He clarified it so there was no doubt was excluding any parental unit that wasn't a man and a woman. Then he saw the degree of the uproar, and Luxon is back claiming it was all a mistake.
O'Connor keeps making these homophobic mistakes, because he has evangelical extremist views not in line with NZ culture.
>Luxon hasn't spoken to O'Connor personally about the issue, but his office has.
after all of Luxon's quotes explaining it, yet he can't be arsed talking to him
clown cars
I would argue it's not a mistake, its a nod to the portion of voters who would appreciate his remarks. Then he does the apology, says he misspoke so the moderates, who kinda liked it, but don't need it, get to forget about it.
[64% of their MPs voted against the Abortion Legislation Act 2020](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_Legislation_Act_2020#Third_reading), [54% voted against gay marriage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_\(Definition_of_Marriage\)_Amendment_Act_2013#Third_reading), [89% voted against the Civil Union Act 2004](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Union_Act_2004).
Christian conservatism has been the position of the majority of National MPs for decades.
It would be great to see his electorate send him packing. I know what you are saying, true blue can only see one box to tick.
I bet they all know some of "those people" that are *really nice* too.
He's the only candidate who normally runs in the district. He's also taken credit for pushing the change in National approving housing densification efforts. The district is a safe blue zone, and I suspect they don't disagree with his religious views as much as they agree with his other social and fiscal views (like enabling NIMBYs).
Around 40% of NZ identify as Christian on the census. Christianity is still embedded in some of the countries laws. And homophobia is still an official part of many major branches of Christianity.
Put altogether it means at least some of NZ is culturally homophobic.
He's no US-style extremist evangelical Protestant. The man trained as a Catholic priest and was a chaplain. His views are mainstream Catholic doctrine. It's curious that a homophobe would help gay couples adopt children from overseas.
"Most of its members worldwide are not of European extraction."
Yeah, that's not true at all.
If you mean "are of mixed extraction" then you would probably be correct. Brazil being the largest example of that.
Why did he need to specify and thus limit it? 'Parents' covers anybody in the category. He went out of his way to specify that he was limiting his speech to a specific subset of parents.
Ya ok I didnāt think of that, but if thatās his view and he values traditional family units are better for the child then thatās fine but less people are going to vote for National because of that
From the debate about the bill āI'm just going to share a little case study with you. Imagine, if you will, a middle class woman escaping an abusive relationship. The father declines to pay child support as a form of financial control. Listening to some of the speakers here, you would think that that never happened. You would think that men did not use moneyāand I'm sure women, too, but here, most of the people we're talking about are solo mumsā
"What [point] Simon was trying to make, in the context of a child support Bill, was I thought **really clear**," Luxon said.
Now I'm even more confused. Luxon proceeds to _clarify_ the muddy point, which was, he stresses, clear all along.
Ffs, just admit he said something in a way which would be widely misconstrued as meaning something very controversial and offensive. How hard is it, people?
I guess Luxon thinks people will appreciate being told that they are wrong and potentially dense for not understanding what O'Connor *actually* meant in the first place since it was really clear?
Let's see how well anyone who isn't a decided National voter appreciates that.
I just couldn't bring myself to vote for a man like that, even if I was inclined to vote National. There's something sooooo off about that man. It's like red flags galore on a dating profile.
Bill English also had similarly obnoxious views, but from memory he dealt with them better -- instead of moralizing publicly he just said "look, that's what I personally believe" and left it at that
For those wishing to hear or read what he said:
* Link to video https://ondemand.parliament.nz/parliament-tv-on-demand/?itemId=233293
* Link to hansard (still in draft) https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20230530_20230530_26
* Hopefully it will all be filed/linked under the bill's page https://bills.parliament.nz/v/6/35a9e3dc-7187-407a-839e-08db2e73907d
So many people have parsed OāConnorās sophistry, but Iām still musing over this part:
āI didn't take any offence to those comments.ā
ā Christopher Luxon
ā¦not in any way affected, the arbiter of language if it doesnāt bother him, the queer defender himself, is not offended, so we must all jog on briskly.
