Gay marriage and democracy

[Allistar]

The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.

The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not be up to
Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his business.
having a referundum make it his business, and that's just plain wrong on so
many levels.

The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill should
be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal relationships".
--
A.

[JohnO]

So there'd be no concept of marriage or civil union at all then?

[Geopelia]

"JohnO" <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7aab6f52-183f-4d32...@p8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

.............................

There needs to be some way of recognising a permanent partnership for life,
for the legal side of things.

But one is just as much married from a few minutes in a registry office as
from a huge elaborate wedding.

[Allistar]

Sure there would, it's just that the state wouldn't be able to regulate it.
It would be a personal thing between two (or more) people.
--
A.

[Allistar]

That can be achieved without the state regulating relationships as they
currently do.

> But one is just as much married from a few minutes in a registry office as
> from a huge elaborate wedding.

The point is that at the moment the state can prevent two people from
marrying. That's not right.
--
A.

[Fred]

If this nonsense is given legal status, how long will it be for new
names to evolve to reflect whether the 'marriage' is between homosexuals
or hetreosexuals? Very quickly I think.

[Allistar]

Fred wrote:

> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>
>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not be up
>> to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his
>> business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's just plain
>> wrong on so many levels.
>>
>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill
>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>> relationships".
>>
>
>
> If this nonsense is given legal status,

What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's business but the
couple getting married. Definitely not the state's business and definitely
not the business of other people via a referendum.

> how long will it be for new
> names to evolve to reflect whether the 'marriage' is between homosexuals
> or hetreosexuals? Very quickly I think.

--
A.

[Fred]

But that can happen now. None of the states business. The only
restriction is they can't legally claim the word 'marriage'. And neither
they should - any dictionary will tell them why.
>

[Fred]

On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
> Fred wrote:
>
>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>
>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not be up
>>> to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his
>>> business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's just plain
>>> wrong on so many levels.
>>>
>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill
>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>> relationships".
>>>
>>
>>
>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>
> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's business but the
> couple getting married. Definitely not the state's business and definitely
> not the business of other people via a referendum.

It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing together of
opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing common things together is
uniting.

[Allistar]

Fred wrote:

> On 1/08/2012 10:57 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>> JohnO wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 1, 9:07 am, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
>>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>>
>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not be
>>>> up to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his
>>>> business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's just
>>>> plain wrong on so many levels.
>>>>
>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill
>>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>>> relationships". --
>>>> A.
>>>
>>> So there'd be no concept of marriage or civil union at all then?
>>
>> Sure there would, it's just that the state wouldn't be able to regulate
>> it. It would be a personal thing between two (or more) people.
>
> But that can happen now.

No they can't. For example, bigamy is illegal. It shouldn't be.

> None of the states business. The only
> restriction is they can't legally claim the word 'marriage'. And neither
> they should - any dictionary will tell them why.

Yet the word "marriage" has other legal conotations. If you are "married"
then you have more rights than a couple who are not. It's not just about the
word, it's about the laws that apply to that word. There should be no
discrimination. The word "marriage" should appear in any laws. (Neither
should reference to gender or sexual orientation or ethnicity either).
--
A.

[-Newsman-]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:07:11 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

>The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
>Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.

And John Key is now a self-confirmed homosexualist.

>
>The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not be up to
>Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his business.
>having a referundum make it his business, and that's just plain wrong on so
>many levels.
>
>The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill should
>be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal relationships".

Including incest? If not, why not?

[JohnO]

Exactly. The civil union (and adoption) legislation needs to be sorted
out to ensure same sex relationships are treated equally. That has
nothing to do with the meaning of the word 'marriage'.

[Fred]

What's wrong with incest that any govt. needs to outlaw it?

[-Newsman-]

I understand it's a regular pasttime for all the family in parts of
Wairarapa and Southland.

[Fred]

Your point?

[-Newsman-]

That whatever is good for Wairarapa and Southland must surely be good
for the rest of New Zealand.

[Fred]

But is it good for Wairarapa or Southland? I doubt that it does any good
at all, or harm either.

[Allistar]

-Newsman- wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:07:11 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
>>Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>
> And John Key is now a self-confirmed homosexualist.

