.. for United Future`s opposition for the Civil Union Bill ?
what a crock of shit. We don`t need people like this to tell us that something is or isn`t love.
-- (from scoop.co.nz) --
"This misguided piece of legislation is pure social engineering and the ultimate in political correctness," Mr Dunne told the Maxim Institute conference.
"And what's more, this Parliament has no mandate from New Zealanders - I repeat, no mandate - to push through a Bill that is an out and out attack on the values of mainstream New Zealand."
-----
the civil unions bill has my approval, and as a straight, white, middle class NZer I guess I`m just the mainstream dunne would like to refer to. May his God help him if I see him in the street.
(and I`d like my apostrophe key back)
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Technorati
Mark Cubey's best call ever was ...
Mark Cubey's best call ever was describing United Future as the bland leading the blind. :)
To be fair, both the bill and the ad are trying to prescribe what's love and what isn't, because both are arguing about what kinds of relationships are to be sanctioned by law.
>To be fair, both the bill and the ad ...
>To be fair, both the bill and the ad are trying to prescribe what's love and what isn't, because both are >arguing about what kinds of relationships are to be sanctioned by law.
yeah jet, you can`t believe how stuck I got on on the wording of what I said.. I`m trying to say we don`t need people with Dunne`s view excluding a group they really cannot speak on behalf of - the bill, by including everyone, seems far more democratic.
// this Parliament has no mandate from ...
// this Parliament has no mandate from New Zealanders
This line always makes me laugh (although Dunne's by no means the only person guilty of using it). Each MP has been legally elected by their constituents, giving them a mandate. In our system that means they vote as they see fit until their mandate comes up for renewal at the next election. We could adopt a more referenda based system like switzerland, but until then, our Parliament has the mandated ability to create statutes as they see fit. This whole argument could be levelled at almost every piece of legislation that has been passed in New Zealand -- Parliament either has a mandate to pass laws or it doesn't, and well, it does.
heheheh, nice point ! .. me & my young ...
heheheh, nice point ! .. me & my young lady thought his choice of the word `Mandate` was rather ironic. maybe he`s just frustrated that he can`t go on man-dates of his own.
Dunne's ad is outrageously ...
Dunne's ad is outrageously stupid.
This freak should not be allowed in parliament. Someone should draw up a bill keeping freakshows like his party away from the "serious' business of politics
I'm ashamed to say that I'm from the ...
I'm ashamed to say that I'm from the Belmont electorate that has kept him in parliament for however long (although of course I've never voted for him). It's apparently the richest electorate in the country (although that's more the Johnsonville part than the Belmont part) ... proof positive that income and intelligence don't go hand in hand.
United's been pretty low in the polls though hasn't it? Hopefully he will be back to his useless waste of taxpayers money one seat next time round ...
peter dunne is a crock of shit ...
peter dunne is a crock of shit anyway.
lets see now: he wants to tighten up the anti-marijuana laws but hes all for easing retrictions on tobacco and booze, yes thats right, Mr. Dunne, the 20 a day abuser of those durrys, he is the one who opposes the smoke-ban in bars, wants less restrictions on booze laws yet wants to hurl stoners into the gulags with a 'zero-tolorance' system - PETER DUMBASS YOUR A DANM HYPOCRITE.
Don't you want to tighten alcohol and ...
Don't you want to tighten alcohol and tobacco laws and relax the marijuana laws?
Peter Dunne is so in touch with the ...
Peter Dunne is so in touch with the average NZer. I think its a great idea to tighten the marijuanna laws and encourage even more police time and money go into policing a drug that causes less trouble in a year than alcohol does during the saturday nights of any given rugby season. I mean should that time & resources be spent elsewhere, say on curing NZ of the hideously out of control P epidemic, then there is no telling what kind of social revolutions might take place (which scares the christian ideals out of me). As for the silly smoking in bars law, right on Peter! There is nothing I love more as a non smoker than feeling like I smoked a pack of malboros after a night out or waking up with the smell of a hundred other peoples dirty habits oozing out of my pores (spoken like a true ex smoker)
Point is Peters a fucking joke as is just about anything he says.
u where joking wherent u t-bar???...
u where joking wherent u t-bar???
If you think Peter Dunne and his ...
If you think Peter Dunne and his backwards ideoas are scary, check this out:
[ external link ]
GAH! It's contagious! Tamakiosis is ...
GAH! It's contagious! Tamakiosis is spreading! ..or is that Waltonitis?
Bloody hell, cult of personality....
Bloody hell, cult of personality.
"THE FAMILY VISION" "The family is ...
"THE FAMILY VISION"
"The family is defined as a legally married husband (Man born a male) and wife (Woman born a female) - and their children (and/or legally adopted children) - a family built on unconditional love, commitment, honour, acceptance and support."
Mmmmmm... These guys seem a little bit out of touch, huh? The last part is all well and good I guess, if slightly hippocritical... accept and support, rrrrrriight... It was scary watching the tv polls in the states as Bush said no to Gay Marriages... I think one station reported something like 72% of those surveyed thought San Fransico had made a mistake (allowing gay marriages). Similar polling in UK, most surveyed voting against.
peter dunnes clearly too whacked outta ...
peter dunnes clearly too whacked outta his head on whiskey, ludes and nicotine to even know what reality is....hes a fucktard loser.