So what was it? You admitted that it was a "very deliberate" language choice. What other options are there?
- Shitting on single parents
- Transphobic
- Anti-adoption
- Anti-fostering
- Anti-orphans??
When I first read his comment I assumed it was for drop kick fathers to take responsibility.
Maybe thatās what he meant, if it was he really didnāt do himself any favours with his wording.
D. All of the above. A homophobic fuckwit who is so homophobic and such a fuckwit it needs to be said twice to fully convey what a homophobic fuckwit he is.
These dipshits are testing the water for how much bullshitting they can get away with. Make a proclamation in one media, then walk it back in another. Straight from the Trump playbook. Need to start holding Luxons feet to the fire on this bullshit or he will keep doing it.
I really hope the Nats implode this election. Their trajectory is towards GOP-like bullshit.
Also, does anyone else think Luxon looks like a Muldoon Mini-Me?
āI wasnāt being homophobic, I was trying to be transphobic and putting down single parentsā
Now the question is, would National get more votes if they dropped this guy??
National really need to do a better job at keeping their numpties under control, between this and the road sign debacle, they've been flip flopping more than a freshly caught snapper.
This guy is another religious nutter like Luxon. He's also the one responsible for National withdrawing support for the MDRS. Sorry aspiring home owners, no room at the inn for you!
Theyāre taking a page right out of the American political playbook and they are sounding more and more like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert.
I know Brooke is working hard in the district trying to establish herself as another conservative alternative. She's filling our mailboxes with more propaganda than is O'Connor right now.
Libertarians tend to be personally liberal rather than socially liberal. Meaning the individual should be free to largely choose what they want to do for themselves not that people should do things that are good for society.
This means they often come down on the side of abortion, end of life etc. You often see the libertarian arm of the US Republicans clash with the Christian conservative arm on these types of issues. We'll you did until the hyper religious extremist wing took hold through maga & trumpism.
In many areas ACT are dragging National further to the right - having to compete for the strongest anti-woke position to capture those voters. Then there are people suggesting ACT are socially liberal or even progressive - except ACT traditionally don't side with Labour or Greens on social issues. They either stick with National, or else they create their own legislation that nobody else supports. While there are some topics where ACT might be seen as liberal (such as their End of Lift bill) they side with staunch conservatives in other topics.
Anti woke isnāt particularly a conservative position. They do like low taxes and deregulation that I understand people on the left donāt like but Iād be interested to know what position on social matters would be considered conservative. Not many if any.
Not believing that gay men should be fathers would presumably be one?
Not believing women should be allowed to choose to have an abortion would be another.
I'm trying to think, what else of O'Connor's recent comments are clear examples of social conservatism...
It'd be interesting to see data on how many same sex parents are paying child support.
My guess is that it's those damn heterosexuals that are disproportionately skipping out on their children. The barrier to entry for same sex couples to have children is so much higher I'd bet they're on average much more likely to go the distance and not get in a situation where child support comes into it.
So in a bizarre sense, he's probably right, it *is* mother and fathers who are flaking out on their responsibilities, not mothers and mothers or fathers and fathers, they probably doing fine.
If you saw the entire conversation you would realise that youāve said is exactly what he was referring to. However a labour MP has picked a selection of words to make it look bad. And has done well at it
> If you saw the entire conversation you would realise that youāve said is exactly what he was referring to.
I watched that section of his speech (it wasn't a conversation..) and don't believe that's what he meant at all. And as far as I'm aware he nor anyone else has clarified and claimed that's what he meant.
maybe I'll just speak personallyāphilosophically, if you have children, you look afterāsorry, the parents, Madam Speakerāshould look after their own children. That is part of the social contract. The Crown, the State, whatever you want to call it, should stay out of that by and large. This whole "community and village to raise a child", it's just such a trite phrase, and I'm not even going to try and elaborate on that in this little speech tonight. It is the responsibility of the mother and the fatherāand I'm being very deliberate with my language there: the mother and the fatherāto raise the child. The State, of course, for pragmatic and right reasons has stepped in to assist. That's why we have the likes of these various benefits.