Or someone who values liberty.

>>The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not be up
>>to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his
>>business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's just plain
>>wrong on so many levels.
>>
>>The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>>liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill
>>should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>relationships".
>
> Including incest? If not, why not?

Consenting adults should be able to do what they like so long as no one else
is harmed in the process.
--
A.

[Allistar]

Many disagree. But tat's besides the point. It should be no business of the
state.

> especially man and woman. Bringing common things together is
> uniting.

Eh? Ununiting? So a rugby team is ununiting because all of ther players are
men?
--
A.

[Allistar]

Or better still: the government get out of the business of regulating
personal relationships. It's none of their business.
--
A.

[JohnO]

I think you are missing the point. If people want to have their own
non-government sanctioned "marriage" or whatever they wish to call it,
they are already free to do so.

The point is that a government sanctioned "marriage" has implications
to other government sanctioned issues such as adoption, allowances/
benefits etc.


> --
> A.

[Allistar]

The point is that the state discriminates as to who can enjoy the benefits
of marriage.

> The point is that a government sanctioned "marriage" has implications
> to other government sanctioned issues such as adoption, allowances/
> benefits etc.

Indeed - none of that stuff should exist - at the very least it sho
--
A.

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:07:11 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

The bill reduces the invovlement of the state in personal
relationships. It allows greater freedom for individuals to decide for
themselves how they wish to live their lives. It does not require
anyone to get married, but prohibits fewer people from makingthat
choise. I thought you wanted greater freedom of choice, Allistar.

[Allistar]

Rich...@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:07:11 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
>>Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>
>>The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not be up
>>to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his
>>business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's just plain
>>wrong on so many levels.
>>
>>The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>>liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill
>>should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>relationships".
>
> The bill reduces the invovlement of the state in personal
> relationships.

It doesn't remove it though.

> It allows greater freedom for individuals to decide for
> themselves how they wish to live their lives.

it doesn't go far enough.

> It does not require
> anyone to get married, but prohibits fewer people from makingthat
> choise. I thought you wanted greater freedom of choice, Allistar.

I do, which is why the state should not be involved at all.

It should not be up to a referendum either because one man should have no
say in the relationships another man wants to have.
--
A.

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 10:58:03 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

The bill reduces the circumstances where a marriage is prevented by
law. Why are you now in favour of that? It may not go as far as you
want, but surely it is at least in the direction you want.

[Fred]

That's it. I'm still pissed off they pinched the adjective 'gay'. They
need to be more inventive with their titles.

[Geopelia]

"JohnO" <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:30e739ea-a8a9-4903...@wc13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

Adoption is a different matter. They should be allowed to adopt the child of
one of the partners, of course.
Or if adoption is necessary when using a surrogate (is it?).

But giving them the baby of an unrelated woman should have the mother's
consent. The old days of just taking away a baby at birth may have been
thought best at the time, when the mothers had no rights and never knew
where the baby went. (There was supposed to be the right to choose the
child's religion, but that was often denied).

There are very few babies available for adoption now. Girls think they can
raise a baby on the DPB, not understanding the difficulties.
If the mother thinks her baby might go to a gay couple without her consent
there will probably be even fewer available.

It must legally be her free choice.

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

What sort of words did you have in mind? Words like wife and husband
may be used differently, and the term 'gay marriage' is already being
used (it may get less use of course).

Language evolves all the time - why should we be concerned?

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:00:58 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

>Fred wrote:
>
>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>
>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not be up
>>> to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his
>>> business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's just plain
>>> wrong on so many levels.
>>>
>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill
>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>> relationships".
>>>
>>
>>
>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>
>What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's business but the
>couple getting married.

Which is the intention of the bill - to enable more people to be free
to make that choice for themselves.

>Definitely not the state's business and definitely
>not the business of other people via a referendum.

Why do you want to restrict the state from increasing personal
freedoms, Allistar? I agree that this issue should not need a

[Allistar]

Rich...@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:00:58 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Fred wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
>>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>>
>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not be
>>>> up to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his
>>>> business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's just
>>>> plain wrong on so many levels.
>>>>
>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill
>>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>>> relationships".
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>
>>What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's business but
>>the couple getting married.
>
> Which is the intention of the bill - to enable more people to be free
> to make that choice for themselves.

