About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

February 27, 2013 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 27 February 2013

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment133

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (133)

Login to comment or vote

graham

Darien Fenton writing on Red Alert about the Hobbit Films and the drawn-out wranglings says to “Put to one side the florid and over the top language about the union and the MEAA union”.

Really? “Over the top language”? Would this be the same Darien Fenton who called Sir Peter Leitch a “sycophant”, said “[He was] sucking up to John Key big time. I’m never going near him again.”, simply because Sir Peter committed the horrible sin of being complimentary towards John Key and inviting him to a game of league?
12 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 8:13am
Griff

Fuck this Mr Dunne
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/129147/party-pills-legislation-tabled-in-parliament
No new enforcement officers with police like powers of search and seizure.
This is a example of the long and slippery slope towards fascism.
WTF are you thinking?
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2013/0100/latest/whole.html

Subpart 3 Enforcement
Enforcement officers
Clause 68 enables the Authority to appoint enforcement officers to enforce the provisions of the Bill.

The police are the proper authority to deal with law breakers. There is no need for extending police powers to a new branch of law enforcement.
7 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 8:14am
Keeping Stock

Check out David Cunliffe’s oratory from the Debating Chamber yesterday. Although few Labour MP’s were actually in the House as he spoke, how many more will have listened to his speech or watched it on the telly and wondered if they had backed the wrong horse?

http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2013/02/we-cant-help-but-wonder_27.html
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 8:14am
Manolo

At the risk of upsetting the ultra sensitive davincimode, well-known multiculturalist: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/8352833/Man-admits-attack-on-Wellington-builder
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 8:18am
graham

Griff:

Pete George was pointing out yesterday (on the Infant Mortality thread) that “Whether you support the right of people to have abortions and use contraception or not they have been a substantial factor in limiting a drastically snowballing world population.”

So, by Pete’s reasoning, we should insist that Peter Dunne immediately stops banning any more drugs. After all, a few more OD’s will certainly help reduce a “drastically snowballing world population.” 🙂
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 8:22am
wreck1080

Steven Joyce says solid energy is in trouble because the coal price is down 40%. But, he does not mention the fact the nz dollar is 50% stronger since 2009. So, in essence, the dollar has had more effect than the coal price.

But, convenient not to mention the dollar isn’t it.

And, why didn’t Annette King attack him on that when on the radio with him?
2 4
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 8:26am
Keeping Stock

I think you’ll find that the 40% drop in the price of coal takes account of the exchange rate wreck.
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 8:27am
Manolo

The odds are stacked against a fair outcome: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10867918&ref=rss
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 8:28am
wreck1080

@keepingstock — even if so (and I’m not sure that is the case), then, they should be blaming the dollar as opposed to the ‘international’ price.

The kiwi dollar has risen by a such a huge amount.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 8:30am
Griff

“few more OD’s ”
Yes graham silly assertions of a prepossessed link between drugs and ODs are going to add to lots of use full debate around police powers being given to yet another government department special interest ad hock police force.
As to drugs after reading the bill I would really know what constitutes a low risk of harm.
Is it as in comparison to existing legal recreational drugs or are the rules tighter for getting new drugs to market?
Nothing is harmless.
H2O or even O2 can kill you.
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 8:32am
graham

* Sigh *

Sorry Griff, trying to bring a bit of levity to the morning’s discussions before they degenerate (again). But as I have found out, some people take EVERYTHING seriously. Even if their name isn’t Pete George.

PS I think the word you were looking for was actually “presupposed”, not “prepossessed”. But then, what do I know.
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 8:39am
Pete George

Labour’s new economic development spokesperson is still promoting a $15 minimum wage (he has been doing that for nearly 2 years) – he needs to learn about inflation.

He also needs to add a bit of detail beyond superficial PR parroting:

…our tax system needs reform to stop our wealthiest citizens avoiding their share of tax.

And he needs to think things through before making claims like this:

When it requires half a 40 hour wage to put a healthy meal on the table each day power and rent are a stretch.

Stephen Joyce will have a field day unless Clark ups his game. Labour’s ‘economic development’ needs development.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 8:53am
Griff

possessed
spurred or moved by a strong feeling, madness, or a supernatural power
😆
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/possessed
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 8:59am
Left Right and Centre

Manolo (9,118)
February 27th, 2013 at 8:18 am

I find it hard not to be prejudiced when two ethnic groups in particular seem to breed a culture of crime and nuisance.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 9:15am
Left Right and Centre

KB fluffular:

When you lose a lot of weight… then put a wee bit back on… and then diet back down to your ‘happy weight’ in very good time…

…. aaaaaaaaahhhh *sigh of relief and contentedness*…. 79.0kg wake up reading…. that’s more like it!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 9:18am
Left Right and Centre

graham (1,679)
February 27th, 2013 at 8:22 am

Is that a strawman argument? You’re just making stuff up… by his reasoning… where does the person say that that is their reasoning? Yeah…. ok.

Two different things. One the person hasn’t been born. The other… yes they have.. and now they’re around and ticking and thinking… society has views on what it does and does not want them doing. Not just for their own ‘good’ but for the good of everyone else around them.

You could have no speed limit. Some people would kill themselves off and in an ‘overpopulated world’ that would be excellent that they kill themselves off as they do by illegally speeding anyway. But then they kill innocent victims in other vehicles so there’s a speed limit imposed to trade-off the increased risk of travelling at higher speeds and the convenience of not taking all day going at tractor speeds to get somewhere.

I suppose my own barrow would be unwanted kids are a bit of a pain in the arse overall and so abortion is there as an option when it all ‘turns to custard’. I’m not serious when I say this, only joking but abortion must be carbon friendly/ planet friendly because the only thing sucking up the resources… are people. One less is one less, innit?

Sick puppy humour: You know those ‘one less car’ cyclists? Could get one of those t-shirts for women who had abortions. ‘One less human- saving the planet’.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 9:30am
graham

LR&C:

1. See my 8:39 post.
2. “unwanted kids are a bit of a pain in the arse overall and so abortion is there as an option when it all ‘turns to custard’.” You may not be serious when you say it, but I know several people whom I find to be more than just a bit of a pain in the arse overall. So is there an option to kill them?

Slightly more seriously – what the hell reason can people possibly use, in this day and age, for not being able to stop unwanted pregnancies? I mean, we bombard our children with sex education, we’re teaching them how do just about anything to or with anyone or anything safely – supposedly. I’ve been laughed at for suggesting abstinence before marriage is an option, and told that this is unrealistic so we need to teach children how to have safe sex. OK, from all I see, we as a society are doing everything we can to do this. So why do people still, in this supposedly enlightened day and age, still get pregnant and say “Whoops, didn’t expect THAT to happen”.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 9:45am
Andrei

I’ve been laughed at for suggesting abstinence before marriage is an option, and told that this is unrealistic so we need to teach children how to have safe sex.

Teaching children to have “safe sex” is actually blessing them to have sex – the whole idea that a chaste woman is a person of higher value than one who opens her legs at the drop of a hat is considered demeaning to women or something.

When it comes down to it what man would want to marry and commit to a woman that half his mates have had?
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 9:52am
iMP

Air New Zealand’s latest fun inflight video following The Hobbit one. Starts today plane flyers.

http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/latest-inflight-airnz-video-bear-grylls/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 9:54am
nasska

….”When it comes down to it what man would want to marry and commit to a woman that half his mates have had?”…..

It could be quite peachy for the ego knowing that at worst she still thinks you are the best of a pack of dud roots. 🙂
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:02am
Andrei

Japan’s low birthrate is a big problem for the country. First, it means that there are fewer working-age Japanese taxpayers for every Japanese retiree, over-burdening retirement and health care programs. Second, it means that the country’s workforce is shrinking rapidly, making the overall economy less productive.

