today.

I’d say that was more cause for concern, and we should investigate cause and effect. I’m not sure that the warm embrace of the change in the name of some peculiar nebulous concept like “social justice” when no persecution is evident, is the right response.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 6:21pm
Hurf Durf

Gween Party: party of treason and appeasement.

But then we already knew that.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 6:32pm
eszett

See, the overwhelming bulk of history says marriage was always and is always about children. Period. Case closed. No argument possible.

See, you now changed it from mostly to always. Which is a stronger statement and I would argue that is not true.
Of course it’s a important part, a very important part. You get married because you love someone and would want to start a family.

But children are not the sole purpose of marriage, nor is it historically a fact as you claim. In fact, if you read history you will find that marriage was used a a political tool and of course as a business contract between families.

Granted, children were an important factor in all these marriages, but to say they were the sole purpose is not true
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 6:43pm
reid

“Rampant capitalism”

It’s not capitalism KK it’s consumerism.

Capitalism is simply the mechanism, consumerism is where all the traps are laid, to buy. Then by setting housing at a level that requires two full-time incomes, they make it impossible to attain the lives of our grandparents and parents who had a stay-at-home-mum.

Many many working women would take this up were it possible, I believe.

Won’t happen. Can’t go back. I recognise this. But it doesn’t change the fact it would be nice to.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 6:44pm
eszett

Marriage is not a right and never has been.

I was not referring to marriage but your comment about breeding.

Marriage is not a right, I agree. However, freedom from discrimination is.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 6:46pm
krazykiwi

@reid – agree, consumerism is a better word in context
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 6:48pm
reid

“See, you now changed it from mostly to always. Which is a stronger statement and I would argue that is not true.”

eszett your “mostly to always” point refers to the brief blip encompassing today in which there are varieties of marriage, yes?

So what?

“children are not the sole purpose of marriage,”

I never said they were.

“nor is it historically a fact as you claim”

What you mean civilisation didn’t actually happen and this is all some kinda matrix thing?

” if you read history you will find that marriage was used a a political tool and of course as a business contract between families.”

Well if YOU read history you will find that those types were a very small insignificant tiny really meaningless in terms of proportion types of marriages versus the other type of the ordinary family who breed like rabbits because some died, there were wars, famines, no DSW or CYFS and sex was probably one of the few fun things in their miserable lives.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 6:49pm
Yvette

to Lucia Maria
“Through marriage we can learn about unconditional love, respectful honor, how to forgive and be forgiven. We can see our shortcomings and grow from that insight. We can develop a servant’s heart, and draw closer to God. As a result, true soul happiness can be discovered, and this, I believe is one of God’s ultimate desires and purposes for designing the covenant of marriage.”

This is more true of the New Testament ideal of marriage rather than the Old – not necessarily is it about having children.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 7:10pm
andrei

However, freedom from discrimination is.

nobody is being discriminated against!

That is pure hokum
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 7:33pm
Lucia Maria

Yvette, unconditional love includes being open to the fruit of love otherwise one could be said to be holdinging part of oneself from ones beloved, and likewise not totally accepting the beloved as well.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 7:37pm
Yvette

Lucia Maria – Does your ideal of marriage allow any form of family planning?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 7:47pm
Rex Widerstrom

Steve asks:

So Rex, Pearson is staying at your place so you can tell him he has been a bad boy?

Steve, if you’re going to ask me loaded questions it might be an idea to read what I’ve said lest you make a fool of yourself. I don’t think he should have been let out, given the appalling lack of real rehabilitation in our prisons. So your question answers itself – no, I wouldn’t have him at my place in his present state of mind, which I’m betting will be worse than what it was when he went in.

You would hide this maggot from those who want to hunt him down and exterminate him

So now it’s not just government sanctioned murder you’re advocating but posses of people like yourself, riding round running impromptu lynchings. Remind me again, how are you any better than Pearson? Yes, I’d protect him from the likes of you. And you from the likes of him. I don’t condone murder.

[pedant mode] Folks, cannon law is what Steve’s advocating. Canon law is what Lucia Maria’s talking about. Big difference, specially if the cannon’s pointed at you 😛 [/pedant mode]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 7:56pm
eszett

andrei (738) Says:
August 15th, 2010 at 7:33

nobody is being discriminated against!

To say it with the words of John Key, that’s an aspirational goal. And when gays and lesbians are allowed to marry in this country we will be one step closer to it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 8:01pm
Hurf Durf

Another GD wrecked by bedwetters extraordinaire Ezzie Babe and Delirium. Both excellent advertisements for the destruction of Fabianism.

Take it to Red Alert or Bomber’s shit blog, I’m bored.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 8:12pm
reid

“So now it’s not just government sanctioned murder you’re advocating but posses of people like yourself, riding round running impromptu lynchings.”

I’m sorry to hear you disapprove Rex because, speaking for myself I’ve always had a secret hankering to participate in an impromptu lynching and I regret to hear you would be immediately on my tail, were I to try.

Bugger.