But not all people. Sure, is loosens the state's grip on this, but it

doesn't go far enough.

>>Definitely not the state's business and definitely
>>not the business of other people via a referendum.
>
> Why do you want to restrict the state from increasing personal
> freedoms, Allistar?

I don't. I want the state to keep well away from regulating personal
relationships. That means they should drop all reference to marriage from
law books. There should be no state based wedding register. Currently people
have to get permission from the state to marry. They should not have to!

> I agree that this issue should not need a
> referendum.

The fact that the state still regulates things like personal relationships
show how far we have to go to become enlightened. And that will require
fewer laws, not more.

>>> how long will it be for new
>>> names to evolve to reflect whether the 'marriage' is between homosexuals
>>> or hetreosexuals? Very quickly I think.

--
A.

[Allistar]

My point is that there should be NO laws regarding marriage at all. None.
Things like bigamy should not be illegal.

> Why are you now in favour of that?

I do favour it, but it's not the ideal solution. The ideal is for the state
to mind its own business.

> It may not go as far as you
> want, but surely it is at least in the direction you want.

Indeed it is, and that's a good thing. It's great when policies move in the
"right" direction and not the "left" one.
--
A.

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between two
people with some common interests, and importantly a common love for
each other. Just because they may have different (or the same) colour,
religion, gener, sexual preference, preference for tea or coffee,
ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no difference. A marriage is a commitment
between two people to each other, with legal implications, freely
chosen by those two people. Some restrictions are reasonable (age,
common parents), but sexual preference is not a reasonable
restriction. You really do want "Daddu State" to tell you want to do,
don't you Fred.

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:07:34 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

There are quite a few married people who would like to each receive
the single persons level of NZ Super . . .

[Allistar]

There should be no NZ super either, but given there is, I'll bite:
Why should two individuals who are living together receive a different
amount of money than two individuals who are not living together? They have
each paid the same taxes, why not get the same return?

But as I said, this should not be an issue. People should save for their own
retirement and the state shouldn't get in the way of that. Currently it
does.
--
A.

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:06:58 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

If you were an MP, would you support this Bil as it is at least
providing greater freedom of individual choice, or reject it because
it does not go far enough?

Change does not always happen in hude leaps Allistar - it may take a
number of steps along a path, and we would find we are in quite a
different place than we were had we never taken that first step.

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

Who is "they"? You just implied that you accept a change of language -
nobody was forced to use words differently.

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:19:23 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Indeed - the Labour and Green Parties are likely to support the bill
(and similar bills giving greater opersonal freedoms) than the
authoritarian National, ACT, and parties - Labour and Green are in
this case 'right' as distinct from the other parties being 'wrong'.

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:35:13 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

This bill will of course slightly reduce payments to any same sex
couples who enter into a marriage who were previously both receiving
NZ Super. I guess that is another case of this bill being one you
would support.

[Allistar]

I would support it.

> Change does not always happen in hude leaps Allistar - it may take a
> number of steps along a path, and we would find we are in quite a
> different place than we were had we never taken that first step.

Indeed. The problem is we have such a long way to go. Luckily the path of
the current government has been in the right direction: towards more
personal liberties and less state intervention. It's not enough fp rme
though.
--
A.

[Allistar]

Er - Labour and Greens want less personal freedoms, not more. That is
evident in the Green policy to increase income tax and of recent policies of
limiting light bulb, show heads and enforcing dobule glazing.
--
A.

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:23:40 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>

>> Change does not always happen in huge leaps Allistar - it may take a

>> number of steps along a path, and we would find we are in quite a
>> different place than we were had we never taken that first step.
>
>Indeed. The problem is we have such a long way to go. Luckily the path of
>the current government has been in the right direction: towards more
>personal liberties and less state intervention.

Really? Can you give a couple of examples?

[Pooh]

<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kg8h189bc8s1qd5s8...@4ax.com...

Also quite few in defacto relationships and gay relationships who'd like it
Rich Pricks. Nobody in a relationship where they live together can. Funny
how your glorious Labor party never changed this. Is the Labor party
anti-relationships or something?

