I saw a rally for the 'enough is enough' thing in Auckland on the weekend - hundreds and hundreds of people in (I think it was) Mission Bay. Appears to have a LOT of support.

But what the fuck?? It's a pretty extreme message, even as it claims to be representing middle New Zealand.

Eg (from www.enough.org.nz/vision.htm) "The breakdown of families is costing our nation dearly. In 1971, for every 100 children born, 21 entered a broken family. Today, 60 will enter a broken family. So why should we be surprised at the turmoil in our younger generation? Over 18,500 babies aborted in one year, STD’s spreading rapidly, the AIDS virus epidemic at its highest level ever, teenage alcoholics running rampant in our streets, child prostitution now the accepted norm and crimes of sexual violation and extreme violence being perpetrated by our young people..."

- the point being that preserving the institution of marriage (which began as a device for upholding proprety exchanges) will halt this wave of destruction. God it worries me that such people have the money to buy such support.

"If there has ever been a time to give the family and the institution of marriage priority at Government level it is NOW. Our children and grandchildren depend on it."

This could just as validly be used as an argument to support the civil union bill. Thanks Tess for the info.

//I bet they've even written an "Enough is Enough" hymn

They probably would have, except the title was taken by the sensible sentencing trust for thier horrible horrible bland pop song (have you not heard this, or are you taking the piss). If anybody was even vaguely unconvinced at how bad an idea longer sentences are, then this song ought to be the ultimate proof.

who holds back the electric car?
who made steve guttenberg a star?
Destiny, destiny!

what about this one: "God likes a bit of the "un-natural" activities that men get up to!"

Obviously he draws the line somewhere - just past long hair, perhaps. Ugh I hate that whole trendy new-agey christian buzz

I dont think that the Civil Union bill demeans my marriage.
I also dont think it will pass into law, this is a reflection on what a believe to be the homophobic nature of many NZers, and regardless of the intent of the prospective statue it most clearly is a "Gay Rights", issue to the majority.
Its not a justifiable "human right" if you believe Homosexuality is a choice.
Regardless of the Biology vs Evrioment debate it would be conceviable of a tolerant and inclusive society to enshrine into law the same property, health, children statues to all, regardless of the sexual orientation, Rdor? If not ,some articulation on why you feel that way would be tops.
I like some of what Minister Tamaki says, particulary about the legal poision Alcohol, I just wish he would direct his not inconsiderable resoruces at ensureing that the Far Right dont get a vote from his flock at the next election.
As I would imagine this would be what Jesus would like.

The value of marriage lies in the conotations that it implies, not it's legal status. But civil unions basically provide the same legal status to defacto couples as those who have made a public statement of life long commitment - in other words it gives the rights of marriage to those who havn't chosen to be married?!? I don't know (and I don't think anyone knows) what a civil union actually will mean outside of it's legal status, I mean will ther be any widespread expectation that it will be monogomous? Intended at least to be lifelong? and yet people who chose this vaque formal recognition will be treated the same as people who have intended a lifelong monogomous realtionship.
Under the moniker of a civil union I can imagine all many types of realtioinships now being equivalent ot marriage - long time friends who want to be next of kin etc.

As for gays next of kin can be arranged through a lawyer, so big deal if they don't get a certificate, I'm sure there are many churches willing to prostitute their values and give them a ceremony anyway...
The bad part of me thinks that most homosexuals interstested in civil unions/gay marriage aren't intersted in monogamy - that their relationships are inherently open - instead they want to gradually remove monogamy as an expected norm in all formally recognised relationsips, an artifact of opressive straight culture or whatever....

Oh, come on rdor, you're reaching. For starters, the original point of civil unions was to legally recognise two people that have made a long-term monogamous commitment to each other, but for one reason or another cannot be married. What's your definition of monogamous anyway? Given the availability of birth control and safe sex procedures, could you consider restricting sexual congress to one other person to be another arbitrary restriction?

Moreover, you start by saying that the value of marriage does not lie in its legal ramifications; if that's true then isn't it beside the point whether or not de facto couples are afforded the same legal rights?

//The bad part of me thinks that most homosexuals interstested in civil unions/gay marriage aren't intersted in monogamy - that their relationships are inherently open - instead they want to gradually remove monogamy as an expected norm in all formally recognised relationsips, an artifact of opressive straight culture or whatever....

