Poll: Who's going to win on Saturday?

[MSTRS:Me]

They all sound like first time voters.

More likely that they are voting as tho it is the last time they will be able to.....I know that I am as well informed as the next person, and damned if I'm gonna be flippant with and waste my two ticks.

[Motu]

Oh no, I won't be doing that. I just love baiting the ' Labour's done everything wrong and the Nats will put it right crowd'.
They all sound like first time voters.

Zigactly,they think their vote means something and a change of government will be a whole new world order.I was a hippy once y'know,I'm still waiting for the Age of Aquarius....but it was cancelled from lack of interest.

[MikeL]

Great! I have no debt and lots of investments

And no doubt you speak for the majority of New Zealanders. And equally clearly the wealth of the country will only be increased by rising interest rates.

Why am I taking the bait???

I know full well that you have your tongue firmly lodged in your cheek, and that like the rest of us intelligent KBers - and unlike the ignorant masses - you will be making a careful choice tomorow based on the best interests of the country rather than your own greed...

[MikeL]

Lets vote for Abraham "I cannot tell a Lie" Clark

Wasn't that George?

[Lias]

Oh no, I won't be doing that. I just love baiting the ' Labour's done everything wrong and the Nats will put it right crowd'.
They all sound like first time voters.

Some probably are.
I know at least some of my friends in the 18-22 category who are voting National fall into that category.

Personally I'm under no illusion that National is a magic wand to fixing the problems we are currently facing. I am however very much sick of the way things have been moving under Labour, and I'm willing to buy the "Change The Government" line, because the way I see it, it's decidely unlikely they will continue to push the boundaries in the areas where I am most uncomfrtable with Labours policies.

[MikeL]

Whats next.. The Freedom to have sex with an animal? the freedom to have sex with children? The freedom to murder who you want? the freedom to rape who you want? The freedom to steal what I want?

Civilizations always have a basic set of moral values that their legal systems are based on. What labour has been doing is steadily trying to errode what have been basic tennets of our moral values in the name of "personal freedom. By changing the legal system, they hope that with the general apathy of most voters, these changes will eventually sink back into the moral fibre of the country.

Probably a troll, but just in case anyone takes it seriously...

Exactly how are same-sex marriage and the legalisation of prostitution analogous to the crimes you mentioned? This is the usual illogical, un- thought-out knee-jerk reaction from self-righteous bigots who think that what they find distasteful should be against the law. The same inconsistent, hypocritical morons who thunder indignantly against anti-smoking laws and similar restrictions because they curtail their own freedom. If the protection of minority groups in society and the reduction in exploitation and actual demonstrable "crime" (and that, if you take the trouble to think carefully about the prostitution bill in particular, is what it was designed to do and has achieved) means that you have to put up with the indignity of having a discreet and orderly brothel in your leafy suburb, your indignation is more an indication of your own selfishness than any true moral principles. FWIW I have for years lived just down the road from the place at Greenwoods Corner that is so upsetting the true-blue Epsom electorate. It was quite a while, as a newcomer to the area, before I found out the nature of the business being carried out there.
As for same-sex marriage, this has been done to death on this forum and elsewhere. Try looking at the facts. A loving crelationship and commitment between two consenting adults being compared to bestiality and paedophilia?? Come on... Emotive claptrap.
You use what is to you distasteful social change as some sort of positive proof of a deliberate attempt by a political party to subvert the moral fibre of the country. To what end? To enable it to be more easily invaded and taken over by some enemy? The only conspiracy and subversion here is the propaganda by right-wing fundamentalists with their narrow definition of "family values" and the subsequent subversion of your own critical faculties and common-sense.

[mikey]

That's the General Election I'm referring to.

I'm not interested in who you're going to vote for. I'm interested in who you think will win. Understood?

shihad have the general electric already,

oh an for the record i couldn be fucked voting on tomorro so i voted today,
an like any true republican, i voted for legalise POT, they were sadly the most far fetched party to vote for, not much of an effort made by ridiculous parties this year, though the maori party are having quite a go at it the racist bastards

i think jeremy 'newsboy' wells should have a go at teh CAMPaigning thing

[Lias]

Probably a troll, but just in case anyone takes it seriously...

Exactly how are same-sex marriage and the legalisation of prostitution analogous to the crimes you mentioned? This is the usual illogical, un- thought-out knee-jerk reaction from self-righteous bigots who think that what they find distasteful should be against the law. The same inconsistent, hypocritical morons who thunder indignantly against anti-smoking laws and similar restrictions because they curtail their own freedom. If the protection of minority groups in society and the reduction in exploitation and actual demonstrable "crime" (and that, if you take the trouble to think carefully about the prostitution bill in particular, is what it was designed to do and has achieved) means that you have to put up with the indignity of having a discreet and orderly brothel in your leafy suburb, your indignation is more an indication of your own selfishness than any true moral principles. FWIW I have for years lived just down the road from the place at Greenwoods Corner that is so upsetting the true-blue Epsom electorate. It was quite a while, as a newcomer to the area, before I found out the nature of the business being carried out there.
As for same-sex marriage, this has been done to death on this forum and elsewhere. Try looking at the facts. A loving crelationship and commitment between two consenting adults being compared to bestiality and paedophilia?? Come on... Emotive claptrap.
You use what is to you distasteful social change as some sort of positive proof of a deliberate attempt by a political party to subvert the moral fibre of the country. To what end? To enable it to be more easily invaded and taken over by some enemy? The only conspiracy and subversion here is the propaganda by right-wing fundamentalists with their narrow definition of "family values" and the subsequent subversion of your own critical faculties and common-sense.