Pooh

[Pooh]

<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qv9h18tbggrmieof8...@4ax.com...

The bill won't do anything of the sort you moronic prat! Go have a look here
and learn something for once in your sorry life!

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/deskfile/nz_superannuation_and_veterans_pension_tables/new_zealand_superannuation_tables.htm

Pooh

[Pooh]

"Fred" <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jva6jh$ssm$1...@dont-email.me...

I always thought 'queer' pretty well summed it up. But this whole stupid
waste of parliaments time is no more than an exercise in semantics.

Pooh

[Pooh]

<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oq9h18ht6ba59e5kb...@4ax.com...

Bullshit!

Pooh

[Pooh]

<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u58h185tflenq603p...@4ax.com...

Can you try that again in english rather than 'gayspeak' please Rich Pricks?

Pooh

[Pooh]

"Fred" <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:jva24d$ada$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 1/08/2012 12:18 p.m., -Newsman- wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:59:41 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/08/2012 11:52 a.m., -Newsman- wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:34:06 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>>
>>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:21 a.m., -Newsman- wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:07:11 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>

>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy.
>>>>>>> Winston
>>>>>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> And John Key is now a self-confirmed homosexualist.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not
>>>>>>> be up to
>>>>>>> Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his
>>>>>>> business.
>>>>>>> having a referundum make it his business, and that's just plain
>>>>>>> wrong on so
>>>>>>> many levels.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>>>>>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The
>>>>>>> bill should
>>>>>>> be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>>>>>> relationships".
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Including incest? If not, why not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What's wrong with incest that any govt. needs to outlaw it?
>>>>
>>>> I understand it's a regular pasttime for all the family in parts of
>>>> Wairarapa and Southland.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your point?
>>
>> That whatever is good for Wairarapa and Southland must surely be good
>> for the rest of New Zealand.
>>
>
> But is it good for Wairarapa or Southland? I doubt that it does any good
> at all, or harm either.

It was also a regular pastime amongst the nobility in Britain. Has it done
any damage there?

Pooh

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:25:26 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>

In this case the major opposition to a bill that you have said you
would vote for is not in the Green Party or Labour. Do you agree that

"in this case 'right' as distinct from the other parties being

'wrong'."?

Both Labour and Green parties have a policy of increasing taxation for
the very wealthy. That is a practical response to the current
government cutting those taxes to a level that has forced them to
incerase government borrowing at a massive level - and the current
government have increased the percentage of our econokmy represented
by the government.

Do you have any evidence of "recent policies of
limiting light bulb, show heads and enforcing dobule glazing."?

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

Neither Labour or National have changed that long-standing policy -
but extending the option of marriage will have the effect of some
people receiving less. Is the National party anti-relationships or
something?

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

Two singles sharing get more money than a married couple.
How come you could not figure that out, Poo?

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

Do you think a greater proportion of National MPS will support the
bill than the Labour and Green Parties, Poo. I am sure that would be
welcomed, but I suspect it is very unlikely.

[Allistar]

Lower income tax.
Relying on market forces more than others would.
Decreasing government expenditure.
Partially selling state assets.

>>It's not enough fp rme
>>though.

--
A.

[Allistar]

Increasing personal freedoms and reducing government regulation is not a
waste of time. Reducing state enforced discrimination is not a waste of
time.
--
A.

[Allistar]

As far as I can tell there is no major opposition to this bill. We won't
know if there is until it passes the first reading.

> Both Labour and Green parties have a policy of increasing taxation for
> the very wealthy.

No they don't. The Greens want the top tax rate to be 39% from $80k and up.
Earning $80k a year or more does not make one "very wealthy".

Regardless, this is a policy which reduces personal liberties. It most
definitely doesn't increase them.

> That is a practical response to the current
> government cutting those taxes to a level that has forced them to
> incerase government borrowing at a massive level - and the current
> government have increased the percentage of our econokmy represented
> by the government.

Because of a recession. You cannot say that increasing taxation is
increasing personal liberties. That's like arguing that black is white.

> Do you have any evidence of "recent policies of
> limiting light bulb, show heads and enforcing dobule glazing."?

