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.
![[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 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)