I believe in gay marriage

[husaberg]

Surely you are not that naive?

Boy Scouts of America to allow gay youth

America home of the Free....

Well the Gun control liberal anyway. must say i never knew the Mormon were tied up, but it is the states afterall

[husaberg]

The failure rates of males in the education system ... is more to do with what said males preferences to what their time and energies were to be spent on. Criminal activities probably do feature.

I see it more as the tailoring of the whole education system to suit the females (which were previously prejudiced against) it is just it has now gone to far, and no one has the ball to fix it.

[Katman]

I see it more as the tailoring of the whole education system to suit the females (which were previously prejudiced against) it is just it has now gone to far, and no one has the ball to fix it.

Back in 1976 my Form 1 year was the first to have sewing and cooking as compulsory subjects for boys and woodwork and metalwork compulsory for girls. From memory it was a big deal back then.

I suppose I've had a number of years to get used to the whole gender melting pot idea.

[husaberg]

Back in 1976 my Form 1 year was the first to have sewing and cooking as compulsory subjects for boys and woodwork and metalwork compulsory for girls. From memory it was a big deal back then.

I suppose I've had a number of years to get used to the whole gender melting pot idea.

Have a look at the disparity between male and female achievement at school and figure out why.
Better still so a silly of the cuff remark. But try to be witty this time.

[Katman]

Better still so a silly of the cuff remark. But try to be witty this time.

I probably would - if I could figure out what the fuck you're trying to say.

[husaberg]

I probably would - if I could figure out what the fuck you're trying to say.

Sorry your cognitive skills are your issue not mine. Perhaps if you took the time to read the posts rather than just react based on a preconceived notion of what you think they say or mean. Your last one about your home ec was a classic case in point.

The failure rates of males in the education system ... is more to do with what said males preferences to what their time and energies were to be spent on. Criminal activities probably do feature.

I see it more as the tailoring of the whole education system to suit the females (which were previously prejudiced against) it is just it has now gone to far, and no one has the ball to fix it.

Back in 1976 my Form 1 year was the first to have sewing and cooking as compulsory subjects for boys and woodwork and metalwork compulsory for girls. From memory it was a big deal back then.

I suppose I've had a number of years to get used to the whole gender melting pot idea.

[Katman]

Sorry your cognitive skills are your issue not mine.

As is your intolerance.

[bogan]

I think his point was you've derailed the discussion by clutching at straws that are of no relevance, instead of debating the intelligent responses you pick out the snide or sarcastic ones. Which certainly makes it seem like you can't effectively back own position in the debate.

[husaberg]

I think his point was you've derailed the discussion by clutching at straws that are of no relevance, instead of debating the intelligent responses you pick out the snide or sarcastic ones. Which certainly makes it seem like you can't effectively back own position in the debate.

No his point is to ignore any point that doesn't suit him, snide or sarcastic i don't agree. i have made far far less sarcastic remarks katman has.
Everytime i have stated my opinion it have been attacked as ignorant or intolerant. Which is rather ironic

I don't know how many times i have had to post a quote again after a twisting of a word (not by you) to suit a If you don't agree you must therefor be a bigot agenda.

This law does not have the widespread support of the people that people like to imply it has. If anyone like me says they don't agree, In classic tradition of politically correct minority then they must be a bigot. I guess half of New Zealand ill-informed Must be bigots but which half is it?

At the end of the day the point is Moot the law has been passed but not yet enacted. There was no vote by the people of New Zealand on the mater .Half of which don't agree with you either.

[Katman]

No his point is to ignore any point that doesn't suit him, snide or sarcastic i don't agree. i have made far far less sarcastic remarks katman has.
Everytime i have stated my opinion it have been attacked as ignorant or intolerant. Which is rather ironic

I don't know how many times i have had to post a quote again after a twisting of a word (not by you) to suit a If you don't agree you must therefor be a bigot agenda.