The Greens were going to reduce the maximum amount of water a shower head
can spit out. They were looking at limiting what light bulbs we can use.
Double glazing is now mandatory in new houses. All of those policies REDUCE
personal liberties, not increase them.
--
A.

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:35:19 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>

Offset by higher GST, and by higher borrowing

>Relying on market forces more than others would.

Indeed - that explains the huge subsidy to South Canterbury Finance
from their stupid extension of the guaranteee despite being told SCF
were not complying with their side of the contract. It explains
taxpayers picking up costs for polluters (mostly farmers) not brought
into the carbon cerdit scheme. It explains tenders for a conference
centre in Auckland being stopped for a special deal with John Key to
change the law to grant more pokie licenses. It explains the hundreds
of millions going to consultants and merchant bankers and brokers for
asset sales that leave New Zealand worse off (Treasury view - before
addingthe cost of bonus shares which do not apply to Kiwisaver
investments). It explains the gift to an American film company,
accompanied by a change to employment law, to mak a film that iwill
not generate anywhere near that amount of tax.

If "Crony capitalism" and misuse of government money is your
definition of market forces, then yes Nat/ACT are right into it.

>Decreasing government expenditure.
Do you have a cite for that? It was my understanding that as a
percentage of GDP, government expenditure has actually increased since
2008.

>Partially selling state assets.
How is that giving either more personal freedom or less state
intervention?

[Allistar]

Taxation is lower. This equates to a increase in personal liberies.

>>Relying on market forces more than others would.

> Indeed - that explains the huge subsidy to South Canterbury Finance
> from their stupid extension of the guaranteee despite being told SCF
> were not complying with their side of the contract. It explains
> taxpayers picking up costs for polluters (mostly farmers) not brought
> into the carbon cerdit scheme. It explains tenders for a conference
> centre in Auckland being stopped for a special deal with John Key to
> change the law to grant more pokie licenses. It explains the hundreds
> of millions going to consultants and merchant bankers and brokers for
> asset sales that leave New Zealand worse off (Treasury view - before
> addingthe cost of bonus shares which do not apply to Kiwisaver
> investments). It explains the gift to an American film company,
> accompanied by a change to employment law, to mak a film that iwill
> not generate anywhere near that amount of tax.
>
> If "Crony capitalism" and misuse of government money is your
> definition of market forces, then yes Nat/ACT are right into it.

No, they are not market forces. They are examples of socialism at work. I'm
talking about the opposite of socialism: freedom.

>>Decreasing government expenditure.

> Do you have a cite for that? It was my understanding that as a
> percentage of GDP, government expenditure has actually increased since
> 2008.

I didn't say "as a percentage of GDP". When I say "a decrease in
expedniture" I mean as an absolute dollar value.

>>Partially selling state assets.

> How is that giving either more personal freedom or less state
> intervention?

The state has no business owning such assets. Selling them reduces state
regulation and intervention in what should be a free market.

>>>>It's not enough fp rme
>>>>though.

--
A.

[Geopelia]

"Pooh" <pa...@bigots.lie> wrote in message
news:jvad9r$roe$1...@dont-email.me...

Years ago a gay woman was a lady of easy virtue.

Some older novels can seem a bit odd these days!

[Mutlley]

Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

>The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
>Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>
>The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not be up to
>Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his business.
>having a referundum make it his business, and that's just plain wrong on so
>many levels.
>
>The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill should
>be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal relationships".

I notice that labor has been agitating for a referendum for asset
sales but when Winnie suggested one over gay marriage they said it
wasn't needed as they could make the decision. So the National Gov
can't make a decision over asset sales but Labor can over gay
marriage..

[Geopelia]

"Fred" <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:jv9q0j$45p$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 1/08/2012 11:21 a.m., -Newsman- wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:07:11 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>

>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>

>> And John Key is now a self-confirmed homosexualist.
>>>

>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not be
>>> up to
>>> Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his business.
>>> having a referundum make it his business, and that's just plain wrong on
>>> so
>>> many levels.
>>>
>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill
>>> should
>>> be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal relationships".
>>

>> Including incest? If not, why not?
>>
>
> What's wrong with incest that any govt. needs to outlaw it?