Seiko Noda, a legislator in Japan’s house of representatives since 1993, has worked on the birthrate issue for years. She’s not an obscure figure, having served in several cabinet positions. But her newest proposal is a little unusual and maybe a bit of a stretch. If we want people to have more babies, she argues in Japan’s most-read newspaper, Asahi Shimbun, the country should just ban abortion.

The Washington Post gets sniffy – killing babies is, after all, an enlightened thing
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:03am
Harriet

“….I mean, we bombard our children with sex education, we’re teaching them how do just about anything to or with anyone or anything safely – supposedly…”

Graham, It doesn’t work and the findings back that up.

What happens is that sex-ed gets introduced, and the kids then introduce themselves TO sex. This is supported by the fact that the age group that is taught then has high pregnacy, sti’s, abortions ect within a year .

Then with those appalling statistics, the sex educators say “we must introduce sex-ed at a lower age to counteract the increase in ‘poor sexual knowledge’. The poor behaviour is then repeated. Then the poor ‘treatment’ is again applied to an ever lower age group. [Only some sex ed is applied to lower age groups – not all of it]

Here in Australia it was mentioned on the news last week that we may soon see sex-ed being taught to 6-7 ylds.[I never watched it – just the headlines]

You can read about all the behaviour, stats, options, etc, here Graham. Cheers.

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/category/ethics/sex-education/
3 2
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:03am
Griff

Who needs facts when you have faith.
Christians

http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education

Evidence does not support the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education.[1] It has been found to be ineffective in decreasing HIV risk in the developed world,[2] and does not decrease rates of unplanned pregnancy.[1] Kohler (2008) found that abstinence-only education does not decrease the sexual activity rates of students, when compared to students who undertake comprehensive sexual education classes.[3] Kohler further found that teen pregnancy rates were higher in students who had undertaken abstinence only education, when compared to comprehensive sex education.
2 4
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:09am
Andrei

Get off the grass Griff – these “studies” are set up to fail in order to justify the increased degradation of our young.

Girls who open their legs for all and sundry are sluts and using contraception will not change that, even if condoms are deployed they are still sluts.

Girls need to be taught that being a slag is not good and will not lead them to a prosperous and fulfilling life
5 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:22am
kowtow

Griff the intolerable bore.

Now that man made global waming has been busted ,he’s moved on, to be like bigot bruv, to anti Christian rants.
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:23am
graham

Andrei, Harriet, and Griff – whoever is right or wrong, please answer this.

Why do we still have so many unwanted pregnancies?

Griff in particular – bearing in mind your quoted facts there, what are we in New Zealand doing wrong then? Because, from what I know, we’re certainly not teaching “abstinence-only” in our schools.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:23am
Andrei

Gee Graham we subsidize “unwanted pregnancies”. They are not a source of embarrasment and shame they are a source of income which sure beats stacking the shelves at Pak’n’Save as a means to putting bread on your table.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:26am
nasska

Andrei

If the pregnancy is a means to an end, ie a way to ditch a dead end job & get on the DPB, then it is hardly an “unwanted” pregnancy is it? It’s a planned or semi planned event.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:31am
Harriet

“….Evidence does not support the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education…”

Idiot!

Abstinence-only sex education is still the best thing to do as it also leads to having MORE and BETTER values within the ENTIRE area of sex :

It can be said that those who are abstinent and christian, may more likely already be in a relationship with someone who has those same values[an abstinent person is not likely to go out with someone who isn’t] and those values would more than likely include saying no to abortion and yes to Marriage now. Which is of course the best thing.

“….Kohler further found that teen pregnancy rates were higher in students who had undertaken abstinence only education, when compared to comprehensive sex education…”

Griff….that’s misleading as most of those who abstine are generaly Christian and would then not have an abortion if they became pregnant. Without the abortion rate statistics between Christians and non-Christians, and abortion rate stats between ab-education and comp-education, PLUS Christian ab-ed Christian comp etc – it’s then anyones’ guess if teen pregnancy is truely higher for those who abstine.Plus the morning after pill.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:33am
Weihana

Harriet (1,162) Says:
February 27th, 2013 at 10:03 am

What happens is that sex-ed gets introduced, and the kids then introduce themselves TO sex.

Sex needs no introduction. It is a biological imperative and once we hit puberty we will think about it and will want to do it.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:34am
Griff

Actually I await a more detailed explanation of the global conspiracy kowtow

As for absence campaigns many study’s point to its inability to prevent pregnancy
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/

Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle found that teenagers who received some type of comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to get pregnant or get someone else pregnant. And in 2007, a federal report showed that abstinence-only programs had “no impacts on rates of sexual abstinence.”

But 37 states require sex education that includes abstinence, 26 of which require that abstinence be stressed as the best method. Additionally, research shows that abstinence-only strategies could deter contraceptive use among teenagers, thus increasing their risk of unintended pregnancy.

For example, take the states with the highest and lowest teen pregnancy rates. Mississippi does not require sex education in schools, but when it is taught, abstinence-only education is the state standard. New Mexico, which has the second highest teen birth rate, does not require sex ed and has no requirements on what should be included when it is taught. New Hampshire, on the other hand, requires comprehensive sex education in schools that includes abstinence and information about condoms and contraception.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:34am
Fletch

If you’re a fan of TV and have an iPod, I see that TVNZ has finally launched its On Demand app for watching shows.

https://itunes.apple.com/nz/app/tvnz-ondemand/id592636641?mt=8
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:38am
Harriet

“…Why do we still have so many unwanted pregnancies?…”

Because they are careless when they have sex!
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:39am
Harriet

“…As for absence campaigns many study’s point to its inability to prevent pregnancy….Mississippi does not require sex education in schools, but when it is taught, abstinence-only education is the state standard….”

Abstinence isn’t backed up at home – unless of course they are Christian!

The studies you site Griff are about as usefull as a condom full of holes! 😎
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:43am
graham

Read all the comments, still not seeing an answer to the question:

Why do we still have so many unwanted pregnancies?

Hell, you lot can argue till the cows come home whether we teach abstinence only, root-if-you’re-randy, “this is a man, this is a woman, this is a sheep, pick whichever you want”, or a combo deal in our schools. I personally believe that saving sex until you’re married is the right thing to do, but I can accept safe sex practices being taught in our schools as long as abstinence is also taught as a perfectly practical, realistic and viable alternative. My daughter certainly knows which one she’ll be choosing, she’s seen enough of her peers screw up their lives, so to speak.

Which brings me back to the question I posed. LR&C stated that “unwanted kids are a bit of a pain in the arse overall and so abortion is there as an option when it all ‘turns to custard’.” Well why does it all ‘turn to custard’? What are we in New Zealand doing wrong, leading to so many unwanted pregnancies?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:43am
Longknives

The NZ media are just gushing and drooling over this guy-

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8355522/Tame-Itis-prison-release-day-arrives

No one seems to remember he and his colleagues were planning (and training) to slaughter innocent New Zealanders.
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:44am
Carlos

Got this great little story off Facebook.

“So while I’m outside putting down massive quantities of ice melt, a young kid walked through the parking lot headed west. He asked me how far it was to 10th and Sherman.

I told him it was quite a way away. At least 6 or 7 miles. I suggested that he would be far better off on the bus then on foot, especially in all this ice and slush. He thanked me and continued on.

He could have asked me for money for a bus. In fact I quite expected him to. He didn’t. He just started walking.

15 minutes later, as we were driving down 10th street to head to Strange Brew, we saw him still waking down 10th. He was not yet to Franklin Road.