...and that must be the single most absurd and *completely obnoxious* statement you've ever made. "The bad part of you" thinks that the introduction of civil unions is some kind of conspiracy propogated by rampantly promiscuous gays to destroy the family unit??? At one end of this fiction you've completely overlooked that the original argument came about because of homosexual couples that wanted their monogamous commitment to each other recognised, and at the opposite end of the spectrum, have you never heard of affairs, open marriages or marriages of convenience??

// The bad part of me thinks that most homosexuals interstested in civil unions/gay marriage aren't
intersted in monogamy - that their relationships are inherently open

Intriguing. What have the gay people you've talked to about it said?

Im always pleased to see Rope.
Unusual for you and Rdor too be brothers in arms though.
Dont worry, its not a gay thing.

Oops, Heather raised my last point in her post, sorry. Not that rdor responded to it.

rdor, nowhere have I heard the slightest indication that civil unions would be used for anything other than people who wish to make a monogamous commitment to each other. The text of the bill refers to "formalising a relationship where a couple cannot or chooses not to be married". To enter into a civil union, people must follow the same restrictions as for those entering into marriage, except for the restriction on gender - they must not already be married or in a civil union, they must be outside the prohibited degree of affinity, must be over 20, or with their guardian's permission over 16. Other than the gender issue, there is no way that mainstream opinion (which seems to be your primary reference for determining the value of marriage) will judge civil unions with anything other than the same rules applied to marriages.

//Open marriages - they are weird and everyone thinks so.

That's exactly my point. What I'm reading in your posts is that you believe that gays are inherently rash and irresponsible, so they shouldn't be trusted with the same rights and responsibilities of more civilised married couples. You're prepared to ignore a huge number of people that have made a lasting commitment to one other person, just because "the new system might be abused". The institution of marriage is already abused by conservative god-fearing types every single day. People get married for all sorts of different reasons, often it's not for love.

I'm not saying let's just add to the abuse, just that you're being horribly inconsistent, and judging by the astounding generalisations you've made, this time around it seems to be entirely driven by bigotry.

//What I'm reading in your posts is that you believe that gays are inherently rash and irresponsible, so they shouldn't be trusted with the same rights and responsibilities of more civilised married couples//

like some crass bastard said in Craccum this week, if a fatal disease isn't enough to force monogamy then it's hard to see how some token of recognition will

What good will it bring?

Well you only get AIDS from putting your penis in another man's bum, right? And those dirty gay people have a five bumhole a week quota to fill, and the only possible reason that they want civil unions is because it makes the "cheating" so much more fun.

Hey rdor, how's the weather back in 1954?

//kill the HIV and AIDS drug

what i was meant to say was "kill the HIV and AIDS Viruses"

Welcome Mr Tamaki. I've gotta admit I wasn't expecting you to show but I have to say respect is due for entering the debate. Cause of that I'm carefully moderating what I say.
What is said on this page sums up how a lot of people feel on the topic. You may have noticed a lot of it is in direct contravention to your stance. Convince me that I am wrong in thinking gay people deserve the same rights and priveledges as straight people. Also same question as rdor earlier Mr Tamaki, what if you had a child come out wouldn't you want them to have as normal a life as possible ergardless of which sex they preferred?

[ http://www.ishtar.co.nz ]

//people who chose this vaque formal recognition will be treated the same as people who have intended a lifelong monogomous realtionship.

the thing is that a civil union isn't a modern newfangled idea. it's been around for centuries - read a social history book about the middle ages and you'll find a huge number of people would get their de facto relationship recognised by the state as a common law 'marriage'. originally because marriage was all about tying two rich families' property together, and the common law union was just about two people getting together. i thoroughly recommend the books "A History of Her Own" which follows a few women, families and other case studies through history and shows through town and church records what was happening ot them. amazing stuff - pretty much like reading the diary of someone from 890 CE.

plus it is about celebrating monogamy ... i can't work out why people don't get that. but anyway, all that's been said above, and said well.

At last rdor I can see where you are coming from. The 'me first' post war society is a great danger. Since the fourties we've become more isolated from our communities, far more obsessed with our possessions and status and less interested in the wellbeing of others. We buy into lies of 'you can be anything you want' and 'if you buy product x you will be the guy/ girl in the ad'. Maybe these are the costs of personal freedom or maybe they are the effects of a drastic and voilent change of power from old world Europe to the USA. Personally I see consumerism and a dumbing-down trend in society as the big enemies.
It'd be nice to be idealistic about things and I think to a degree someone has to but it is also worthwhile to take a pragmatic approach sometimes ask 'what if I can't change the things I hate, how do I live with them?' We are not masters of our own destiny even if we like to think we are. Shit happens, death and taxes are always inevitable and the asshole with the speed camera always wins appeals.
Ask if people finding someone just like them is the problem with modern marriage. Personally I would like to hook up with a fellow 147 IQ so I could have intellectual conversations. I would like to find a muso so I could always have someone to make noise with, but I don't want someone similarly egotistical, neurotic or generally unmotivated when it comes to doing unenjoyable things. Maybe what we're all looking for is someone not necessarily like us but complimentary to us. Maybe the ruin of the world is in getting rid of matchmakers.
Whatever the case people fall in love and people fall out of love. It is beyond our control and until people are willing to look at things from as many sides as possible it will never change. I don't think green- lighting civil unions will change that in the slightest, for better or worse