The children of brother and sister incest may be damaged in some way by
inbreeding.
But can marriage be permitted without also allowing the possibility of
children?

Perhaps adoption laws need looking at. If one of the pair is an adopted
sibling, there is no genetic relationship.
But I remember a case years ago where marriage was forbidden on grounds that
adoption made the child the legal child of the adopting parents.

Parent and child incest is a different matter. Most people would feel that
is wrong.

First cousin marriage is permitted in some countries and forbidden in
others.

Uncle and niece, like Hitler and Geli? And wasn't there something odd about
Hitler's own ancestry?

In Britain a man can marry his dead wife's sister, since 1907. That was
forbidden years ago.
But unless the law has changed recently, a man cannot marry his divorced
wife's sister during the divorced wife's lifetime.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Matrimonial Causes
Act, 1857, it shall not be lawful for a man to marry the sister of his
divorced wife, or of his wife by whom he has been divorced, during the
lifetime of such wife.
(1907 Act)

(I wonder about a divorced husband's brother. Same law?)

I don't know if New Zealand law is more liberal in such matters though.

And will these incest laws also apply to gay couples, where children are not
a possibility?

I foresee all sorts of legal complications!

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 08:21:23 +1200, Mutlley <mutle...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
>
>>The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
>>Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>
>>The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not be up to
>>Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his business.
>>having a referundum make it his business, and that's just plain wrong on so
>>many levels.
>>
>>The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>>liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill should
>>be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal relationships".
>
>
>I notice that labor has been agitating for a referendum for asset
>sales

Where did you see that?

>but when Winnie suggested one over gay marriage they said it
>wasn't needed as they could make the decision. So the National Gov
>can't make a decision over asset sales but Labor can over gay
>marriage..

What are you talking about. No-one is stopping a petition - if you
want to organise one then all you have to do is ensure your questions
is clear and unbiassed (the process helps you with that), and start
collecting signatures.

That is what is happening with the petition against for the proposed
sales of assets.

What National are saying is that they see no need to wait and have
government pay for a referendum in association with the next election.
Why do you want the government to pay for a referendum that John Key
does not wish to have, Mutley? Labour are not in a position to affect
the government decision not to fund a referendum, but I suspect you
are correct that they would prefer to leave this one as a conscience
vote in parliament.

The National Governmetn can push legislation for asset sales through -
they already have (although they need further legislation to reduce
sales proceeds by giving away shares). The petition is an attempt to
force a referendum - so are you going to start a petition relating to
gay marriage, Mutley?

[-Newsman-]

None whatever.

More often than not bastard offspring of the nobility were either
smothered at birth or soon hived off to the servant class to be
nurtured as best they could, only finally to be shipped off to the
colonies as ballast.

Come to think of it, when did you last check your own lineage....?

[Fred]

Years ago a gay person was a bright and happy person.

[Fred]

Only those with a limited understanding of the English language, e.g.
products of our state school system, could possibly support this nonsense.

[Pooh]

<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qefh1850cgs0vtejc...@4ax.com...

I did. You claimed same sex couples would get reduced payments if they
married. They'd get the same amount as they're getting because it's classed
as defacto relationship which only a moronic prat like you wouldn't
understand.

Pooh

[Pooh]

<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p9fh18dnqujloq4l4...@4ax.com...

How the hell will that happen. Defacto relationships apply for different sex
and asme sex couples you dumb Rich Pricks.

Pooh

[Pooh]

<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4hfh18hrlp3k4lul5...@4ax.com...

What's that got to do with you spouting bullshit Rich Pricks?

Pooh

[Pooh]

"-Newsman-" <sla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5019f9f...@news.eternal-september.org...

That happened in recent history -Madman-. Prior to that they got knighthoods
according to most histories.

> Come to think of it, when did you last check your own lineage....?

Yup. All good. Have you checked yours lately -Madman-? After all isn't
insanity supposed to be a sign of inbreeding?

Pooh

[Fred]

On 1/08/2012 5:28 p.m., Rich...@hotmail.com wrote:

Welcomed by who (excluding those who don't understand English) ?