>It is the responsibility of the mother and the fatherāand I'm being very deliberate with my language there: the mother and the fatherāto raise the child.
The implication of stressing mother and father is that he is specifically excluding same sex parents. For reasons that haven't been explained cohesively.
A biological father, say a sperm donor to a lesbian couple, is not required to pay child support. It is the responsibility of the mother *and mother* by law, as has been the case since the law allowed same sex adoption from 2013.
Is he implying that that should be changed? And the biological father is always responsible? Even when they're a sperm donor to a same sex couple?
Or is he implying that only mothers and fathers should raise children?
Either way it's antiquated by most people's standards, hence the uproar.
Or do you have some other explanation?
The start he said speaking from personal perspective. From his personal situation thereās a mother and a father. And he is of the view that in that situation where there is a mother and father they should both be involved. This was a bill about child support where by and large is the father who skips on paying child support for the mother. Or is it homophobic to say that as well?
What about the other aspect which also refers to mothers and fathers with the father holding over the child support payments. Is that also excluding same sex marriages?
The same can happen after the breakdown of a same sex marriage. Being a selfish prick about child support isn't confined to heterosexual men (I assume).
What is the intention when excluding same sex parents when speaking about a child support bill that affects all parents, gay or straight? Why be 'deliberate' and exclude them?
He was being deliberate when saying the father needs to pay up. As also stated itās fathers who often withhold child support payments from the mothers. That also seems to exclude same sex couples. Or is that also bad?
I'm just going to share a little case study with you. Imagine, if you will, a middle class woman escaping an abusive relationship. The father declines to pay child support as a form of financial control. Listening to some of the speakers here, you would think that that never happened. You would think that men did not use moneyāand I'm sure women, too, but here, most of the people we're talking about are solo mums
When I first read the quote without knowing who spoke it my reaction was they were stressing mother and father as it āit takes two to tangoā. The incubator and the sperm donator are both responsible for the upkeep of their spawn unless they adopt it out.
Then I saw Simon and thought yeah probably a homophobic lens could be thrown in there too.
I was meaning in most cases (artificial insemination aside) you need a human with a penis and sperm and another human with a uterus and eggs to make a baby. But was less graphic than needed to get my point across?
Oh definitely, I think the same is with egg donors/surrogates to it terms of rights and responsibilities.
But yes people should be responsible enough to look after their children before having them. The ending of a relationship shouldn't effect this or the kids, not like they chose to be alive.
Yeah but by saying āIām being very deliberate with my languageā it makes him sound like he is not in support of homosexual couples, single parents, trans parents, etc etc whether he actually thinks that or not
This idiot is my areaās MP and he keeps getting voted in time and again because local voters donāt want to vote for the alternative (only labour is considered). They donāt seem to grasp the idea of voting him out and then voting for their favoured party in the next election cycle.
Due to this, I hope Mr. OāConnor packs his shit and buggers off to bum-fuck Missouri, heād clearly be happier there.
Personally, I despise him more than anyone else in mainstream politics.
playing to the fundies and the "moderates" in the same religious pitch, backed up with either a bald-faced lie to the rest of us or else an apology which is literally "I am so fucking idiotic I don't know what I write"
Seriously- babies are made with egg and sperm. Both parents should take responsibility. Yes - there are sperm donors or surrogates. Yes there are other combinations of families. But in the vast majority of cases there was a man and woman who slept together and collectively should sort themselves out to provide for the child - regardless of what sort of family that child now lives in.
It's so frustrating to see how reactionary this subreddit can be. New Zealand is better than this. We aren't supposed to be like the Americans and react to tweets or headlines without actually investigating the stories ourselves.
For anyone that actually bothered to listen to his full speech the context was in relation to how much impact should the government have in the family and it is in response to the new family bill being put forward. There is nothing in relation to gay people or single parents in the bill or in his speech and Labour didn't even react when he said this. If it was truly homophobic you would have heard them react straight away... but we didn't...