I told Colleen Roux to pull over, and I called to him to get in. As we were driving, we asked him about his journey.

Jhaquiel was waking from 42nd and Post to an interview at 10th and Sherman. For a potential (but not guaranteed) minimum-wage job. In this weather. Walking, because he couldn’t afford the bus. He had actually planned his time well and the interview was still 2 hours away.

We drove him to 10th and Sherman. He was extremely thankful and said so. I got his telephone number and told him to keep his interview, but I would see if there was a way to hire him, so his daily trek to work would be 3 miles instead of 10. I also asked him if he had eaten today, and he said he hadn’t. I gave him money for lunch and dropped him at the 10th and Sherman Dairy Queen. I think he was in shock.

So, he doesn’t know it yet, but he starts with us on Monday. It’s been a while since I’ve met someone so young with a work ethic like that!

And the next time somebody hands me a sob story about needing money for this or that, because they really want to make their lives better… I hope to be able to introduce them to Jhaquiel.”

What do you think?
9 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:48am
Harriet

“….Sex needs no introduction. It is a biological imperative and once we hit puberty we will think about it and will want to do it….”

And sex-ed feeds that ‘thought’…..with ‘normal’ ‘safe’ ‘natural’ ‘an expression’ ‘important’ ‘experiment’ Etc.

It simply encourages them.
2 3
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:49am
hinamanu

Madeleine Albright Says 500,000 DEAD IRAQI CHILDREN WAS “WORTH IT” Wins Medal Of Freedom

Find Out Why

Madeleine Albright says 500,000 dead Iraqi Children was “worth it”…..wins Presidential Medal of Freedom from Obama

As the anniversary of probably one of the most infamous responses in broadcasting history approaches, the woman who uttered it is shortly to be awarded “the highest honour” that America bestows upon civilians — the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Madeleine Albright, Iraq’s Grim Reaper, of course, confirmed on Sixty Minutes (May 12, 1996) that the deaths of half a million children as a result of the absolute, all-embracing deprivations of the UN embargo were: “A hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.”

One cynical blogger, was so incensed that the header read: “Genocidal war criminal wins Presidential Medal whilst invoking Holocaust memories.”

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/madeleine-albright-says-500000-dead-iraqi-children-was-worth-it-wins-medal-of-freedom-video/
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:50am
Pete George

Weihana:

Sex needs no introduction. It is a biological imperative and once we hit puberty we will think about it and will want to do it

Next thing you’ll be trying to claim that sex education is timed to just precede their natural interest in sex.

Of women born in 1936, for example, over 37% had conceived a child outside of marriage by the age of 27.

Of women born in 1945 (just slightly outside our age group), over 54% had conceived a child outside of marriage by the same age (Else 1991:2, 3).

Many, if not most, young pregnant women got married before they gave birth (Pool et al. 2007:189)

Of women who had married before 1970, for example, 20% divorced within 15 years of marriage, and 25% with 25 years of marriage. Some of the most common characteristics of these divorces were marriage at an early age, and being pregnant at the point of marriage or becoming pregnant shortly after (Pool et al. 2007:188).

They didn’t have sex education in those days but still managed to discover sex.

Early pregancies and early (often rushed) marriages seem linked to high divorce rates.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:51am
Judith

When it comes down to it what man would want to marry and commit to a woman that half his mates have had?

Whilst a woman is meant to over look the sexual history of her future husband?

It works both ways. Either you both acknowledge you’ve ‘lived’, but that ‘was then and this is now’, or the marriage is doomed anyway. Pointless doing the legal stuff, just have the party.

Harriet (1,165) Says:
February 27th, 2013 at 10:39 am
“…Why do we still have so many unwanted pregnancies?…”

Because they are careless when they have sex!

I suspect the same reason we have so many car accidents applies as well. We have a high number of people ‘screwing whilst intoxicated’. I wonder if we could make that a crime? A person has to be old enough, should they also have to be sober enough?
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:52am
Judith

Early pregancies and early (often rushed) marriages seem linked to high divorce rates.

I suspect the type of person plays a role in that statistic.
Someone that is careless enough to engage in unprotected sex, may also be the type of person that doesn’t pay a significant amount of attention to their relationship. Whilst the pregnancy may have caused the ‘marriage’, it is not what contributes to its dissolution but rather the two were never going to be compatible long term anyway.

I have a couple (of unusual) friends who married young (pregnant) and are still married (happily unhappy) 25 odd years later, and have no intention of changing that. Freaks, I say (to the faces) but there are some out there!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:58am
krazykiwi

Why do we still have so many unwanted pregnancies?

Pregnancies are down.

‘Unwantedness’ is up.

Perhaps if our society promoted a family unit consisting of a woman, a man, and their biological offspring as a desirable societal construct, then the rate of ‘unwantedness’ might drop.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 10:59am
Andrei

Early pregancies and early (often rushed) marriages seem linked to high divorce rates.

FFS Pete George until the 1970s less than 2% of the New Zealand population ever got divorced – it was rare and it was shameful.

One of the first triumphs of Feminism was to change this.
4 2
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:00am
Harriet

“Family Planning Victoria wants condoms made available for years 10-12 – and to younger students in special circumstances. But according to the results of a heraldsun poll, almost 70% of readers believe that children as young as 12 should not be given free condoms. The taxpayer-financed group said they should be kept in student common rooms, or distributed by machines.”

These types of proposals are always idiotic and counter-productive. All they do is put up the white flag of surrender. They in effect tell kids that there is just no stopping sexual activity, and that they should just give in to any passions and lusts that grip them.

We are simply telling our kids they are no better than animals with such counsels of despair. We are sending our children a clear message that they do not have the ability to say no, to exercise self-control, to learn to resist sexual pressure.

Yet those are exactly the sort of messages we need to be giving to our young people. They need to be taught to respect themselves, and taught how to resist sexual pressure, not cave into it. They are human beings with the ability to make choices.

As it happens, I just debated on radio the sexpert in question. She was predictably out to lunch as she sought to justify this sexual suicide. She said we should leave questions of right and wrong out of all this. Great, just what we need – an amoral approach to one of the most moral issues facing our young people.

It is a moral framework with which to discuss these issues which is so desperately needed. Yet these so-called experts think it is nothing but a biology lesson. Sorry, our children are human beings with a moral nature who do not just need bare information, but the ability to make moral assessments.

But this proponent of the condom culture was out of her depth in other ways. She tried to claim that studies show that sex ed and condom handouts reduce teen sexuality. But as I said on the radio debate, the very opposite is the case. In fact, I cited a major study from the world premier sex-ed outfit, Planned Parenthood International.

According to their own research, kids who take comprehensive sex education programs are in fact more likely to be sexually active, more likely to fall pregnant, and more likely to have all the other problems associated with teen sexual activity.

And how did the big cheese from Family Planning Victoria respond? Incredibly, she just said ‘No! That’s not so’. I was staggered. Here she simply denied in public the research done by her own side. She is either living in complete denial, or deliberately seeking to mislead the public about all this.

Indeed, I cited another study, this time from England, which found that teen pregnancy rates soared wherever government programs featuring comprehensive sex-ed and condom distribution were promoted. Once again, she was totally unable or unwilling to respond. But how could she? She had an ideological agenda she was trying to push, while I had the data.

But this is so typical of these sexual revolutionaries. They want to cram their mad hatter programs down the throats of our children, and live in la-la land as to the actual facts and evidence. Radicals pushing social engineering agendas cannot be bothered with mere trifles such as facts and data. They are on a crusade.