Half troll, half serious.
Brothels I have no problem with. Homosexuality I do have issues with, and I honestly believe that the legisation of homosexuality is a step on the road to legalisation of other sexual acts that are currently illegal. Homosexuality has been around along time, and only in the last few decades has it been legalised. Child sex and animal sex have been around equally as long, and if you think its prepostorous to say they will be legalized in 100 years, ponder if someone in 1906 ever imagined that homosexuals would not just be legally allowed to have sex, but they would be allowed to marry.

As to what end? I'd have thought that the answer was pretty much in the question. What you are asking is "Why are they trying to change society to what THEY CONSIDER IS BETTER". Answer is right there.. They believe that a society where these things are acceptable is "better" than the society we have (and I'm fairly sure you agree with them). I disagree.. I'ts really that simple.

[jrandom]

Sweet baby Jesus.

All I can say after reading through this thread is that 'Quasievil' is full of shit and dumb to boot, 'Keystone19' sounds like a great gal to know, and the rest of you are just a bunch of synical old bastards.

[MSTRS:Me]

Question Poll: Who's going to win on Saturday?
That's the General Election I'm referring to.

As opposed to a Genital Erection??
Someone will score, or win, at least

[The Stranger:Me]

Cynical and sin-ical but not synical.

[Hitcher]

I couldn't remember the name of the billboard thread...

[MikeL]

a society where these things are acceptable is "better" than the society we have

It's quite legitimate to have an opinion on whether one type of society is better than another. I would make two points though:
1. It is only because certain people thought that society could be better and opposed the status quo that any progress has ever been made.
2. Your opinion on why a particular change is for the better or the worse for society as a whole is only valid if you can support it with impartial evidence, not just prejudice against particular groups or behaviours.

[jrandom]

It's quite legitimate to have an opinion on whether one type of society is better than another...

Oh, lah de dah. You're one of those dope-smoking goatee-wearing peaceniks that go on about the validity of everyone's opinions? Yawn. Go form a committee and carry out a surgically-precise drop of strongly worded leaflets, you oxygen-wasting irrelevance.

Sometimes social ideals and the people who hold them are just wrong, dumb and ripe for a good old genocidal cleanup. Deal with it.

[Wolf]

Homosexuality has been around along time, and only in the last few decades has it been legalised. Child sex and animal sex have been around equally as long, and if you think its prepostorous to say they will be legalized in 100 years...

You are forgetting consent - a vitally important part of all of our laws governing sex.

The law of NZ deems that 16 is the age that a person is considered fit to make a reasonable decision about whether or not to have sex. Younger than that, the person is deemed "too young" to make such a decision and it is illegal for someone to have sex with a person under 16. "She (or he, for that matter) said yes" is not accepted as an excuse.

Animals are not capable of reasoned thought and cannot give consent for sex, hence sex with animals is a crime. "The sheep said it was OK" will not be accepted as an excuse.

Likewise non-consentual sex with a person of "legal age" is not permitted - it is called "rape" and it is a crime. "She asked for it, dressed like that" is not an accepted excuse.

Allowing consenting adults of the same sex to marry is nothing remotely like removing the restriction of consent that underpins the law.

As to morality - whose morality are we to follow? While most of the world's religions have a lot of common ground - no non-consentual sex, no stealing, no murder etc; and some would agree on no same-sex coupling and no extramarital sex, there are a lot of disagreements - what is deem "moral and right" by one is deemed "immoral" by others.

Whilst you obviously find same-sex unions as "immoral", there are those that disagree and there are those that would deem much of what you find acceptable to be "immoral".

Morality should never enter into consideration for "law" - it has in the past with catastrophic results (e.g. a reknowned poet/author/playright* jailed for most of his life for the "sin" of homosexuality whilst female homosexuals were not outlaws because the silly bitch on the throne didn't believe women would have sex for an reason but procreation and even that under protest)

The laws of consent are there for protection of the innocent - the young, the nonsentient and the unwilling - and whilst they are "in accord" with the laws of some moral frameworks, they are not "based on them" per se.

Consenting adult homosexuals do not need "protection" from each other, therefore laws banning them from having sex or getting married are not required. Laws allowing them to have legal recognition of union (if they desire) do, however, afford them the same legal protection that other united (married) couples have if things go wrong.

I have no issue with homosexuals (which does not make me a "commie") - what they do as consenting adults is their own concern.

Beware. Basing laws on someone's arbitrary interpretation of an arbitrary set of morals opens the floodgates to other "morality-based" laws. What then - imprisonment of those "living in sin"? Or those who commit adultery? Those who fail to observe someone's "Sabbath"? Those who fail to eat the right food?

Whose morality should the law be based on? What you deem to be acceptable will be deemed "immoral" by somebody, somewhere - just as you view homosexuality to be "immoral".

Remember: "Everybody is somebody else's heretic"

I would rather live in a country where protection of people and people's rights - even if I did not agree with those rights - governed the law, than one where the law was based on someone's perception of what was "right" or "moral".

And before you start the "what, their right/freedom to murder someone/steal what they want/rape who they want?" counter argument, that's not what I mean and you know it. Such "rights" and "freedoms" do not exist as they are contrary to the rights of those who would be raped, murdered or stolen from.



*Pos rep for the first to name him.