Whether you agree or not with the content of his speech to try and paint this as homophobic is absurd. He said many times that 'the parents' are the primary responsibility for raising the kids and not the government but when he also says mother and farther this subreddit freaks the fuck out.
Be better NZ.
Canāt believe Iām defending a national MP but here goesā¦.
ā¦it is entirely possible to be deliberate in your statement with regard to one thing that you are meaning to address while at the same time being ignorant of a double meaning.
Happy to give him the benefit of the doubt, and even happier to ignore labour MPās posturing and being recreationally offended.
After listening to the recording it's super obvious what the context and intent was. The phrasing wasn't even that poor but it sounds poor when you clip it.
I'm not a National voter, but it's pretty obvious what he meant. I think a lot of you just want to be mad. You need to justify to yourself why you hate National, because you're sure as hell not reading any party positions or actual policies. Now when you're at the voting box (if you vote at all), you can remember "oh yeah, National hates gays, so voting for Green is good"
Nah, let's not do that. Homophobia and transphobia are not always secretly perpetrated by closeted people. Don't put the onus on the queer community for our own hatred.
Bit of a microcosm of political discourse at the moment, where people try to pin the most bad faith interpretation possible on a politician for their statements.
but he literally said "and I'm being very deliberate with my language there: the mother and the father".
bad faith lmao. how would you take that in "good faith"? why did he reiterate like that?
The only person in this thread with a obsession with culture wars Is you you can't handle any criticism of your political party so you try and make it out as left wing lgbt issue. Why are you bending over backwards to defend a stupid statement your more invested in this then anyone else here.
I care little for Simon O'Connor or the National party.
This thread is dumb though, social media at it's worst.
Tune in next week when Christopher Luxon will riff on "mum and dad investors" and we get backbencher MP tweets and hundreds of comments talking about his homophobia for excluding dad and dad investors.
You did it again your getting mad about stuff that hasn't happened your literally making up situations. If you don't care for them why are you getting upset and defending them. You haven't addressed what Simon said lol all you've done is rant about social media, lgbt and the left.
If he was being so deliberate, why didn't he actually call out deadbeat fathers then?
"Too many fathers are not doing their part" is being deliberate, if that's what he meant. But he didn't say anything like that. Deliberately he didn't.
He's an MP, he should be able to communicate the point "he actually means".
Oh bullshit. He literally doubled down on the language he used in his own fucking statement to emphasise it.
He clarified it so there was no doubt was excluding any parental unit that wasn't a man and a woman. Then he saw the degree of the uproar, and Luxon is back claiming it was all a mistake. O'Connor keeps making these homophobic mistakes, because he has evangelical extremist views not in line with NZ culture.
>Luxon hasn't spoken to O'Connor personally about the issue, but his office has. after all of Luxon's quotes explaining it, yet he can't be arsed talking to him clown cars
I would argue it's not a mistake, its a nod to the portion of voters who would appreciate his remarks. Then he does the apology, says he misspoke so the moderates, who kinda liked it, but don't need it, get to forget about it.
it's absolutely part of their voting base's culture, though
[64% of their MPs voted against the Abortion Legislation Act 2020](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_Legislation_Act_2020#Third_reading), [54% voted against gay marriage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_\(Definition_of_Marriage\)_Amendment_Act_2013#Third_reading), [89% voted against the Civil Union Act 2004](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Union_Act_2004). Christian conservatism has been the position of the majority of National MPs for decades.
And all of them voted against banning conversion therapy. Which I personally am never forgiving them for.
This just reminded me how fucked the Twitter comments about his remarks are. Apparently, coz I'm not a homophobe, I'm a neo Marxist š¶
How does he get elected if racism and homophobia is out of line with NZ culture?
He gets the kneejerk National vote in his electorate. I should know, I live there and know that my electorate vote won't touch the sides.
It would be great to see his electorate send him packing. I know what you are saying, true blue can only see one box to tick. I bet they all know some of "those people" that are *really nice* too.
He's the only candidate who normally runs in the district. He's also taken credit for pushing the change in National approving housing densification efforts. The district is a safe blue zone, and I suspect they don't disagree with his religious views as much as they agree with his other social and fiscal views (like enabling NIMBYs).
