I really need to stop being such a horny little idiot because when I saw the item about it on the news I was only thinking about one of the celebrating gay men's very nice butt >_< *cries*
In serious, it's great news. And I don't see it as having much to do with allowing perversion; whether you consider homosexuality to be morally wrong or not, everybody deserves the same rights as everybody else, and as well as offering an alternative to marriage for heterosexual couples it gives same-sex couples equivalent rights regarding being next-of-kin and so on to those who are married. It's human rights, people
Well, I think he saw it as not allowing perversion, which we do under the HLRB of the eighties, but as rather condoning it, ie putting homosexual relationships on a level with heterosexual ones rather than demoting them as he thinks they should be.
Mhm. And being a secular country, New Zealand's laws are based on secular rather than religious morality, which has much to do with common consensus on human rights and not a lot to do with selectively picking rules out of Leviticus. Anyone can hold a perosnal belief that homosexuality is sinful, but that doesn't mean the government can legislate against it.
Exactly... I always have serious troubles arguing against this, for a few personal reasons- some moral stuff I will fight to be legislated for, and how does that differ from Tamaki's religious reasons? I guess I finally have to bring it down to the difference between religion and personal morality- even where the two are inseperable, as in Tamaki's case. If he was standing there saying "I think this is wrong," I wouldn't be so upset; it's him saying "GOD thinks this is wrong, for me and everyone" that's so objectionable.
Besides which, it goes right against "judge not lest ye be judged" or whatever it is, and loving everybody equally, which in my view entails treating everybody with the same respect, whether you agree with their lifestyle or not.
Um.. hard to think of some right now. Er, progressive taxes. It's a moral issue for me. Um.
Okay, i can't think of good examples. Um. prostitution reform, for example, I supported that on moral gorunds... actually, no I didn't. Um. I don't know. i'll get back to you, okay?
What are progressive taxes? *blush* Is that setting tax levels proportionate to income? I had a huge argument with my mum a few weeks ago regarding why I consider being rich to be wrong (My argument being that earning more than the reasonable adequate income for where you live encourages a person to love money more than their fellow man... wait, that's not relevant)
Um, yeah, progressive taxes are the idea that you charge a percentage tax in proportion to the amount of money being earnt- there are three levels in NZ. to me the logic is clear: a person earning $100 a week can afford to lose very little of that, while someone earning $1000 can afford to lost a significantly greater sum.
What frustrates me about this is the attitude propounded by the rich everywhere- that they are earning more money because they are working harder, and that they are therefore more deserving of it that poor people and certinly should not lose any more money than they poor do. This is such a pervasive idea- and in some ways, take it to its extreme and you're talking flat tax that isn't even percentage based, which is obviously a bad idea.
Sorry!!! I'm delusional with youth and lack of sleep and displaying what I learnt about in the paper this morning, that teenagers can't interpret emotions. :S
Oh, god, Tamaki, he's going to LOSE LOSE LOSE, MUAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! There's just no way- you need 5% of the vote to be represented and currently they're polling at like 0.2%, or less. Probably less, very soon. ;)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
carisma_sensei
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 05:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 05:39 am (UTC)But not if you listen to Brian Tamaki. Destiny: Giving a Bad Name to Christians Everywhere.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 05:42 am (UTC)fhsjklfahskafhsjdkfhdjskafhjds Me: *bangs head on floor*
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 05:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 05:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 08:37 am (UTC)But he looked AWFUL. Who told him that slicking his hair back with MORE GREASE THAN SNAPE was a good idea? Because it totally ain't.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 10:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 05:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 11:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 11:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 06:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 08:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 06:26 am (UTC)In serious, it's great news. And I don't see it as having much to do with allowing perversion; whether you consider homosexuality to be morally wrong or not, everybody deserves the same rights as everybody else, and as well as offering an alternative to marriage for heterosexual couples it gives same-sex couples equivalent rights regarding being next-of-kin and so on to those who are married. It's human rights, people
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 08:36 am (UTC)The shithead.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 08:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 09:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 09:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 08:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 04:28 am (UTC)Okay, i can't think of good examples. Um. prostitution reform, for example, I supported that on moral gorunds... actually, no I didn't. Um. I don't know. i'll get back to you, okay?
no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 07:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 12:20 am (UTC)What frustrates me about this is the attitude propounded by the rich everywhere- that they are earning more money because they are working harder, and that they are therefore more deserving of it that poor people and certinly should not lose any more money than they poor do. This is such a pervasive idea- and in some ways, take it to its extreme and you're talking flat tax that isn't even percentage based, which is obviously a bad idea.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 02:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 08:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 11:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 06:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 08:34 am (UTC):)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 08:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 09:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 10:06 am (UTC)New Zealand rocks!
*thumbs nose at Brian Tamaki* Let us hope they don't manage to go ahead with thier plan to get into parliment.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 10:17 am (UTC)Hmm, who's got some music?? *chairdances wildly*
Oh, god, Tamaki, he's going to LOSE LOSE LOSE, MUAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! There's just no way- you need 5% of the vote to be represented and currently they're polling at like 0.2%, or less. Probably less, very soon. ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 11:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 11:13 am (UTC)What, they have two seats right now? ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 11:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 07:37 pm (UTC)*Waves teh flag*