On occasion however some reality breaks into this dream world. Consider this story: Some 800 sexologists were asked at a world congress whether they would rely on a condom for protection if they had available the partner of their dreams and knew the person carried HIV. After a long delay, one hand was timidly raised in the back of the room. The speaker was irate. She told her audience that it was completely irresponsible to give advice to others that they would not follow themselves.

Quite right. Merely relying on condoms is simply offering our teens a go at Russian roulette. With around 16 per cent failure rates, this is the last thing we should be throwing at our kids. But this is the best our sexperts can offer. Our kids deserve far better.

They deserve to be told the truth about themselves, about sexuality, and right and wrong, and about personal responsibility. They do not need to be sold a bill of goods by these social engineers who will simply destroy our children and their innocence. Indeed, why they want to simply throw around condoms seems incomplete at best.

As I said on the radio interview, why don’t we just go the whole hog, and offer beds in our schools, maybe even red-light districts? That is certainly the direction these activists are taking us in.
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/category/ethics/sex-education/
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:01am
Pete George

Kevin Hague blogs on the most common arguments against the Marriage Equality Bill.

The submissions were roughly evenly split, with a small majority in favour of the Bill. However, there was a striking difference – those against were largely presenting a perspective based on religious belief, while those in favour presented a much wider range of arguments and reflected a broader cross-section of society; churches, health organisations, youth groups, unions, law or human rights groups and so on.

Of those opposed, I am pleased to say that relatively few were of the hateful nature I have seen on previous bills, or promised me that I would burn for eternity in a lake of fire, but those people are still out there. Much more commonly, submitters would say that they had nothing against gay people, or had gay friends.

Most of the submissions opposed to the Bill used, paraphrased or even quoted verbatim the Family First submission guide. Unfortunately this meant many repeated errors of fact or argument that Family First had made. The most common arguments that appeared in opposing submissions were:

1. Tradition – marriage as always been between a man and a woman, and we have an obligation to maintain this tradition, either as a duty to our predecessors and descendants, or because of (typically undefined) bad consequences if tradition is betrayed.

2. Natural/divine – actually two separate ideas but usually expressed linked. Heterosexual marriage arises from the natural order of things in which both a man and a woman are necessary to reproduce, which is the point of marriage. Usually expressed with the extra criterion that God intended/designed that it be so.

3. Exclusivity – the special status of heterosexual marriage is worth protecting, and it would be undermined and devalued if others were allowed into the club. Usually expressed with the companion idea that same sex couples should be entitled to the same legal rights (separate but equal), but civil unions are the right vehicle for this.

4. Dictionary – marriage is inherently between one man and one woman (the dictionary says so). Parliament cannot change the meaning of a word, any more than it could make the word “red” now mean green.

5. Human rights – there is not a human right to marry, and if there is, then the right is satisfied because LGBT can marry a person of the opposite sex. The argument usually uses all of the categories of marriages that are not permitted (children etc) to demonstrate the point.

6. Religious freedom – a very large number of submitters say the Bill infringes their religious freedom, both by legalising same-sex marriages against their beliefs but more particularly by opening the door for their churches/ministers to be legally challenged if they refuse to solemnise same-sex marriages. Some also suggested that essentially commercial transactions like hiring a hall were also problematic, and a very small number expressed concern that they would no longer be permitted to express their religious beliefs about marriage.

7. Children – if the Bill is passed same-sex couples will be considered spouses for the purposes of the Adoption Act and will become eligible to adopt children. This is undesirable because children need both their biological mum and dad or, failing that, at least adult male and female role models. Submitters typically used a “research has shown” type of statement and often cited a number of references which they believed or had been told demonstrated their point. Interestingly a smaller but still significant number of those opposed to the Bill made the explicit point that they had no problem with same sex couples being considered for adoptive parents.

8. Slippery slope – if the Bill is passed it will open the door to parallel arguments for marriage rights to be extended to polyamorous, incestuous and bestial marriages, which Parliament will be forced to accept.

9. Downfall – related to the tradition theme. Marriage is the “fundamental building block” of society. If it is varied the structure will become inherently weaker and it will collapse, as Rome did. There are several variants, including one where allowing same-sex marriage results in fewer children being born, leading to population decline.

10. Perversion/sin – didn’t appear explicitly in most submissions against but was often implicit. Essentially these are people who see homosexuality as a sinful or unnatural behaviour that people can choose. Any law change that facilitates or validates that choice is seen as hastening moral crisis in our society with dire results. Often accompanied with allusions to ancient Greece and Rome. An explicit version :”if this Bill becomes law we will become overwhelmed by a tide of perversion and depravity that will make our country not fit to live in.”

11. Minority – LGBT New Zealanders make up a tiny minority, and we shouldn’t change the law for such a small number, especially when it will offend the beliefs of many.

http://blog.greens.org.nz/2013/02/27/marriage-equality-the-submissions-against

We’ve heard all those arguments here, some seem almost verbatim.
2 5
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:03am
nasska

graham

…”What are we in New Zealand doing wrong, leading to so many unwanted pregnancies?”….

I don’t think that there’s one over riding answer. Two factors are however IMHO relevant.

1) Jobless youth. As long as many teenagers are going to leave school functionally illiterate & priced out of the job market by minimum wage legislation they’ll be sitting at home or on the street bored out of their brains. Sex is one free activity to while away the time & the same youths who are so improvident in all other respects are hardly going to worry about a little thing like a pregnancy. In any case there are no bad consequences. If the girl gets pregnant the state provides & the young bloke has no money to contribute to the upbringing of the kid anyway.

2) Human (largely female) nature. Girl falls for boy & becomes pregnant deliberately, either as a gesture of love or to force the young guy into a commitment. He takes off & the resultant pregnancy is “unwanted”. Note that this is not exactly a new trend but since the demise of shotgun weddings it has added to the DPB burden & probably abortion statistics as well.

Regardless of the above, the abstinence message only works when the religious nutters get to brainwash kids from infancy & implant the relevant guilt mechanisms. This genie is well out of the bottle so unless someone finds a way to turn back the clock we’d better find a Plan B.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:04am
Left Right and Centre

graham (1,682)
February 27th, 2013 at 9:45 am

So is there an option to kill them?

In Texas, sure.

i learnt a new word- levity. Fantastic!

Re: unwanted pregnancies. I’ve got no idea graham. People are morons. They use abortion as a form of contraception. If they don’t want the baby I’m not too worried what they do. It’s a lot easier just to not get pregnant in the first place. This country is full of dodgy halfwit young women who say their pregnancy was ‘accidental’. Good one idiots. They’re just dropkicks and what can you do about them? Not a lot.. they breed the next generation of dropkick and so it goes on. Should do an IQ check and sterilize the dumb dumbs. I might just be the next Hitler.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:04am
Andrei

Judith whether you like it or not there is an asymetry between men and women when it comes to the consequences of a casual fling and that is that the male participant can run, leaving the woman “holding the baby” literally.

All our cultural mores surrounding marriage and sex developed to minimize the number of women “holding the baby” without the man equally responsible for that child taking on those responsibities.

Maybe this is “unfair” but it is what it is, people need to reproduce, sex is how they do it and there are built gender roles involved in the process
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:09am
krazykiwi

Regardless of the above, the abstinence message only works when the religious nutters get to brainwash kids from infancy & implant the relevant guilt mechanisms

nasska – you appear struggle to differentiate ‘guilt mechanisms’ from wisdom about what’s best. My parents applied the latter (never the former), and we offered the latter (never the former) to our children.

So sorry to disappoint you: No guilt, no brainwashing. Just happy, confident people in committed, life-long relationships
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:11am
Elaycee

The marine terrorist outfit Sea Shepherd has been correctly labelled as ‘pirates’ by the US Courts…

A US appeals court has declared a sea-faring group of anti-whaling protesters modern-day pirates and ordered them to halt their aggressive and high-profile attacks on Japanese whalers.