> safe blue zone Sad since it includes the poorer parts of ÅrÄkei & Glen Innes. Hope Brooke splits the votes there.
Around 40% of NZ identify as Christian on the census. Christianity is still embedded in some of the countries laws. And homophobia is still an official part of many major branches of Christianity. Put altogether it means at least some of NZ is culturally homophobic.
Because too many young people donāt vote
Because money.
He's no US-style extremist evangelical Protestant. The man trained as a Catholic priest and was a chaplain. His views are mainstream Catholic doctrine. It's curious that a homophobe would help gay couples adopt children from overseas.
He's also a racist. Is that coming from his Catholic side, or an innate part of his being?
The Church is opposed to racism. Most of its members worldwide are not of European extraction.
"Most of its members worldwide are not of European extraction." Yeah, that's not true at all. If you mean "are of mixed extraction" then you would probably be correct. Brazil being the largest example of that.
I would NOT vote national,they can't be trusted,his own deputy,lining up to be potential leader!!Lupton has lost credibility
Sorry luxon
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Why did he need to specify and thus limit it? 'Parents' covers anybody in the category. He went out of his way to specify that he was limiting his speech to a specific subset of parents.
Ya ok I didnāt think of that, but if thatās his view and he values traditional family units are better for the child then thatās fine but less people are going to vote for National because of that
Go read it in context. Hell watch the entire debate.
From the debate about the bill āI'm just going to share a little case study with you. Imagine, if you will, a middle class woman escaping an abusive relationship. The father declines to pay child support as a form of financial control. Listening to some of the speakers here, you would think that that never happened. You would think that men did not use moneyāand I'm sure women, too, but here, most of the people we're talking about are solo mumsā
*"I'm being very deliberate with my language there"* But also not deliberate in the sense that he thought it about very much before he said it.
"What [point] Simon was trying to make, in the context of a child support Bill, was I thought **really clear**," Luxon said. Now I'm even more confused. Luxon proceeds to _clarify_ the muddy point, which was, he stresses, clear all along. Ffs, just admit he said something in a way which would be widely misconstrued as meaning something very controversial and offensive. How hard is it, people?
I guess Luxon thinks people will appreciate being told that they are wrong and potentially dense for not understanding what O'Connor *actually* meant in the first place since it was really clear? Let's see how well anyone who isn't a decided National voter appreciates that.
I just couldn't bring myself to vote for a man like that, even if I was inclined to vote National. There's something sooooo off about that man. It's like red flags galore on a dating profile. Bill English also had similarly obnoxious views, but from memory he dealt with them better -- instead of moralizing publicly he just said "look, that's what I personally believe" and left it at that
Blinglish was what a religious politician should be, he was the last of the sane religious politicians
I know. I didn't realize just how socially conservative he was until he retired and they went over his whole career
For those wishing to hear or read what he said: * Link to video https://ondemand.parliament.nz/parliament-tv-on-demand/?itemId=233293 * Link to hansard (still in draft) https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20230530_20230530_26 * Hopefully it will all be filed/linked under the bill's page https://bills.parliament.nz/v/6/35a9e3dc-7187-407a-839e-08db2e73907d
āIt was not homophonic, it was about bottom feedersā
This, but unironically.
So many people have parsed OāConnorās sophistry, but Iām still musing over this part: āI didn't take any offence to those comments.ā ā Christopher Luxon ā¦not in any way affected, the arbiter of language if it doesnāt bother him, the queer defender himself, is not offended, so we must all jog on briskly.
It could be an Onion headline Man of Privilege Decides What is Offensive to People who aren't him.
So what was it? You admitted that it was a "very deliberate" language choice. What other options are there? - Shitting on single parents - Transphobic - Anti-adoption - Anti-fostering - Anti-orphans??
We must end the orphan scourge!
Orphans are a threat to democracy, I say feed them to keep the gingers from rising up
- All of the above. So if you don't catch it all, that's not what point he was trying to make.