Haha, nice knee-jerk rdor. Here you are saying you read what she wrote properly.

Any belief system is airy-fairy. theyr all just virtual grids that help us navigate reality - like Tron. whats the ploint ?? I just don't see the distinction bewteen allowing gay marriage an alowing other 'devuiances' like bigamy. Dont get me werong I'm pro the CUB but it seems the argument is what type/strength deviations frpm conventional morality are we going to allow as part of mainstream/legal acceptance? not, what is ok an what is not in an absolute sense?

we have free speech why not free 'marriage' - long as it doesnt hurt anyone I can't formulate an argument against the notion tho i dont support it myslf.. although I gues the argume t is that the children will be hurt. hmmm how to prove? This is where i struggle with my occasional libertarianism becaus i find so many of societal limitation hypocritical but i still oppose bigamy etc. BUT not gay marriage as such

hmm what a vague post. Mr carlton cold aiint helping. Im drinking aus beers til the AB s win again.

jimi, congratulations on the tron reference, anyone who can work a tron reference into this argument deserves an extra helping of soup. But People, with crime at it's highest, immigration problems at their worst, how can the government justify devoting even one scrap of tax funded A4 to this shitty little issue, when people are getting down trouwed and grusomely sodomised by the worst criminal acts our country has ever seen,
all you justifyers out there,
show us this majority of monogomous homosexuals- i know for a fact that mr barnett hasn't been mongomous all these years so what exactly are you supporting?
i'm no homophobe, in fact i don't give a flying fuck about this bill, i've met a few gay folks and they're not what i'd classify as strictly monogomous although i'm sure some are,
irrelevant.
none of this is the issue
the government should be making this country a safer place to live, and most of you folk are supporting them altering some crap piece of legislation that isn't going to improve anyone's lives, isn't going to help the kids, isn't going to give you more money to live on, isn't going to give you a better education, isn't going to reduce the interest on your student loan, and isn't going to make one little bit of difference to the intolerable conditions many new zealanders are now living in.
rdor is right
the family has fallen to pieces, and this civil union's bill, whether you're for or against is not going to solve the massive social problems that are so prevalant now.

rdor, civil unions aren't being pushed to try and rein in this horribly irresponsible and rampantly promiscuous gay population. I've been living in a community of straight, and I have to say, rampantly promiscuous musos for the last couple of years and none of them are running out and getting married just because they can. The few that *have* gotten married are doing it because they're not interested in being rampantly promiscuous. The straight friends that have moved in with their current partners, who have no intention of getting married, at least not right now, are doing it because they're not interested in being rampantly promiscuous. Well geez, perhaps that's because they're straight, so regardless of how rampantly promiscuous they are at least they know what's decent, unlike these disgusting gay people...?

...and consider what rights civil unions are actually offering to gay couples - the right to allow that person full control over your assets when you die? The right to raise another person's children in the best manner you see fit, if something terrible happens to them? The right to allow another person to raise your children? The right to be responsible for a decision that may mean the difference between life or death? The right to determine the most fitting funeral for them?

The gay couples that are lobbying for this law change want it because they see taking the responsibility for the most important things in another person's life as a privilege; recognition of how much this one other person means to them above everyone else. Your definitive gays, revelling in the third pit of hell, aren't going to run out and get civilly united just because they can. Why would they? It's like iluvtheclean mentioned earlier - it's not undermining monogamy, it's celebrating it.

...and consider what rights civil unions are actually offering to gay couples - the right to allow that person full control over your assets when you die? The right to raise another person's children in the best manner you see fit, if something terrible happens to them? The right to allow another person to raise your children? The right to be responsible for a decision that may mean the difference between life or death? The right to determine the most fitting funeral for them?//

some of that can be arranged through a lawyer, some of it can't. Personally I think anyone should be able to be legally bound to another in this way.