Now I’ll have to think of something else.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 8:12pm
Rex Widerstrom

reid:

Just between you and me, where were you thinking of saddling up and riding to? Coz if was to Wanganui, say, or just to look for anyone with their pants slung too low, or wearing lycra when not participating in an actual bicycle race, or wearing a bone carving when not Maori, or claiming to be “aspirational”, or calling their son “mate” (and encouraging him to do likewise), or cutting their child’s hair in such a way that it includes either a pony tail or a mullet, or working in a retail store and pretending to be blind to me waiting while talking to a fellow employee, or driving under the limit in the right hand lane, or talking loudly on a mobile in any public area (but we’d hang ’em specially slowly if it was a restaurant)…

… well I could shelve my integrity for the duration… 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 8:25pm
Manolo

The wowsers and their ideological leader, the socialist Goff, continue their pathetic fight:
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=180570
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 8:34pm
eszett

# Hurf Durf (1,928) Says:
August 15th, 2010 at 8:12 pm

Another GD wrecked by bedwetters extraordinaire Ezzie Babe and Delirium. Both excellent advertisements for the destruction of Fabianism.

Take it to Red Alert or Bomber’s shit blog, I’m bored.

Sorry, Smurf, I keep forgetting that there is nothing else exciting in your life.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 8:39pm
Hurf Durf

We all know you just want to marry your dog and make sweet, sweet love to its arse.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 8:40pm
eszett

Really, Smurf, with all that you know and your contributions here, you must be spending too much time watching smut on the internet.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 8:55pm
Hurf Durf

I can’t help it, they pretty much give it away.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 9:02pm
MikeNZ

# eszett (622) Says:
August 15th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Marriage is not a right, I agree. However, freedom from discrimination is.

Sorry Eszett I call that absolute rot.
Get real, Humans discriminate all the time about loads of different things based on their prejudices and their beliefs, needs and
social mores, let alone their family and community rules.

Your so called right for homosexual to marry is in itself discriminating against people who think that that is unnatural based on human design.
Now that has more validity than than freedom from discrimination even.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 9:21pm
Pete George

Your so called right for homosexual to marry is in itself discriminating against people who think that that is unnatural based on human design.

That’s an odd premise Mike. On that basis, your right to go to church is discriminating against me because I think temple building and worshiping is unnatural based on original human design. Homosexuality is more natural (for a minority) than believing in the supernatural.

Two people you don’t even know getting married does not affect you, you probably won’t be aware of it at all, so it can’t discriminate against you.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 9:34pm
eszett

you need to read up on the Bill of Rights Act, Mike. Freedom from discrimination is part of it.

And how the inclusion of a group into marriage would discriminate against the groups already included is beyond me. It takes an abstruse kind of logic to try and argue that one.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 9:44pm
reid

“Two people you don’t even know getting married does not affect you”

It depends what you mean by “married.”

What do you mean by that, Pete?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2010 9:50pm
Lucia Maria

Yvette,

Conraception, no.

Abstaining from sex during fertile times, yes.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 16, 2010 12:30am
Pete George

For me the starting point for marriage is any two consenting “adults” who want to make a marriage commitment to each other, equal rights for everyone. But of course for practical reasons there has to be some restrictions – you shouldn’t marry a close relative for genetic/breeding reasons. But that raises some interesting questions. Should no-genetically linked step-relations be able to marry? What about non-genetically linked ex-step-relations?

And when procreation is no longer possible the genetic problem is removed, so should that allow close relations to marry?

If you want to ban homosexuals from marrying does that mean they can’t marry someone of the opposite sex too? (It does happen). What about bi-sexuals?

The idea of marriage only being legitimate if it involves having kids is new to me. It mustn’t be stipulated or even mentioned anywhere outside some groups, or it simply didn’t register when I first got married – catholic wedding, I was a non-catholic and had to sign some stuff we never took any notice of.

For those who think having kids is an essential part of a marriage, if a couple don’t have kids is it ok for them to annul their marriage?

To keep some groups happy should there be two types of marriage, a kids intended marriage, and a no kids possible/intended marriage where any two people can choose to get hitched? Should couples who end up not wanting or unable to have kids get divorced from one type and get the other sort of hitching?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 16, 2010 6:53am
Rick Rowling

Anyone who reckons we live in a classless society should check out the front page of today’s Dom.

story 1
story 2

/snob
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 16, 2010 11:14am
reid

Pete what’s the obsession with respect to labeling it as “marriage?”

It’s not marriage, it’s a civil union, with complete legal rights as per a husband-wife partnership, just without the label.

What’s the obsession with the label?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 16, 2010 8:35pm

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Bratislavia

Compulsory Super? »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Professor Robert MacCulloch: Has Chris Hipkins trashed the education of a generation of Kiwis?
Breaking Views
Property Rights for “Sesame Street”
Not PC
Sowell says
Hompaddock
The Treaty Principles debate: Parliament is having a third go at addressing this conundrum
Point of Order
There seems a consensus that the COP series currently in Azerbaijan is transfer of wealth from richer to poorer?
No Minister
Green Party out of the woke frying pan into the woke fire
The Daily Blog
Open mike 25/11/2024
The Standard
Automakers’ Costly Gamble on EVs: A Lesson in Ignoring Consumer Demand
Utopia
Treaty Principles Debate
NZCPR
Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d