[Fred]

On 1/08/2012 3:28 p.m., Rich...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:07:34 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Fred wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/08/2012 10:57 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>> JohnO wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> On Aug 1, 9:07 am, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
>>>>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not be
>>>>>> up to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his
>>>>>> business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's just
>>>>>> plain wrong on so many levels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>>>>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill
>>>>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>>>>> relationships". --
>>>>>> A.
>>>>>
>>>>> So there'd be no concept of marriage or civil union at all then?
>>>>

>>>> Sure there would, it's just that the state wouldn't be able to regulate
>>>> it. It would be a personal thing between two (or more) people.
>>>
>>> But that can happen now.
>>
>> No they can't. For example, bigamy is illegal. It shouldn't be.
>>
>>> None of the states business. The only
>>> restriction is they can't legally claim the word 'marriage'. And neither
>>> they should - any dictionary will tell them why.
>>
>> Yet the word "marriage" has other legal conotations. If you are "married"
>> then you have more rights than a couple who are not. It's not just about the
>> word, it's about the laws that apply to that word. There should be no
>> discrimination. The word "marriage" should appear in any laws. (Neither
>> should reference to gender or sexual orientation or ethnicity either).
>
> There are quite a few married people who would like to each receive
> the single persons level of NZ Super . . .
>

They can. Just like unmarried couples, they will need separate dwellings
though.

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

What makes you think that any two blokes flatting together are
definitely a de facto couple, Poo?

[Geopelia]

"Fred" <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:jvhg56$lgi$1...@dont-email.me...

A married couple living together can use the same car, oven, washing
machine, vacuum, TV etc etc.
They say two can live as cheaply as one. Not true of course, but they can
live more cheaply together than maintaining two homes. And until recent
times wives and mothers didn't go out to work.

But these days both partners may have worked outside the home and paid taxes
all their working lives.
Is it right that they don't get the single super each?

Something for a government of the future to consider.

[Pooh]

<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r1jo18l38m0c41ihe...@4ax.com...

I'll type this slowly for you Rich Pricks because I know you have trouble
comprehending things people type quickly: I never mentioned two blokes
flatting together and I'm not surprised you'd try a red herring like this to
try and hide your embarasment when you realised your bullshit was just that.
You were talking about same sex couples getting married. Which is something
a lot different to two blokes flatting together.

Pooh

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

Of coure it is Poo. By the way, it is just the same for two women
flatting together and then getting married. If they are both over age
65, and have been receiving single person NZ Super payments, then on
marriage they will move to receiving a married couple payment. Tht is
lower than the payments to two single people. Understand now?

[Fred]

On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>> Fred wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
>>>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>>>
>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not be up
>>>>> to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his
>>>>> business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's just plain
>>>>> wrong on so many levels.
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>>>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill
>>>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>>>> relationships".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>
>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's business but the
>>> couple getting married. Definitely not the state's business and definitely
>>> not the business of other people via a referendum.
>>
>>
>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing together of
>> opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing common things together is
>> uniting.
>
> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between two
> people with some common interests, and importantly a common love for
> each other. Just because they may have different (or the same) colour,
> religion, gener, sexual preference, preference for tea or coffee,
> ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no difference. A marriage is a commitment
> between two people to each other, with legal implications, freely
> chosen by those two people. Some restrictions are reasonable (age,
> common parents), but sexual preference is not a reasonable
> restriction. You really do want "Daddu State" to tell you want to do,
> don't you Fred.


I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as the
State's role to redefine words.

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

People will use the words they want to describe different things,
Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling gay today, Fred?

[Fred]

They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it will not
take long for new terms to develop to distinguish between homo and hetro
'marriages' which is why i think it's silly to redefine the word.

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

So you think laws should be based on your use of a particular word?
Its further than "Daddy State" you are looking for - its Dictionary
State!

[Allistar]

Do you see it as the state's role to regulate relationships between
consenting sdults? Because that's exactly what they currently do.
--
A.

[Allistar]

The point is that in the state's eyes there should be no difference. It's
none of their business.
--
A.

[Pooh]

<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b1r18pasuj6rr1du...@4ax.com...

If your example happened they'd be done for fraud and have to repay the
overpayments Rich Pricks because both of your examples are defacto
relationships. Do-YOU-understand now?