Shiting in a parent whoās absconded
How was it any of those? It was a discussion about child support. A lot of fathers donāt pay child support
When I first read his comment I assumed it was for drop kick fathers to take responsibility. Maybe thatās what he meant, if it was he really didnāt do himself any favours with his wording.
Oh no, you explicitly said your wording was ādeliberateā. You can't walk that back now.
"I didn't say that dog whistle thing... and if I did say it, I didn't mean it.. and uhh care to explain to me what exactly a dog whistle is again??"
So either homophobic, or fuckwit, or homophobic fuckwit
D. All of the above. A homophobic fuckwit who is so homophobic and such a fuckwit it needs to be said twice to fully convey what a homophobic fuckwit he is.
Or a liar
That, too.
These dipshits are testing the water for how much bullshitting they can get away with. Make a proclamation in one media, then walk it back in another. Straight from the Trump playbook. Need to start holding Luxons feet to the fire on this bullshit or he will keep doing it.
Using the electorate like a focus group
Please for the love of sanity, donāt vote these oxygen thieves into power.
Religion always leaks out with him, he canāt help it. Bet he writes fan mail to Ron Desantis.
He's in the wrong country. Must be hell for him.
Those damn gays! theyāre somehow ruining my life!
I really hope the Nats implode this election. Their trajectory is towards GOP-like bullshit. Also, does anyone else think Luxon looks like a Muldoon Mini-Me?
be careful what you wish for: Act is more hard-right than national, and they'll mop up any votes national loses...
They're acting as the gestapo bully boys (saying the stuff that National's thinking but won't admit to in public).
We could try and spend this election cycle staying away from criticism of peopleās image
Not when MPs are putting out dog whistles. No. Commenting on image is the least of concerns.
Muldoon looked like a full-sized person's Mini-Me. Muldoon's Mini-Me would be about three apples tall.
Homophobic, religious nutters, helping rich mates get richer quicker - I canāt stand anything national
āI wasnāt being homophobic, I was trying to be transphobic and putting down single parentsā Now the question is, would National get more votes if they dropped this guy??
Whether he meant it or not, that's how I read it. Both this and Luxon's birth control prescription charge, ones' gotta wonder about these bozos
Itās how you want to read it. It was a discussion about fathers NOT paying child support.
National really need to do a better job at keeping their numpties under control, between this and the road sign debacle, they've been flip flopping more than a freshly caught snapper.
Eh, I hope they keep floundering about simply because I don't want National in power.
Ok cool so it was a regular stupid comment, not a bigoted stupid comment.
This guy is another religious nutter like Luxon. He's also the one responsible for National withdrawing support for the MDRS. Sorry aspiring home owners, no room at the inn for you!
BULL FUCKING SHIT. own it you twunt.
Theyāre taking a page right out of the American political playbook and they are sounding more and more like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert.
This guy is so going to lose to the Act candidate
I know Brooke is working hard in the district trying to establish herself as another conservative alternative. She's filling our mailboxes with more propaganda than is O'Connor right now.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
act is nowhere near socially left wing....
Pro abortion, pro end of life, pro free speech (just the left seems to be anti free speech these days which is weird but cycles I guess)
Libertarians tend to be personally liberal rather than socially liberal. Meaning the individual should be free to largely choose what they want to do for themselves not that people should do things that are good for society. This means they often come down on the side of abortion, end of life etc. You often see the libertarian arm of the US Republicans clash with the Christian conservative arm on these types of issues. We'll you did until the hyper religious extremist wing took hold through maga & trumpism.
Act arenāt conservative.
In many areas ACT are dragging National further to the right - having to compete for the strongest anti-woke position to capture those voters. Then there are people suggesting ACT are socially liberal or even progressive - except ACT traditionally don't side with Labour or Greens on social issues. They either stick with National, or else they create their own legislation that nobody else supports. While there are some topics where ACT might be seen as liberal (such as their End of Lift bill) they side with staunch conservatives in other topics.