Its only a matter of time before one of the pirate ships is either badly damaged or sunk…

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/8357514/Anti-whaling-activists-pirates-US-court

The Court said:

“When you ram ships; hurl glass containers of acid; drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders; launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks; and point high-powered lasers at other ships, you are, without a doubt, a pirate, no matter how high-minded you believe your purpose to be.”

And here is a clip of the Sea Shepherd ramming a tanker (yes, a tanker FFS!) and then broadsiding a second ship.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10868068
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:14am
graham

nasska:

Regardless of the above, the abstinence message only works when the religious nutters get to brainwash kids from infancy & implant the relevant guilt mechanisms.

No need to brainwash, no need for guilt. I didn’t have to do any of that with my daughter – she’s seen so many of her friends and peers screw up their lives that’s she’s dead against having sex until she’s married. Because, thanks to the wonderful job that modern sex education is doing in our schools, she’s seen a number of children her age drop out of school to have a baby.

Incidentally, some of her Christian friends have also had their fair share of babies as teenagers. Guess their “religious nutter” parents didn’t do such a good job of “brainwashing kids from infancy & implanting the relevant guilt mechanisms”, huh?

You may not have read my previous posts, but I actually leave my children to make their own choices – probably like most parents, in fact. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:19am
nasska

krazykiwi

…”No guilt, no brainwashing. Just happy, confident people in committed, life-long relationships”….

I’m happy for you. Regrettably in my six plus decades my observations of relationships based on religious nuttery are much different to the nirvana you describe. rather I have witnessed cowered women, kids who have had the shit beaten out of them in the name of some “loving” god & many instances of actions at total odds with the faith of the perpetrator. Add to that mix, women prematurely aged by constant pregnancy & guilty unhappy men impoverished by providing for the results of their human desires.

There are always exceptions but generally religion = misery.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:24am
hinamanu

In this episode of the Keiser Report, Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert notice that the mainstream media mocks the jury in the UK dismissed for being too stupid to understand basic concepts of jury trial like ‘guilt beyond a reasonable doubt;’ when, in fact, the same media takes financial regulators seriously when they say they can find no evidence of financial crime. They spot Gary Gensler, Chairman of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, on BBC News seemingly incapable of understanding that Libor rigging is ‘fraud’ and not merely a ‘fiction’ as he suggests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69wAW01wb-A
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:25am
Kea

The police are the proper authority to deal with law breakers. There is no need for extending police powers to a new branch of law enforcement.

There is no need for the police to have any view at all on drugs or what, how, why, we drink etc. They are paid by us to take out the garbage and nothing more. Increasingly they misuse their position and attempt to socially engineer society. A very clear message needs to be sent to the control freaks in the police, that their only reason to exist is to serve the public. The public are not their to serve the law.

Our police need to be put in their place. Society is not answerable to the police and the police view on any issue is of less relevance than that of the plumbers and drain layers union. Cops are appallingly bad judges of character and invariably misread situations. In their dim little minds, the world is divided up between “good guys” & “bad guys”. None of this needs to be an issue, as they are not paid to think. It only becomes a problem when the authoritarians in the police misuse public money to lobby for more power and control. The police are out of control in this country and need to be sent a clear message about what their job is and is not.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:27am
Fletch

They didn’t have sex education in those days but still managed to discover sex.

I bet they weren’t having babies at age 12 and 13 though.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:28am
krazykiwi

nasska, I suggest you broaden your source of observations – if you dare. In my four plus decades of Christian faith I have never witness the things you so rightly identify as despicable.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:30am
Griff

Nasska this is the result of allowing to much power in the hands of the freedom loving and moral catholic faith.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2013/0226/1224330517803.html
The sheer scale of the Irish system of institutional incarceration is breathtaking. Eoin O’Sullivan and Ian O’Donnell, in their recent book, Coercive Confinement in Ireland, show that the State locked up one in every 100 of its citizens in Magdalene laundries, industrial schools, mental hospitals or “mother and baby” homes.

At any given time between 1926 and 1951, there were about 31,000 people in these institutions – only a small fraction of whom had committed any crime. The 1 per cent figure also applied to children – one child in every hundred was enslaved in an industrial school.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:30am
nasska

graham

I have followed previous comments you have made on the subject & have even praised you in the past for letting your issue make up their own minds. From my observation it is rare to find Christians who rely on leading by example rather than forcing the crap down juvenile throats.

You will however, note that I was commenting on a general problem rather than your treatment of your family.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:32am
Andrei

From my observation it is rare to find Christians who rely on leading by example rather than forcing the crap down juvenile throats.

What is sex ed if it isn’t the secular forcing their crap down the throats of other peoples children?
2 3
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:34am
Griff

Get wasted and get laid more

She said the strong link between the number of sex partners and substance disorders stayed even after taking into account pre-existing mental disorders and substance problems.

The researchers said an explanation for the results could be that sex, drugs, and alcohol were part of a cluster of “risk-taking behaviours” that developed in adolescence.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:38am
nasska

Griff

I was reading about that a week or so back. At the rate the atrocities are being uncovered the Church of Rome are doing a better job of sinking themselves than we could ever do.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:39am
cha

I bet they weren’t having babies at age 12 and 13 though.

You do know that Suzanne Aubert spent most of her early years caring for unwed teenage mothers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:40am
nasska

Andrei

I’m a bit out of date on the current practice but don’t the schools require parents to approve of a kids attendance at sex ed. classes?

If so no one is forcing their crap down the throats of your children.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:44am
krazykiwi

Andrei – Brainwashing is what conservatives do when they raise a child to believe something other than the progressive/liberal world view. In contrast, forceably installing this world view is right, just and happening too slowly
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:45am
Fletch

2) Human (largely female) nature. Girl falls for boy & becomes pregnant deliberately, either as a gesture of love or to force the young guy into a commitment. He takes off & the resultant pregnancy is “unwanted”. Note that this is not exactly a new trend but since the demise of shotgun weddings it has added to the DPB burden & probably abortion statistics as well.

Yes, it’s human nature, but it’s also the culture that tells young people that having sex out of marriage is perfectly fine; that it’s a human impulse that shouldn’t be stopped, because if you want to do something you should do it. So we give them condoms, the Pill, and the choice to abort because, heaven knows, young people are like animals who have no self control.

Therein lies the problem, and it all started (largely) with the Free Love culture in the 60s that told young people that the values and morals taught to them by their families were outmoded and were holding them back from what they wanted to do; that any impulse they had they should be free to do. One of the proponents of Free Love was Professor Herbert Marcuse who is connected with the Frankfurt School from which we get Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness as it is now called.

One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do you own thing.” And by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, “Do your own thing,” “If it feels good do it,” and “You never have to go to work.” By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, “Make love, not war.” Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines “liberating tolerance” as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left.

http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/

So that’s where it all comes from – this idea of freedom from sexual repression etc, comes from a cultural Marxist and Critical Theory. It all helped to destroy morals and get us to where we are today with our bed-hopping kids.
Of course, Hollywood TV and movies and the whole culture now promote the idea that if a boy and a girl like each other, the first thing they do is sleep together. How do you fight against a whole culture that is telling you this?

That is what youth face today – in movies, TV, music, even advertising.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:47am
Griff

That may be nasska but it will not stop the hypocrites demanding to be the holders of all moral authority.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:48am
graham

nasska at 11:24 am

What you describe is pretty sad. I’m not questioning that you have observed it, but at the same time I cannot reconcile it whatsoever to what I’ve seen in my four plus decades. The vast majority of Christians that I have known are – well, actually pretty normal people, with good solid family relationships, kids doing well at school.

