Up Front by Emma Hart

Read Post

Up Front: Choice, Bro

179 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 8 Newer→ Last

  • Sacha, in reply to Russell Brown,

    that couch should be contra #starringrole

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19680 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to Phil fryer,

    I don’t really know -why folk would wanna marry,

    Until I met my husband I thought it was pointless, and then after I met him the reason for doing it wasn't the law, or changing my name (because my name remained the same), or anything like that. It was the Standing Up and Saying It in Front of People part, which I thought was going to be profoundly silly, but actually turned out to be really moving for both of us (even if we were in a Las Vegas wedding chapel and the guy performing the service was wearing a blue suit and looked like a televangelist). Rites of passage, and all that.

    (Disclaimer: YMMV. Not the same deal for everyone. But everyone should have the option if they want it. Etc.)

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    I doubt decency is Banks' motivator. It's more likely to be votes. Very few cuttaxosauruses would stop voting ACT because they supported gay marriage, but quite a lot of gay people would.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10633 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to BenWilson,

    I doubt decency is Banks’ motivator. It’s more likely to be votes.

    At this point in time Louisa needs his vote no matter the motivation. I am sufficiently happy he is voting in support. Until this bill passes through all readings in the house successfully, it isn't certain. It would be in the interest of the bill if everyone gobsmacked by Banks actually sent the man an email congratulating him for his support. Encouragement is still needed after today. Today is only the first vote to select committee and anything can (and has in the past) happen in select committee hearings. I'm going to email him now.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    Has anyone guessed at the timing of today's debate, I'd love to listen in. I've got the Order Paper showing its order relative to the other Member's Bills, but can't quite work out the time for Government orders </lazy>

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart, in reply to Paul Williams,

    Has anyone guessed at the timing of today's debate

    Yeah, depends on how other debates go. Parliament today is saying debate between nine and ten? Kevin Hague said in Twitter before he was expecting a vote about half nine.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4650 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    Thanks Emma, much appreciated. Also, I particularly liked this part of your piece.

    Thing is, Colin, even if there were no genetic factors involved in sexual orientation, even if all the factors involved were environmental and our desires are shaped by our childhood experiences and hormone exposure and the amount of tolerance in our lives, by the time we get to marriageable age, it doesn't matter. Whether it was my genes or my three older brothers or my liberal upbringing, my orientation is set. I cannot choose who or what arouses me.

    I don't think it diminishes the legitimacy of a person's sexual orientation/activity if there are also exogenous factors.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Paul Williams,

    I don't think it diminishes the legitimacy of a person's sexual orientation/activity if there are also exogenous factors.

    Word, that leaped out at me from Emma's post also. I'd go further and say that even if it's entirely non-hereditary and changeable (I don't think this - this is an even if argument), there's still no excuse whatsoever to even attempt to force people to repress or change their sexuality. Even if there were a straightforward way of changing it, with a high success rate, it would be bad thing to do. In fact, it would almost be worse if that were the case.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10633 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart, in reply to BenWilson,

    Even if there were a straightforward way of changing it, with a high success rate, it would be bad thing to do.

    Whereas what they're currently using (lower on the emetics and electro-convulsive therapy than in the 80s) has a fairly low success rate and tends to make kids throw themselves off bridges.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4650 posts Report Reply

  • Tim Michie,

    Clearly if sexual attraction so selectable we should ban hetrosexual marriage with as the partners may change their sexuality at any time...

    Auckward • Since Nov 2006 • 614 posts Report Reply

  • JacksonP, in reply to Emma Hart,

    Whereas what they’re currently using (lower on the emetics and electro-convulsive therapy than in the 80s) has a fairly low success rate and tends to make kids throw themselves off bridges.

    Just stumbled on this Rainbow Labour Green Paper submission to the overall Green Paper for Vulnerable Children (with others in links).

    The fact that GLBT are three times more likely to be bullied at school and, heartbreakingly, five times more likely than their straight peers to commit suicide indicates that our communities need a push to foster equality and acceptance so that these young people can feel like they belong.

    Yep, my heart is broken.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2011 • 2448 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Paul Williams,

    I don’t think it diminishes the legitimacy of a person’s sexual orientation/activity if there are also exogenous factors.

    Here's the thing. It doesn't matter if it's genetic or environmental. It doesn't matter if it's fixed by age 16 or entirely mutable throughout someones life. It doesn't matter if it's someones choice.

    What matters is that it's wrong to decide someone elses orientation is wrong or let their orientation affect their civil rights.

    That Colin is wrong about being able to change orientation is irrelevant. Quite simply if he was right and it was a choice then it still wouldn't change the fact that any two adults (however you like to define that) should be able to marry if they so choose.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4450 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd, in reply to Paul Williams,

    I don’t think it diminishes the legitimacy of a person’s sexual orientation/activity if there are also exogenous factors.

    Exactly.

    People seem to mostly think the human rights issues are based on discrimination against factors one cannot help, like race or sex. But I think it's about freedom of conscience, and privacy. My *chosen* sexual behaviours, with certain public policy exceptions, are not the law's concern.

    Basing our case on the supposed immutability of same sex attraction means that our argument collapses if someone can show it's not immutable.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh,

    Oh dear. Now even China is reporting that ministers will be forced to marry gay couples. If you read Chinese and want to get angry or feed that ever growing despair for humanity, this incredibly shallow report referring to Stuff but otherwise devoid of facts will do it.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __, in reply to Stephen Judd,

    People seem to mostly think the human rights issues are based on discrimination against factors one cannot help, like race or sex.

    But also that certain skin colours, genders, sexualities etc. are better than others. Saying that the poor gay people can't help it assumes there's something wrong with being gay, and so gayness should be avoided if possible.

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3887 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd,

    Yeah "cannot change" would have been better wording on my part.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Emma Hart,

    Yeah, depends on how other debates go. Parliament today is saying debate between nine and ten? Kevin Hague said in Twitter before he was expecting a vote about half nine.

    The debate might start as early as 8pm, people are saying.

    On Twitter.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22747 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    MP Kevin Hague reckons even earlier

    Heads up everyone - think the debate will start before 8. Come as soon as you can!

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19680 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    And an update

    8.05 start 9.12 vote current best guess #marriageequality bill

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19680 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    Woo! 78 for, 40 against. Higher than any predictions I'd seen.

    I'm... going to finish getting drunk.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4650 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic,

    Reality-based karma has just run over the faith-based dogma.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5415 posts Report Reply

  • simon g,

    Very good news.

    I listened to about six speeches on the radio. John Hayes was the worst (ramble, ramble, "Labour's social reform agenda", ramble some more). The others were pretty reasonable, including Paul Hutchison, in favour.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1320 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    My god I love the internet. Here are the voting sheets. Thanks to dpf. Banks Dunne and Huo didn't vote.

    WAIT. Twitter is saying Upston just handed in proxies for Banks and Dunne voting in favour. Dunno why that took so long.

    That's 80. 80 For.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4650 posts Report Reply

  • Islander, in reply to Emma Hart,

    Hooray for the majority - far & away the majority - of MPs!

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 8 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.