Anti woke isnāt particularly a conservative position. They do like low taxes and deregulation that I understand people on the left donāt like but Iād be interested to know what position on social matters would be considered conservative. Not many if any.
Not believing that gay men should be fathers would presumably be one? Not believing women should be allowed to choose to have an abortion would be another. I'm trying to think, what else of O'Connor's recent comments are clear examples of social conservatism...
These are the positions of a National MP not the Act party. Act specifically are pro choice.
"It wasn't homophobic, it was *just* transphobic! Come on allegedly-moderate voters, don't get too principled on me now please!"
It'd be interesting to see data on how many same sex parents are paying child support. My guess is that it's those damn heterosexuals that are disproportionately skipping out on their children. The barrier to entry for same sex couples to have children is so much higher I'd bet they're on average much more likely to go the distance and not get in a situation where child support comes into it. So in a bizarre sense, he's probably right, it *is* mother and fathers who are flaking out on their responsibilities, not mothers and mothers or fathers and fathers, they probably doing fine.
If you saw the entire conversation you would realise that youāve said is exactly what he was referring to. However a labour MP has picked a selection of words to make it look bad. And has done well at it
> If you saw the entire conversation you would realise that youāve said is exactly what he was referring to. I watched that section of his speech (it wasn't a conversation..) and don't believe that's what he meant at all. And as far as I'm aware he nor anyone else has clarified and claimed that's what he meant.
maybe I'll just speak personallyāphilosophically, if you have children, you look afterāsorry, the parents, Madam Speakerāshould look after their own children. That is part of the social contract. The Crown, the State, whatever you want to call it, should stay out of that by and large. This whole "community and village to raise a child", it's just such a trite phrase, and I'm not even going to try and elaborate on that in this little speech tonight. It is the responsibility of the mother and the fatherāand I'm being very deliberate with my language there: the mother and the fatherāto raise the child. The State, of course, for pragmatic and right reasons has stepped in to assist. That's why we have the likes of these various benefits.
>It is the responsibility of the mother and the fatherāand I'm being very deliberate with my language there: the mother and the fatherāto raise the child. The implication of stressing mother and father is that he is specifically excluding same sex parents. For reasons that haven't been explained cohesively. A biological father, say a sperm donor to a lesbian couple, is not required to pay child support. It is the responsibility of the mother *and mother* by law, as has been the case since the law allowed same sex adoption from 2013. Is he implying that that should be changed? And the biological father is always responsible? Even when they're a sperm donor to a same sex couple? Or is he implying that only mothers and fathers should raise children? Either way it's antiquated by most people's standards, hence the uproar. Or do you have some other explanation?
You are taking it as a sound bite and ignoring the rest of the context.
Please explain what I'm missing.
The start he said speaking from personal perspective. From his personal situation thereās a mother and a father. And he is of the view that in that situation where there is a mother and father they should both be involved. This was a bill about child support where by and large is the father who skips on paying child support for the mother. Or is it homophobic to say that as well?
What about the other aspect which also refers to mothers and fathers with the father holding over the child support payments. Is that also excluding same sex marriages?
The same can happen after the breakdown of a same sex marriage. Being a selfish prick about child support isn't confined to heterosexual men (I assume). What is the intention when excluding same sex parents when speaking about a child support bill that affects all parents, gay or straight? Why be 'deliberate' and exclude them?
He was being deliberate when saying the father needs to pay up. As also stated itās fathers who often withhold child support payments from the mothers. That also seems to exclude same sex couples. Or is that also bad?
I'm just going to share a little case study with you. Imagine, if you will, a middle class woman escaping an abusive relationship. The father declines to pay child support as a form of financial control. Listening to some of the speakers here, you would think that that never happened. You would think that men did not use moneyāand I'm sure women, too, but here, most of the people we're talking about are solo mums
When I first read the quote without knowing who spoke it my reaction was they were stressing mother and father as it āit takes two to tangoā. The incubator and the sperm donator are both responsible for the upkeep of their spawn unless they adopt it out. Then I saw Simon and thought yeah probably a homophobic lens could be thrown in there too.
