Friday, December 10, 2004
Quote for the day
Greens are people who, when they see the light at the end of the tunnel, ask for more tunnel. ~ Marc Alexander
Greens are people who, when they see the light at the end of the tunnel, ask for more tunnel. ~ Marc Alexander
Not The Last Post
I wonder how many of the 65 MPs who voted in favour of Civil Unions yesterday will wake up in 10 years time and wonder how they were duped so easily. It will probably take about that length of time for the penny to drop. Supporters of the Bill kept claiming that it would not affect marriage, and that if anything it will strengthen relationships. That's utterly stupid, because homosexual relationships are characterised by infidelity and short duration. It will be fascinating to see how many of the civil unions contracted next year will still be in existence in five or ten years later. And if you can get them to answer, ask a "civil unionised" couple how many casual sex partners they have while they are in a "committed" relationship. Chris Carter - who's supposedly in a long-term relationship - refused to answer when asked that by Kim Hill.
True, marriage won't be affected immediately. It takes time for a tree to die after it's roots have been cut. It will be one or two decades before we see the results working themselves through. The marriage rate will drop even further than it is now (you try and convince your children they should marry when they can have every benefit without doing so, plus the advantage of walking in and out of a relationship at will).
But this new law will lay the groundwork for some significant changes to come - the homosexual activists will not be satisfied with this victory. Tim Barnett said the only reason they had not gone for full homosexual marriage was because the time was not yet right. Give it five years. Next year the Adoption Act comes up for review, and same-sex couples will be given the right to adopt. The Ministry of Women's Affairs says it appears to be discrimination to not allow Muslim men to have multiple wives. So my prediction is that this multicultural-pushing government will soon have that on the agenda (after the next election).
Gandhi was once asked: "What do you think of Western civilisation?" He replied: "I think it would be a very good idea." Sadly, I fear it is too late. But perhaps we can hold on to this quote from J. Budziszewski: "The only way to get something bad is to take something good and spoil it. Whenever you find a bad thing, look for a good thing somewhere in the ruins."
I wonder how many of the 65 MPs who voted in favour of Civil Unions yesterday will wake up in 10 years time and wonder how they were duped so easily. It will probably take about that length of time for the penny to drop. Supporters of the Bill kept claiming that it would not affect marriage, and that if anything it will strengthen relationships. That's utterly stupid, because homosexual relationships are characterised by infidelity and short duration. It will be fascinating to see how many of the civil unions contracted next year will still be in existence in five or ten years later. And if you can get them to answer, ask a "civil unionised" couple how many casual sex partners they have while they are in a "committed" relationship. Chris Carter - who's supposedly in a long-term relationship - refused to answer when asked that by Kim Hill.
True, marriage won't be affected immediately. It takes time for a tree to die after it's roots have been cut. It will be one or two decades before we see the results working themselves through. The marriage rate will drop even further than it is now (you try and convince your children they should marry when they can have every benefit without doing so, plus the advantage of walking in and out of a relationship at will).
But this new law will lay the groundwork for some significant changes to come - the homosexual activists will not be satisfied with this victory. Tim Barnett said the only reason they had not gone for full homosexual marriage was because the time was not yet right. Give it five years. Next year the Adoption Act comes up for review, and same-sex couples will be given the right to adopt. The Ministry of Women's Affairs says it appears to be discrimination to not allow Muslim men to have multiple wives. So my prediction is that this multicultural-pushing government will soon have that on the agenda (after the next election).
Gandhi was once asked: "What do you think of Western civilisation?" He replied: "I think it would be a very good idea." Sadly, I fear it is too late. But perhaps we can hold on to this quote from J. Budziszewski: "The only way to get something bad is to take something good and spoil it. Whenever you find a bad thing, look for a good thing somewhere in the ruins."
New Zealand disassociates from UN family declaration
In an important vote which has not yet been reported here, New Zealand this week disassociated itself from a major declaration on the family and marriage adopted by the United Nations; probably the most significant in two decades.
The declaration, known as the Doha Declaration for the Family was drawn up by representatives of governments and NGOs who met in Doha, Qatar, at the end of November for the Doha International Conference for the Family.
It affirms that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the widest possible protection and assistance by society and the State."
Unofficially, 132 of the 192 countries adopted the declaration without reservation at the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday. In supporting the declaration, Member States also agreed to "uphold, preserve and defend the institution of marriage." Unfortunately, New Zealand was not one of these countries, therefore 'civil unions come as no surprise.
The move from New Zealand to distance itself from the declaration is deeply ironic, as in every other respect the government is desperate to align New Zealand to UN declarations and conventions. But then, it's not widely known that one of NZ's representative at the UN is a militant homosexual activist, Andrew Begg, who is deeeply anti-family.
In an important vote which has not yet been reported here, New Zealand this week disassociated itself from a major declaration on the family and marriage adopted by the United Nations; probably the most significant in two decades.
The declaration, known as the Doha Declaration for the Family was drawn up by representatives of governments and NGOs who met in Doha, Qatar, at the end of November for the Doha International Conference for the Family.
It affirms that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the widest possible protection and assistance by society and the State."
Unofficially, 132 of the 192 countries adopted the declaration without reservation at the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday. In supporting the declaration, Member States also agreed to "uphold, preserve and defend the institution of marriage." Unfortunately, New Zealand was not one of these countries, therefore 'civil unions come as no surprise.