Yes, I will admit, I have known some people who don’t – to my way of looking at it – live out their faith. Generally, these are people who have not grown up in the church but come to faith later in life.

For some reason we seem to move in different circles, nasska. Your experience is that generally religion = misery. I’m not questioning your experiences, but all I can say is that my experience is the complete opposite. The Christians that I know are generally – not always, but generally – pretty content people.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:49am
nasska

True Griff, yet it is becoming easier for people to see that the emperor has no clothes.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:51am
wreck1080

I see the farmers are asking for hand-outs now due to the weather.

If your business is not sustainable in times of differing weather then you don’t have a viable business. Why should taxpayers step in?
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 11:56am
Harriet

I can soon see the Conservatives speaking out about supporting those who are Married, as it is the largest and best welfare system in NZ for the next generation. It has also been for 6000yrs to humanity.

And the Conservatives will target the Party vote because 50% don’t want gay Marriage, or rather, what they have long been seeing – the consequences of 30yrs of Marriage breakdown and the ‘progressive’ welfare bill!

Those voters want large scale changes at a personal level!

Those in National and Labour who are well down on the party list have just been put on notice!

Thanks very much for NOT supporting Marriage! 😎
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 12:06pm
Fletch

Just had a look at The Select Committee Report on what they’d change in the same sex marriage laws. Seems a lot of mention of the words “husband” and “wife” going by the board –

Schedule 2 s 7
Consequential amendments
Part 1
Consequential amendments to other Acts
Adoption Act 1955 (1955 No 93) 5
In section 2, definition of adoptive parent, replace “a husband and
wife” with “a married couple”.
In section 2, definition of adoptive parent, replace “the husband and
wife” with “the spouses”.
In section 7(2)(b), replace “a husband or a wife” with “spouse”. 10
In section 16(2)(a), replace “husband” with “spouse”.
In section 16(2)(i), replace “husband” with “spouse”.
Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act
1995 (1995 No 16)
Repeal section 30(2). 15
In section 55(1)(a)(ii), replace “the husband, the wife” with “each
spouse”.
In section 55(2)(a), replace “the husband and wife” with “each
spouse”.
In section 55(2)(a)(ii), replace “the husband, the wife,” with “each 20
spouse”.
In section 55(3)(a)(ii), replace “the husband, the wife” with “each
spouse”.
In section 83(2), delete “30(2),”.
Child Support Act 1991 (1991 No 142) 25
In section 47(3)(a), replace “husband and wife” with “married couple”.
Crimes Act 1961 (1961 No 43)
In section 24(3), replace “husband” with “spouse”.
In section 366(2), replace “his wife or her husband” with “his or her 30
husband or wife”.
5

Family Proceedings Act 1980 (1980 No 94)
In section 2, definition of child of the marriage, replace paragraph
(a) with:
“(a) in relation to a marriage (other than a void marriage)—
“(i) means a child of both spouses together; and 5
“(ii) includes, in relation to any proceedings under
this Act, a child (whether or not a child of either
spouse) who was a member of the family of the
spouses at the time when they ceased to live together
or at the time immediately preceding the 10
institution of the proceedings, whichever first occurred;
and”.
In section 24(1)(a), replace “husband and the wife” with “married
couple”.
In section 24(1)(a), replace “husband and wife” with “a married cou- 15
ple”.
In section 24(2), replace “the husband or wife” with “either spouse”.
In section 64A(4), replace “the husband and wife” with “the spouses
or partners”.
In section 94, replace “husband and the wife” with “married couple”. 20
Joint Family Homes Act 1964 (1964 No 45)
In section 2, definition of husband and wife, after “this Act”, insert
“; and every reference in this Act to a husband and wife must be taken
to include any 2 people (of any sex) who are married”.
Judicature Act 1908 (1908 No 89) 25
In Schedule 2, rule 6.4(1)(a), replace “husband and wife” with “a
married couple”.
Land Transfer Act 1952 (1952 No 52)
In section 89E(g), after “husband and wife”, insert “(as defined in
that Act)”. 30
Maori Vested Lands Administration Act 1954 (1954 No 60)
In section 30(2), replace “husband and wife” with “spouses”.

Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (1976 No 166)
In section 1C(2), replace “marriage between the husband and wife or
the civil union between the civil union partners or the de facto relationship
between the de facto partners” with “marriage, civil union,
or de facto relationship”. 5
In section 1G, replace “a husband and wife or civil union partners or
de facto partners” with “spouses, civil union partners, and de facto
partners”.
In section 1K, replace “a husband and wife” with “spouses”.
In section 1M(b), replace “husband and wife” with “both spouses”. 10
In section 2A(2), replace “a husband and wife” with “2 people”.
In section 2A(2)(a), replace “as husband and wife” with “as a married
couple”.
In section 2B, replace “the husband (A) and the wife (B)” with “the
2 spouses (A and B)”. 15
In section 2BA(a), replace “the husband and the wife” with “the
spouses”.
Replace section 2E(1)(a) with:
“(a) in relation to a marriage or civil union, a marriage or
civil union in which the spouses or partners have lived 20
together in the marriage or civil union—
“(i) for a period of less than 3 years; or
“(ii) for a period of 3 years or longer, if the court, having
regard to all the circumstances of the marriage
or civil union, considers it just to treat the 25
marriage or civil union as a relationship of short
duration:”.
Repeal section 2E(1)(ab).
In section 2E(2), delete “, (ab)(i),”.
In section 2E(2), replace “husband and wife” with “a married cou- 30
ple”.
In section 4(3)(b), replace “husband and wife” with “spouses”.
In section 8(1)(c), replace “husband and the wife” with “married couple

In section 9(4)(a), replace “husband and wife” with “a married couple”.
In section 21(1), replace “A husband and wife” with “Spouses”.
In section 21A(1), replace “A husband and wife” with “Spouses”.
In section 25(2)(a)(i), replace “husband and wife” with “spouses”. 5
In section 52A(3), replace “husband and wife” with “a married couple”.
Social Security Act 1964 (1964 No 136)
In section 63(b), replace “husband and wife any man and woman”
with “married any 2 people”. 10
In section 151(1), replace “husband and wife” with “married”.
Status of Children Act 1969 (1969 No 18)
In section 14(1), definition of partner, replace “husband” with
“spouse” in each place.
Summary Proceedings Act 1957 (1957 No 87) 15
In section 67(5), replace “his wife or her husband” with “his or her
husband or wife”.
Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 (1993 No 4)
In section 296(3), replace “husband and wife” with “married couple”.
Part 2 20
Consequential amendments to regulations
Land Act Regulations 1949 (SR 1949/37)
In regulation 5, replace “wife or widow” with “spouse or surviving
spouse”.

http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/3955C9B8-9FCF-4EF8-B39B-6B4BE630B0D7/264032/DBSCH_SCR_5764_MarriageDefinitionofMarriageAmendme.pdf

So, it’s likely your husband won’t be your “husband” any more or your wife your “wife”. It’s amazing they haven’t made it carbon unit 1 and carbon unit 2
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 12:10pm
Viking2

70 blogs by lunchtime, most of them related to religion and sex.

what is it with you lot. I guess that makes a change from sex, religion, booze and Global warming.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 12:11pm
Fletch

V2, because these are the things that will affect out whole culture.
We’ve probably done more discussing of the subject on this forum that the select committee has; the lawmakers look like they’re just going to ram it through based on their own agenda.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 12:16pm
Viking2

No they won’t. won’t make any difference. Nothing new here and at the end of all this crap we should remember that those being ardently attacked are people as well.
People with feelings and maybe people who are different but people/ taxpayers just like the rest of us. That bigoted religious nuts will attack other human beings that otherwise cause no one any harm says more about those bigots than about those being attacked.
But then religions are noted for bigotry.
3 3
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 12:21pm
Viking2

The Supreme Court will today deliver its decision on the Maori Council’s bid to block the sale of Mighty River Power at 3pm.