Pooh

[Pooh]

<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vh7r181ppjv3267jh...@4ax.com...

It's Labor state Rich Pricks. Those queer pricks have been doing it for
years.

Pooh

[Fred]

i think marriage is understood by all but the very thick, to involve two
people, one male, one female. If we change that definition, will we also
extend marriage to a group of people who 'love' each other? Seems
logical to me that if we don't continue to hold with convention over
gender, then the number of participants should be open also. That is why
new terms will evolve to describe the various forms of marriage we are
likely to see in a decade or so.

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

You are of course entitled to your opinions Fred, but the proposed law
change does not go as far as regarding marriage as more than an
agreement between two people. If you want three or more to be able to
be married you would have to wait for another bill.

It is good that you are open minded about recognising the need for
change though.

[Fred]

You certainly have a comprehension problem. Of course there is no need
to change anything.

[Allistar]

Yes there is. The only change that needs to be made is to remove state
involvement from personal relationships. The state should not be involved.

Why must one get permission from the state to marry?
--
A.

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 11:25:53 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Who did you get permission from when you got married, Allistar?

[Allistar]

My wife (of course), her father (to keep him happy) and the Births, Deaths
and Marriages office. The first two are fair - the last is not. I shouldn't
have to ask the state for permission to marry someone.
--
A.

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:13:48 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

I doubt that Briths, Deaths and Marriages get invovled in making a
decision as to whether you can get married unless you are in a very
specific category (under age 16 for example)

There is a process (this is recognition of a relationship, with legal
implications, by the State - so some formality is expected. See:
http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Births-Deaths-and-Marriages-How-to-Get-a-Marriage-Licence?OpenDocument#five

It is hardly an onerous process, and in my view falls short of your
description as requiring permission.

Did you get permission to drive when you applied for a driving
license?


That's inteesting. I don;t think most people bother to get permission
from an office whose task is to record events.

[Allistar]

My point is that the state should not be involved at all. It should be none
of their business.

> http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Births-Deaths-and-

Marriages-How-to-Get-a-Marriage-Licence?OpenDocument#five
>
> It is hardly an onerous process, and in my view falls short of your
> description as requiring permission.

You have to apply to the state to get married. You should not have to.

> Did you get permission to drive when you applied for a driving
> license?
>
> That's inteesting. I don;t think most people bother to get permission
> from an office whose task is to record events.

You cannot get married without a marriage certificate. This needs
preapproval from a government department.

The law change that needs to be made is that the state should no longer have
an interest in personal relationships.
--
A.

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 20:10:05 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>

Change can only be made at the pace politicians can get support for.
You should be celebrating a small change in the direction you favour.
I getthe impressiont hat if you won $1000 in Lotto you would bitch and
moan that it wasn't the top prize . . .

[Allistar]

The proposed law change we are discussing is a great thing. I lament that it
is even needed in the first place.

> I getthe impressiont hat if you won $1000 in Lotto you would bitch and
> moan that it wasn't the top prize . . .

Hardly. I would bitch and moan that it would cover the cost of taxes I pay
for one week.
--
A.

[Pooh]

"Fred" <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:jvmqf9$alf$1...@dont-email.me...

More to the point will the local cat lady be able to marry one of the many
cats she loves???

Pooh

[Pooh]

"Fred" <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:jvmrlb$ich$1...@dont-email.me...

When's that ever stopped Labor and it's hanger ons?

Pooh

[Rich...@hotmail.com]

Sorry you will miss out this time Poo.

[Geopelia]

<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1efu18l30m51rgn8g...@4ax.com...

They need to check that you are not already married and that there is no
"just impediment", such as marrying a close relative.
The old idea of having the Banns read in church was to do that. People were
supposed to stand up and declare the objection, but I never heard anyone do
it. These days if they have the Banns read it is just a nice formality,
announcing the coming marriage.
I suppose if the girl is already pregnant to another man somebody might
declare it, but I think that is grounds for divorce if she is found out.

[Pooh]

<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r6av18duffn93j44t...@4ax.com...

WTF are you on about now you moronic gay marxist muppet.

Pooh