This law does not have the widespread support of the people that people like to imply it has. If anyone like me says they don't agree, In classic tradition of politically correct minority then they must be a bigot. I guess half of New Zealand ill-informed Must be bigots but which half is it?

You're a sensitive wee thing, aren't you?

[husaberg]

You're a sensitive wee thing, aren't you?

Constructive as always.. You have added so so much to the debate so far.

[Katman]

Constructive as always.. You have added so so much to the debate so far.

I have the feeling that if I added any more you might not survive the night.

[husaberg]

I have the feeling that if I added any more you might not survive the night.

I have a feeling that you live under a bridge and run a toll booth for goats. business must be a little slow...........
Not that you would notice with your inability to add any thing useful.

[bogan]

This law does not have the widespread support of the people that people like to imply it has. If anyone like me says they don't agree, In classic tradition of politically correct minority then they must be a bigot. I guess half of New Zealand ill-informed Must be bigots but which half is it?

At the end of the day the point is Moot the law has been passed but not yet enacted. There was no vote by the people of New Zealand on the mater .Half of which don't agree with you either.

About half is fairly widespread imo, not a clear majority which is perhaps more what you meant. People like you saying they don't agree often don't seem to have any substance behind their points. Bringing things like the slippery slope argument into it suggest that the root is imply intolerance and they are clutching at straws to find something which backs that. Rather than looking at the points objectively and making a decision, or making their case in a clear and logical fashion.

[husaberg]

About half is fairly widespread imo, not a clear majority which is perhaps more what you meant. People like you saying they don't agree often don't seem to have any substance behind their points. Bringing things like the slippery slope argument into it suggest that the root is imply intolerance and they are clutching at straws to find something which backs that. Rather than looking at the points objectively and making a decision, or making their case in a clear and logical fashion.

no the last digipoll was like 49 for to 47% against with the rest undecided (correct latter) 49.6% vs 48% undecided 2.4%
I made my point like 30 pages back i are all for the equaling of "marriage" rights to all parties just the word change of use i object too. It has never, or was never meant the union of two people of the same sex. Can't see a valid reason, why it has to now.
It was taken to the high courts etc years ago they said the same thing.
Personally i was in favour of the homosexual law reform bill and the civil union bill I can't support this though.

The meaning of the word has been changed, it had never previously been used to describe a same sex couple previously in New Zealand.
I don't object to anything other than the word, Shit i was totally in favour of the civil union bill, in-fact it should have gone further to provide the same rights of adoption etc as Marriage.

Quilter v Attorney-GeneralThe case Quilter v Attorney-General had its origin in early 1996 when three female couples in long-term relationships were denied marriage licences by the Registrar-General because marriage under the common law was between one man and one woman. The case against the government was taken to the High Court in May 1996. The applicants argued that the Marriage Act did not prohibit same-sex marriage and that under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was prohibited.

In the High Court, both parties agreed that at the time the Marriage Act was written in the mid-1950s, marriage according to the common law was between one man and one woman, which explains why the Act did not specifically outlaw same-sex marriage. The applicants argued, however, that under the Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and sections 6 (Interpretation consistent with Bill of Rights to be preferred) and 19 (Freedom from discrimination) of the Bill of Rights Act, New Zealand prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and, therefore, the applicants should be allowed to marry. The government in response cited section 5 (Justified limitations) of the Bill of Right Act, which allowed rights and freedoms in the Bill of Rights to "be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". In its decision, the High Court sided with the government and common law and reiterated that marriage is between one man and one woman.

The High Court decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal (then New Zealand's highest court) in December 1997, which upheld the ruling.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se...in_New_Zealand

[td]Opinion pollsDate Conducted by Sample size In favour Against Undecided Margin of Error
13–19 December 2012Key Research 1000 53.9% 38.1% 8% ±3.1%
11–17 March 2013 Herald-DigiPoll 750 49.6% 48% 2.4% ±3.6% [/td]


The poles conducted show a very very slim margin in favour of same sex marriages but trending down. So why did they not put it to the voters to decide