The move from New Zealand to distance itself from the declaration is deeply ironic, as in every other respect the government is desperate to align New Zealand to UN declarations and conventions. But then, it's not widely known that one of NZ's representative at the UN is a militant homosexual activist, Andrew Begg, who is deeeply anti-family.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Australia not so gayly inclined
New Zealand might be on the verge of passing what is effectively homosexual marriage, but same-sex couples have little hope now of marrying in Australia, with a report confirming that a ban on same-sex wedlock has widespread support.
The Institute of Family Studies report says that while there are indications that Australians are gradually becoming more tolerant, some of the strongest opposition to homosexuality is found among the young.
And most Australians oppose the right of gays and lesbians to marry and adopt children, resisting a global push by homosexual couples and supporting the rejection of new marriage laws promoted by both the Government and Labor in August.
New Zealand might be on the verge of passing what is effectively homosexual marriage, but same-sex couples have little hope now of marrying in Australia, with a report confirming that a ban on same-sex wedlock has widespread support.
The Institute of Family Studies report says that while there are indications that Australians are gradually becoming more tolerant, some of the strongest opposition to homosexuality is found among the young.
And most Australians oppose the right of gays and lesbians to marry and adopt children, resisting a global push by homosexual couples and supporting the rejection of new marriage laws promoted by both the Government and Labor in August.
Financial warning from Spicers
The good news: the average household is $28,000 richer than a year ago. The bad: debt is rising faster than asset values. "The last 12 to 18 months has been a boom time for households," says Spicers chief economic adviser Rozanna Wozniak. Its Household Savings Indicators put national net worth at $352 billion. But those boom times are coming to an end, with debt levels rising faster than asset values in the September quarter.
The average household is now worth a net $234,000, up from about $206,000 in September last year, but if house prices fell next year, net worth might also dip. Housing accounted for 74 percent of household assets, up from 60 percent a decade ago, even though fewer people now owned their home. Rapid house price rises meant homeowners had been "amply rewarded by their borrow-and-spend strategy". But the rate of growth had slowed from 7.5 per cent in the September 2003 quarter to 2.4 per cent in the same quarter this year.
Household debt in percentage terms rose 3 percent in the September quarter to $111 billion, and household incomes had not kept pace with the growth in debt-servicing commitments. Higher debt levels and higher interest rates were squeezing households' cashflow.
The “borrow and spend” behaviour that was evident amongst many households during 2003 and 2004 is expected to cause increasing
problems as 2005 progresses. Pressure is expected to come from
two directions: firstly household balance sheets, and secondly their cashflow.
An increasing percentage of households’ cashflows will be diverted towards debt servicing commitments. The combination of higher interest rates and higher debt levels will start to bite.
The good news: the average household is $28,000 richer than a year ago. The bad: debt is rising faster than asset values. "The last 12 to 18 months has been a boom time for households," says Spicers chief economic adviser Rozanna Wozniak. Its Household Savings Indicators put national net worth at $352 billion. But those boom times are coming to an end, with debt levels rising faster than asset values in the September quarter.
The average household is now worth a net $234,000, up from about $206,000 in September last year, but if house prices fell next year, net worth might also dip. Housing accounted for 74 percent of household assets, up from 60 percent a decade ago, even though fewer people now owned their home. Rapid house price rises meant homeowners had been "amply rewarded by their borrow-and-spend strategy". But the rate of growth had slowed from 7.5 per cent in the September 2003 quarter to 2.4 per cent in the same quarter this year.
Household debt in percentage terms rose 3 percent in the September quarter to $111 billion, and household incomes had not kept pace with the growth in debt-servicing commitments. Higher debt levels and higher interest rates were squeezing households' cashflow.
The “borrow and spend” behaviour that was evident amongst many households during 2003 and 2004 is expected to cause increasing
problems as 2005 progresses. Pressure is expected to come from
two directions: firstly household balance sheets, and secondly their cashflow.
An increasing percentage of households’ cashflows will be diverted towards debt servicing commitments. The combination of higher interest rates and higher debt levels will start to bite.
Monday, December 06, 2004
Is this the plan for one-world government?
Lovers of conspiracy theories frequently point to plans to set up a one-world government. They will find plenty to be concerned about in Phil Goff's outline of the United Nations plan to increase its powers to intervene in countries (all in the name of combating terrorism, of course).
"The report points out the international community could face a nightmare scenario combining terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and irresponsible states – circumstances that could conceivably justify the use of force to prevent a latent threat being realised... New Zealand is supportive of the concept that the international community has a responsibility to protect people faced with mass murder, rape or starvation when a state is either unwilling or unable to provide that protection."
Lovers of conspiracy theories frequently point to plans to set up a one-world government. They will find plenty to be concerned about in Phil Goff's outline of the United Nations plan to increase its powers to intervene in countries (all in the name of combating terrorism, of course).
"The report points out the international community could face a nightmare scenario combining terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and irresponsible states – circumstances that could conceivably justify the use of force to prevent a latent threat being realised... New Zealand is supportive of the concept that the international community has a responsibility to protect people faced with mass murder, rape or starvation when a state is either unwilling or unable to provide that protection."
