The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
Me too. I normally don't vote as I don't actually live in NZ and therefore don't think I should have a say in how the country is run. Would that all non-residents took my principled stand. However this year, given how important things are, I might make an exception.
That's not a quote.Eugenius wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:57 pm “Homosexuals” are now saying that they want to be treated the same as other people . In my view the sad fact is - and some might find this hard to take - they are not the same “.
Gerry Brownlee in his speech against marriage equality .
I know , let’s vote this man in as deputy PM !
The question is why one would want to recognise in law a group of people who have said for so long that they want to be recognised as different, but are now saying they want to be treated the same as other people. In my view, the sad fact is—although some will find this difficult to take—they are not the same. All the legal issues that might arise out of a commitment that two people of the same sex, in a relationship they choose, might make can be recognised and sorted out. I do not think taking the additional step of creating the option of a civil union, which to all intents and purposes is exactly the same as marriage, is acceptable. Marriage exists essentially for the protection of children, and, as I said at the start, this country is increasingly putting unacceptable pressures on children. Any measure that cheapens the environment that is best for children to grow up in shows very, very poor leadership. I will not be voting for this bill.
He comes out looking worse in your quote.deadduck wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:04 amThat's not a quote.Eugenius wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:57 pm “Homosexuals” are now saying that they want to be treated the same as other people . In my view the sad fact is - and some might find this hard to take - they are not the same “.
Gerry Brownlee in his speech against marriage equality .
I know , let’s vote this man in as deputy PM !
This is what he said
The question is why one would want to recognise in law a group of people who have said for so long that they want to be recognised as different, but are now saying they want to be treated the same as other people. In my view, the sad fact is—although some will find this difficult to take—they are not the same. All the legal issues that might arise out of a commitment that two people of the same sex, in a relationship they choose, might make can be recognised and sorted out. I do not think taking the additional step of creating the option of a civil union, which to all intents and purposes is exactly the same as marriage, is acceptable. Marriage exists essentially for the protection of children, and, as I said at the start, this country is increasingly putting unacceptable pressures on children. Any measure that cheapens the environment that is best for children to grow up in shows very, very poor leadership. I will not be voting for this bill.
deadduck wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:04 amThat's not a quote.Eugenius wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:57 pm “Homosexuals” are now saying that they want to be treated the same as other people . In my view the sad fact is - and some might find this hard to take - they are not the same “.
Gerry Brownlee in his speech against marriage equality .
I know , let’s vote this man in as deputy PM !
This is what he said
The question is why one would want to recognise in law a group of people who have said for so long that they want to be recognised as different, but are now saying they want to be treated the same as other people. In my view, the sad fact is—although some will find this difficult to take—they are not the same. All the legal issues that might arise out of a commitment that two people of the same sex, in a relationship they choose, might make can be recognised and sorted out. I do not think taking the additional step of creating the option of a civil union, which to all intents and purposes is exactly the same as marriage, is acceptable. Marriage exists essentially for the protection of children, and, as I said at the start, this country is increasingly putting unacceptable pressures on children. Any measure that cheapens the environment that is best for children to grow up in shows very, very poor leadership. I will not be voting for this bill.
How is Labour's Minister of Agriculture going?Eugenius wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:49 amdeadduck wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:04 amThat's not a quote.Eugenius wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:57 pm “Homosexuals” are now saying that they want to be treated the same as other people . In my view the sad fact is - and some might find this hard to take - they are not the same “.
Gerry Brownlee in his speech against marriage equality .
I know , let’s vote this man in as deputy PM !
This is what he said
The question is why one would want to recognise in law a group of people who have said for so long that they want to be recognised as different, but are now saying they want to be treated the same as other people. In my view, the sad fact is—although some will find this difficult to take—they are not the same. All the legal issues that might arise out of a commitment that two people of the same sex, in a relationship they choose, might make can be recognised and sorted out. I do not think taking the additional step of creating the option of a civil union, which to all intents and purposes is exactly the same as marriage, is acceptable. Marriage exists essentially for the protection of children, and, as I said at the start, this country is increasingly putting unacceptable pressures on children. Any measure that cheapens the environment that is best for children to grow up in shows very, very poor leadership. I will not be voting for this bill.
That’s even worse !!!
Labour leader Phil Goff says list MP Damien O'Connor will be told to apologise to caucus for saying the party's list selection is run by "self-serving unionists and a gaggle of gays".
The party was the target of a bitter broadside from O'Connor, who opted not to go on the list and instead compete again in November for the West Coast-Tasman seat he lost at the last election.
If you say so. The point is its obviously a different message to your fake quote that you were using to smear him. This is only the third paragraph of his speech, the speech startsEugenius wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:49 amdeadduck wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:04 amThat's not a quote.Eugenius wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:57 pm “Homosexuals” are now saying that they want to be treated the same as other people . In my view the sad fact is - and some might find this hard to take - they are not the same “.
Gerry Brownlee in his speech against marriage equality .
I know , let’s vote this man in as deputy PM !