The Maori Council bypassed the Court of Appeal and took its case directly to the Supreme Court after losing in the High Court in December last year.

It argued that the sale of Mighty River Power and other power companies before issues around what ownership rights Maori may have over freshwater and geothermal resources was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi.

this will fill the news at afternoon tea time.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 12:22pm
Harriet

“….the lawmakers look like they’re just going to ram it through based on their own agenda….”

Those low down on Nationals’ and Labours’ party list will reap what they have sown – a problem for those who reside in their Marriages – less income!

Oh the irony! 😎
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 12:25pm
Komata

FWIW:

If the 1200 RNZ National news is to be believed, a US Court has declared captain Watson and his merry mates on the Sea Shepherd vessels to be pirates. Therefore, as the Japanese Navy has an armed icebreaker in the vicinity of merchant ships operating under that country’s flag, one can but hope that some target practice will now be in order in defence of Japanese vessels under attck by pirates.

Any bets that the NZ MSM will get ll horribly hysterical when an anti-piracy patrol ‘enforces’ its authority?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 12:25pm
Pauleastbay

Heard Annette King on ZB with Hosking this morning, she sounded like an old lady completely out of touch – nice one Dave
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 12:30pm
graham

Definition of a bigot from dictionary.com: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Soo, someone is utterly intolerant of Christians, simply because of their beliefs … is a bigot.

.
.
.

Carry on.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 12:35pm
Andrei

But then religions are noted for bigotry.

Oh ye of small mind that in itself is a bigoted statment
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 12:35pm
graham

I’m not too fond of Wikipedia, as a rule, but their definition of a bigot is somewhat more expanded.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.

So-o-o, we see that someone who treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of their religion – is a bigot.

Sorry for the interruption, carry on.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 12:38pm
hinamanu

Dave Hodges – Activist Post

Veterans are now receiving letters from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) which are telling them that they have been deemed, without a mental status examination, to have a physical or mental condition due to their combat experience, which has rendered them to be ineligible to possess a firearm. Further, under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2), if the veteran possesses, receives, attempts to purchase, or purchases and transports a firearm they may be fined and/or imprisoned.

On December 31, 2012, when he thought nobody would be looking, President Obama signed the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Pursuant to Obama’s implementation of a police state, thousands of veterans are receiving letters from the government declaring them to be mentally infirm. The sole basis for many of these determinations which are purporting to be diagnosing mental incompetence is solely based upon the fact that the veteran has seen combat. Further, if the veteran has been wounded or suffered a traumatic brain injury, they are considered to be potentially violent, mentally infirm and, therefore, ineligible to own a gun.

See more at: http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/vets-are-last-line-of-defense-against.html#sthash.NODfqb7W.dpuf
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 12:50pm
nasska

Well, at least I’m in the clear:

Hatred………..No
Contempt…….No
Intolerance…..No

Rather a sense of pity that otherwise intelligent people are prepared to waste their short time in this world by banging on about the next & using their delusions to dictate the actions of others.
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 12:53pm
Weihana

Fletch (3,954) Says:
February 27th, 2013 at 12:16 pm

V2, because these are the things that will affect out whole culture…

Religion and sex don’t affect our culture, they ARE culture. In my view what you miss is that these political debates have little impact on the culture. By the time these debates crop up it is because the culture has already changed and it changes due to circumstances that are ubiquitous and uncontrollable. Since the industrial revolution society has been changing and the change is continually accelerating.

Traditional cultural norms tend to evolve based on the circumstances a society is faced with. If a woman and her baby are helpless on their own then it is natural for a standard to evolve that creates some obligation on the father to stick around and look after that child and mother. But as society gets wealthier, as woman are given free reign to live their own lives as they see fit, the standards change because the underlying circumstances which originally justified those standards has also changed. Those standards may not change entirely, but subtle shifts in focus over time can lead to quite significant changes in the long term. Whereas marriage once represented the union of two families, due to urbanization and increasing separation from extended family this has become more of a formality than a true integration. Whereas marriage was once a vital social construct to protect the family unit, increasing prosperity, increasing economic opportunities for women etc. mean it isn’t necessary. People proclaim that marriage is about “procreation” and is a vital social construct failing to realize that many of the original underpinnings of that construct no longer exist or have changed significantly.

If you think society has changed too much already you haven’t seen anything yet. Come back in twenty to thirty years when biotech means homosexuals can breed with each other, or when nanotech means people can be as promiscuous as they want without fear of infection or disease, or when people start to interface their bodies with more and more technology not only to fix defects but to expand their capabilities. The moral dilemmas of today will seem like the “good old days” by comparison and I’m sure people will be longing for a return to the good old 2010’s just as many today long for the good old 1950s.
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 12:53pm
Pete George

Fletch:

So, it’s likely your husband won’t be your “husband” any more or your wife your “wife”. It’s amazing they haven’t made it carbon unit 1 and carbon unit 2

If you are married you can call yourself and your spouse whatever you like, I don’t see how that will change.

But CU2 Fletch has quite a ring to it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 12:54pm
graham

nasska: Really? You’re not contemptuous or intolerant of Christians? I apologise, I’ve misjudged you from your posts. Just goes to show, you can’t judge people based on their online persona (who woulda thunk).

Anyway, glad your conscience is clear. So is mine.

Wonder about everybody else?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 1:03pm
Fletch

Nothing new here and at the end of all this crap we should remember that those being ardently attacked are people as well.
People with feelings and maybe people who are different but people/ taxpayers just like the rest of us. That bigoted religious nuts will attack other human beings that otherwise cause no one any harm says more about those bigots than about those being attacked.

Who is attacking whom? I’m certainly not attacking anyone; I’m standing up for an institution which is dedicated to the birth and raising of children. If it’s anyone being attacked, it is those who disagree with gay marriage, being called bigots, homophobes, haters, intolerant and discriminatory.

So I don’t support gay marriage; so what? Neither do many gays; are they bigoted too?

Why should an institution like marriage be redefined for such a minority of 1% – 2%? And since not all gay people agree with or want gay marriage it is probably even less than that.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 1:03pm
Andrei

No Pete George – official docements will carry the newspeak – for example a childs passport in Spain now has the terms Progenitor1 and Progenitor2 in place of the venerable Father and Mother and the reason for this monstrosity is that the passport is a document that can tell lies about the origin of its holder most grotesequely for the poor buggers conceived in a petrie dish in a third world country to satiate the vanities of first world exploiters who desire to pretend that they have formed a “two daddy” family.
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 1:07pm
cha

# hinamanu, would it be so hard to check the veracity of the ridiculous shit you post.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, Public Law 103-159 (The Brady Act), prohibits the sale of firearms to certain individuals, including beneficiaries the VA determines are incompetent. In compliance with this act, VA reports the names of incompetent beneficiaries to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), which then adds the names to a database called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Gun dealers must check NICS for the name of a potential buyer before selling him/her a firearm.

source.

And this from 2007:

The FBI has obtained 138,766 disqualifying mental health records from the Veterans Administration and one such record from the Department of Defense, all of which are entered into the Mental Defective file. The following is a list of States that submit mental health information directly to the Mental Defective File. The totals represent the number of records submitted as of April 30, 2007…

source
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 1:08pm
Weihana

Fletch (3,955) Says:
February 27th, 2013 at 1:03 pm

So I don’t support gay marriage; so what? Neither do many gays; are they bigoted too?