I totally agree with just about every ...
I totally agree with just about every conservative family value expressed on that site..
i thought gary shandling made a good ...
i thought gary shandling made a good call when he said something along the lines of:
if they want gay people to stop having sex, the best thing the conservatives can do is legalise same sex marriages...
personally i think the rise or apparent rise in homosexuality is a genetic reaction to the world impending or current overpopulation, i'm aware other creatures have homosexual tendancies but it never seems as prevalent as in human beings right now...
not being much of a scientist, maybe you can shed some light on it rdor?
..cause I'm the only one here right ...
..cause I'm the only one here right now..
//personally i think the rise or apparent rise in homosexuality is a genetic reaction to the world impending or current overpopulation//
Nah that would require group selection, which doesn't exist apparently.
Simple answer is probably that homosexuality is a preference rather than orientation, and one that more and more people are now free to take part in.
ok, fair enough, so your saying ...
ok, fair enough,
so your saying mutations only occur at an individual level
and then are combined with other individuals' mutations
rather than group mutation?
makes sense, kind of like suicide statistics
no, good genetic mutation acts to ...
no, good genetic mutation acts to benefit the idividual and his or her reproductive success only. Mutations that benefit the group, (ie homo sapiens) are overidden by the individuals own need to be as reproductively successful as possible
There is obviously no gentetic advatage to being gay and having no children.
//During the 1960's and 70's most ...
//During the 1960's and 70's most biologists rejected group selection as an important evolutionary force but a positive literature began to grow during the 70's and is rapidly expanding today.
//We show that the rejection of group selection was based on a misplaced emphasis on genes as "replicators" which is in fact irrelevant to the question of whether groups can be like individuals in their functional organization.
//Michael Wade carried out an experiment in the spirit of Wynne-Edwards. He raised Tribolium, flour beetles, under conditions of high density and under conditions of low density. He raised lots of groups and selected those groups that maintained high output under each of the conditions. He also had some controls in which individual selection was the only force acting on the groups. In the long haul he was selecting for groups that maintained high output under conditions of density and were therefore self-limiting.
This differs from a classic artificial selection experiment in that one would choose those individuals in each group that performed the best in artificial selection. Mike picked entire groups to found the next generation and he replicated his groups to collect lots of data necessary to test group selection.
Over the long haul, he was successful in altering the "self-limiting capabilities" of the beetles and his lab experiments proved that group selection could alter the evolution of the species. But he was also careful to point out that there are very stringent conditions on the strength and efficacy of group selection. It helps to have small groups, rapid group generation time, and very strong group selection to overwhelm the force of natural selection.
so group selection could arguably be a way for a spieces to limit it self when faced with over, population, or lack of recources (arguably)
or am i missing a point?
//so group selection could arguably be ...
//so group selection could arguably be a way for a spieces to limit it self when faced with over, population, or lack of recources (arguably)//
our group does not meat the criteria then. A species does not limit itself, thats not suggested, only a small group in close contact with a resource limited environment.
Homo sapiens own regultation will most likley involve death not group selection, with those who have access to resources, ie us, being selected for. For the moment we've bypassed any natural limitation of the species anyway and it's debatable whether the world is near it's population limit.
excellent rdor! thanks for clearing ...
excellent rdor!
thanks for clearing that up.
thats not entirly correct, theres ...
thats not entirly correct, theres something I missed, some ireason why genetic mutation seems to only benefit the group incidentally. But I've got a headache. In theory ther is no reason for group selection not to work in a true group situation if it benefits every member sucess. The evidence hasn't been found for it yet.....
I'm talking out of the A hole...
as far as this gay marriage recognition ...
as far as this gay marriage recognition bill goes - clearly i support it. true im straight but what the hell is wrong with gay people anyway? They are our neighbours, friends, workmates, brodawgs, Suppressing Gay rights is clearly like South Africa Suppressing Blacks, Asians, Jews, and Anglo-South Africans Under Apartheid. Clearly im sure that during apartheid gays of all races where persecuted too???
as for Christians who oppose homosexuality - i think they are seriously fucked in the head, (im not anti-christian i hate just those fuckhead fundamentalists) wasnt it jesus who preached tolorance and love?? clearly these funda-MENTAL-ists give Christianity a bad name. God loves gay and lesbian people, but the world has seem to have listened to these airhead, zero-braincelled fundamentalists who promote bigotry, fear and repression around the world.
Gays are tolerated. //wasnt it jesus ...
Gays are tolerated.
//wasnt it jesus who preached tolorance and love?? clearly these funda-MENTAL-ists give Christianity a bad name. God loves gay and lesbian people//
yes and yes. But religiouse belief revolves around an abstract right and wrong. Tolerance does not mena acceptance. The bible condemns homosexual sex, not homosexuals, as morally wrong.