This is what he said
The question is why one would want to recognise in law a group of people who have said for so long that they want to be recognised as different, but are now saying they want to be treated the same as other people. In my view, the sad fact is—although some will find this difficult to take—they are not the same. All the legal issues that might arise out of a commitment that two people of the same sex, in a relationship they choose, might make can be recognised and sorted out. I do not think taking the additional step of creating the option of a civil union, which to all intents and purposes is exactly the same as marriage, is acceptable. Marriage exists essentially for the protection of children, and, as I said at the start, this country is increasingly putting unacceptable pressures on children. Any measure that cheapens the environment that is best for children to grow up in shows very, very poor leadership. I will not be voting for this bill.
That’s even worse !!!
If you're going to try and use people's words against them at least have the decency to use something they actually said.If this is “moderate and conservative” legislation, why has the Government not brought out the whip, showed the strength of its leadership conviction, and required all its members to vote for the Civil Union Bill? It has not done that because this is an issue that New Zealanders should be speaking on in a much wider forum than just this Parliament. If this bill does progress today, it will be by a very slim majority. I ask the Government’s subsequent speakers to explain why they have called this issue a conscience issue, while trying to promote this bill as being progressive, moderate, conservative legislation from the Labour Government.
Having said that, when I consider the position of various gay couples whom I am familiar with or know of, I have to ask myself why we would want to deny those people the right to make a commitment to one another in a legal sense. That causes the mind to range over all sorts of things, but it also causes us to ask what the general state of society today is. Members have just come through a question time where a Minister had to explain how two children in particular came to be so brutally treated by the people whom they were in the care of. I cannot help wondering whether those sorts of terrible situations are occurring with such regular occurrence in our society today partly because we have not done the work to protect families, to value families, and above all to value children. I do not think this bill does much to improve that situation.
I want to send a message—as I have previously—to that brave band of bishops in this country who are willing to storm Parliament, and particularly the Opposition, on all sorts of secular matters, but on this essentially moral issue are silent as a group. I think that if they want to leave it to politicians alone, the result will be one they are not too happy with.. .
UncleFB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:33 amHe comes out looking worse in your quote.deadduck wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:04 amThat's not a quote.Eugenius wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:57 pm “Homosexuals” are now saying that they want to be treated the same as other people . In my view the sad fact is - and some might find this hard to take - they are not the same “.
Gerry Brownlee in his speech against marriage equality .
I know , let’s vote this man in as deputy PM !
This is what he said
The question is why one would want to recognise in law a group of people who have said for so long that they want to be recognised as different, but are now saying they want to be treated the same as other people. In my view, the sad fact is—although some will find this difficult to take—they are not the same. All the legal issues that might arise out of a commitment that two people of the same sex, in a relationship they choose, might make can be recognised and sorted out. I do not think taking the additional step of creating the option of a civil union, which to all intents and purposes is exactly the same as marriage, is acceptable. Marriage exists essentially for the protection of children, and, as I said at the start, this country is increasingly putting unacceptable pressures on children. Any measure that cheapens the environment that is best for children to grow up in shows very, very poor leadership. I will not be voting for this bill.
But credit to him for changing his views by the time of the vote.
No.deadduck wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:06 amUncleFB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:33 amHe comes out looking worse in your quote.deadduck wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:04 amThat's not a quote.Eugenius wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:57 pm “Homosexuals” are now saying that they want to be treated the same as other people . In my view the sad fact is - and some might find this hard to take - they are not the same “.
Gerry Brownlee in his speech against marriage equality .
I know , let’s vote this man in as deputy PM !
This is what he said
The question is why one would want to recognise in law a group of people who have said for so long that they want to be recognised as different, but are now saying they want to be treated the same as other people. In my view, the sad fact is—although some will find this difficult to take—they are not the same. All the legal issues that might arise out of a commitment that two people of the same sex, in a relationship they choose, might make can be recognised and sorted out. I do not think taking the additional step of creating the option of a civil union, which to all intents and purposes is exactly the same as marriage, is acceptable. Marriage exists essentially for the protection of children, and, as I said at the start, this country is increasingly putting unacceptable pressures on children. Any measure that cheapens the environment that is best for children to grow up in shows very, very poor leadership. I will not be voting for this bill.
But credit to him for changing his views by the time of the vote.
Does the fact he's actually debating the first reading of the 2004 civil unions bill and not the 2012 marriage equality bill change your perspective?
I am stuck in between a bit of a rock and a hard place with mine. Electorate wise.Fat Old Git wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 8:49 pm He's my electorate MP and I've never voted for him. And that isn't about to change.
As I said on NPR, regarding some comparisons between Labour at the last Election and National at this one with both parties experiencing some turmoil in the lead up. Labour got rid of some of their baggage and brought in someone relatively new and fresh. National has brought back their baggage putting two of their most controversial members in charge.
Sir John Key showers Judith Collins with praise, says she's campaigning 'really really well'
Given how much Labour have wheeled out Helen to try to pass the weed referendum and her girlfriend to try to fix the mess their party is in your comments are a bit throwing stones in glass housesMuttonbirds wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:57 pm Surge-on has been wheeled out again in an attempt at damage control.
Sir John Key showers Judith Collins with praise, says she's campaigning 'really really well'
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... -well.html
Jong Kee needs to STFU, as does Aunty Helen. Has beens, both of them.Muttonbirds wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:57 pm Surge-on has been wheeled out again in an attempt at damage control.
Sir John Key showers Judith Collins with praise, says she's campaigning 'really really well'
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... -well.html