…and if a black person supports segregation does that mean segregation is not racist?

While I think it is possible to construct an argument against gay marriage that is not bigoted, the reality is that arguments against it are generally based on prejudice and the belief that homosexuality is evil/sinful/wrong. These sorts of arguments are bigoted in my view.

Every time you use statistics as an argument against homosexuality or gay marriage (which you often do) you are judging individuals not on their own merits but against the prejudice that exists with regards to their group which in principle is no different to judging Maori by the proportion of them that are in prison.
2 5
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 1:29pm
hinamanu

Killing the Dollar: G20 & IMF Push for Global Fed, Global Currency

While headline stories about averting the dangers of an international “currency war” dominated news coverage of the recently concluded G20 meeting in Moscow, the real unreported story is that the global gathering of central bankers and finance ministers is pushing forward with their plan for “supersizing” the International Monetary Fund. The end goal is to transform the IMF into a global Federal Reserve, with the ability to flood the world with huge new volumes of loans and currency. It would also wield vast financial regulatory powers.

The IMF’s unit of account, or “currency,” known as a Special Drawing Right (SDR), is being readied for eventual adoption as the replacement for the U.S. dollar in international transactions, to lead the way toward eventual adoption of the SDR or some other designated unit as the global currency, much in the same way that the euro was foisted upon the people of Europe as a replacement of their national currencies.

The mainstream media seem intent on keeping the public fixated on the latest Kardashian frolics, sportsmania, and Democrat-Republican political mudwrestling, while coverage of the G7, G20, and IMF confabs that are determining the economic fate of the world receive short shrift. And the little reporting of these events that does leak out usually amounts to little more than regurgitation of the pre-scripted talking points of the conference principals. Over the past four years, The New American has published numerous articles detailing the radical plans currently underway for the total destruction of the dollar and the plans for supersizing the IMF into a global Fed.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/economics/item/14579-killing-the-dollar-g20-imf-push-for-global-fed-global-currency
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 1:41pm
hinamanu

“hinamanu, would it be so hard to check the veracity of the ridiculous shit you post.”

Time will tell.

How I remember the EEC scoffers
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 1:43pm
hinamanu

“I see the farmers are asking for hand-outs now due to the weather. ”

The very ones who complain about bludgers but support Beehive troughers
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 1:45pm
Pete George

Whale Oil has posted:

Green Party co-leader Dr Russel Norman said today that Solid Energy’s troubles were “the best possible result under the circumstances.”

“As a Green Party, we’ve been trying to put an end to mining, and especially coal mining for as long as we’ve been in existence.”

“Coal is one of the most polluting energy sources in use, so to have it become uneconomical to extract is really a gift for not just the Greens, but all the peoples and tamariki of Aotearoa”.

Asked about the loss of jobs on the West Coast, Dr. Norman said: ”There is no job crisis on the West Coast. Only an Imagination Crisis. They are sitting on some of the most unspoiled parts of the country, and it is time they start thinking sustainable eco tourism, organic farming and revitalising the Arts such as sculpture, painting and poetry.”

Dr. Norman said he’d like to congratulate the Government for a job well done, and challenged John Key to continue economic policies that would result in other planet destroying industries, such as dairy farming, to fail also.

http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/02/russell-norman-overjoyed-at-solid-energy-failure/

The tags confirm the obvious but hey, a green future in sculpture, painting and poetry sounds good.
2 5
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 1:53pm
hinamanu

Homeland Security Chief Threatens Terror Attacks

Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano issued veiled threats, claiming that automatic budget cuts, known as sequestration, could trigger new terror attacks by reducing operations funds and delaying processing times ahead of March 1, when cuts begin.

The Secretary further warned that “the U.S. Border Patrol will be forced to furlough agents, costing nearly a quarter of the workforce,” while the White Housethreatened that illegal immigrants could flood the borders as a result (as they hypocritically mull a costly amnesty).

The intent of Napolitano’s speech to intimidate budget cuts with the threat of new attacks was clear, despite her claims to the contrary.

“I’m not here to scare people; I’m here to inform and let people begin to plan,” Napolitano stated. “I don’t think we can maintain the same level of security at all places around the country with sequester compared to without sequester.”

In a statement warning against cuts, Napolitano rattled off a laundry list of agencies that she claimed would be affected by sequestration, including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Customs & Border Protection, along with a vast array of other “security” functions the bloated agency oversees. As Adan Salazar noted, many Americans are in favor of cutting funds to the TSA, or eliminating the inept and unconstitutional agency altogether.

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/homeland-security-chief-threatens-terror-attacks-w-video/
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 1:54pm
hinamanu

“The tags confirm the obvious but hey, a green future in sculpture, painting and poetry sounds good.”

No one goes to the West Coast to buy art
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 1:56pm
graham

Weihana at 1:29 pm –

While I think it is possible to construct an argument against gay marriage that is not bigoted, the reality is that arguments against it are generally based on prejudice and the belief that homosexuality is evil/sinful/wrong. These sorts of arguments are bigoted in my view.

Some things, Weihana, are evil and just plain wrong. Please note that I am not necessarily saying that homosexuality per se is evil or wrong. But there are some things that are evil. And there are some things that are wrong. I do not agree with your view that believing in the concept of “xyz” being evil or wrong is necessarily bigoted. It can be – but it does not necessarily have to be.
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 1:58pm
hinamanu

40% of Americans Now Make Less Than 1968 Minimum Wage

You may have seen charts like the one to the right from the Economic Policy Institute, showing how working people’s wages stopped going up along with productivity gains.

Economist Dean Baker describes one effect of this in Minimum Wage: Who Decided Workers Should Fall Behind?

The minimum wage would be $16.50 an hour — $33,000 a year — if it had kept up with the growth of productivity since 1968. To put the effect of this a different way, 40 percent of Americans now make less than the 1968 minimum wage, had the minimum wage kept pace with productivity gains.

To put this even another way, the average American’s living standard would be much, much higher today if wages had not decoupled from productivity gains – with the gains all going to the 1 percent instead of being shared by workers. If wages had kept pace we wouldn’t feel the terrible squeeze that everyone in the middle class is feeling.

This is one more way to understand the effect of income and wealth inequality on each of us. The 1 percent versus 99 percent thing is real. When you hear that the 6 Walmart heirs have more wealth than a third of all Americans combined, it is real. When you hear that the people on the Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined, it is real.

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/depression-40-of-americans-now-make-less-than-1968-minimum-wage/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 2:00pm
Pete George

RadioLIVE Newsroom ‏@LIVENewsDesk
BREAKING: RadioLIVE understands a person has been killed in a shark attack at Muriwai Beach

There are tragic deaths every day but this news seems especially chilling.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
February 27, 2013 2:08pm

More comments:

1
2
›

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« The racist George Galloway

The Backbencher »

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

More lawlessness from National
No Right Turn
Shock & Surprise: Lawyers oppose removal of lawyers' gravy train
Not PC
Trumping the Electric Vehicle Mandate
Utopia
Seymour’s bill split the House – but (as is shown by the 68-54 vote after an ill-tempered debate) not “down the middle”
Point of Order
Thankfully we said nope to dope
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Daily review 15/11/2024
The Standard
MEDIAWATCH: Willie Jackson’s fiery speech that had Gallery cheering
The Daily Blog
Government only partially adheres to Waitangi Tribunal order, as tensions heat up
No Minister
Sowell says
Hompaddock
A NEW DEGREE COURSE FOR MASSEY
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
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
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
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