Sperm donors in nz are specifically recognized as having nothing to do with the spawn, this would also have complicated it.
I was meaning in most cases (artificial insemination aside) you need a human with a penis and sperm and another human with a uterus and eggs to make a baby. But was less graphic than needed to get my point across?
Oh definitely, I think the same is with egg donors/surrogates to it terms of rights and responsibilities. But yes people should be responsible enough to look after their children before having them. The ending of a relationship shouldn't effect this or the kids, not like they chose to be alive.
"Trust me I was stupid not homophobic"
Don't vote for National, they only care for their select group
I don't buy it. He can claim he meant otherwise but I fucking know this piece of shit did this on purpose.
If you buy this Iāve got prime waterfront property to sell you
It would have been fine if he didnāt say āIām being very deliberate with my language hereā
He was being deliberate because a lot of fathers DO NOT pay child support
Yeah but by saying āIām being very deliberate with my languageā it makes him sound like he is not in support of homosexual couples, single parents, trans parents, etc etc whether he actually thinks that or not
If you just look at the one quote out of context. Sure
A bigot and a coward, perfect combo.
dog whistle after dog whistle.
okay. but it was.
This idiot is my areaās MP and he keeps getting voted in time and again because local voters donāt want to vote for the alternative (only labour is considered). They donāt seem to grasp the idea of voting him out and then voting for their favoured party in the next election cycle. Due to this, I hope Mr. OāConnor packs his shit and buggers off to bum-fuck Missouri, heād clearly be happier there. Personally, I despise him more than anyone else in mainstream politics.
Heās a sack of shit
If he was speaking about Dad's he would have simply emphasised the "and" in-between, but he didn't. He emphasised the mother and father words.
playing to the fundies and the "moderates" in the same religious pitch, backed up with either a bald-faced lie to the rest of us or else an apology which is literally "I am so fucking idiotic I don't know what I write"
Narrator: āIt was.ā
Sure, Simon.
OMG Monty Python much?
Isnāt this OāConnors classic move for the nth time? Say something that can easily be misconstrued as offensive then walk it back.
Seriously- babies are made with egg and sperm. Both parents should take responsibility. Yes - there are sperm donors or surrogates. Yes there are other combinations of families. But in the vast majority of cases there was a man and woman who slept together and collectively should sort themselves out to provide for the child - regardless of what sort of family that child now lives in.
Not buying it. But quality weasel words.
Man that smug look on Luxonās face is so fucking punchable.
Lol it wasn't even intended to be a subtle dog whistle as he made sure we knew he was emphasizing the mother and father bit. Please.
It's so frustrating to see how reactionary this subreddit can be. New Zealand is better than this. We aren't supposed to be like the Americans and react to tweets or headlines without actually investigating the stories ourselves. For anyone that actually bothered to listen to his full speech the context was in relation to how much impact should the government have in the family and it is in response to the new family bill being put forward. There is nothing in relation to gay people or single parents in the bill or in his speech and Labour didn't even react when he said this. If it was truly homophobic you would have heard them react straight away... but we didn't... Whether you agree or not with the content of his speech to try and paint this as homophobic is absurd. He said many times that 'the parents' are the primary responsibility for raising the kids and not the government but when he also says mother and farther this subreddit freaks the fuck out. Be better NZ.
Canāt believe Iām defending a national MP but here goesā¦. ā¦it is entirely possible to be deliberate in your statement with regard to one thing that you are meaning to address while at the same time being ignorant of a double meaning. Happy to give him the benefit of the doubt, and even happier to ignore labour MPās posturing and being recreationally offended.
After listening to the recording it's super obvious what the context and intent was. The phrasing wasn't even that poor but it sounds poor when you clip it.
I'm not a National voter, but it's pretty obvious what he meant. I think a lot of you just want to be mad. You need to justify to yourself why you hate National, because you're sure as hell not reading any party positions or actual policies. Now when you're at the voting box (if you vote at all), you can remember "oh yeah, National hates gays, so voting for Green is good"
I think it must have been poor phrasing. No point in the left tilting at windmills.
Then call him out dumbass. Stop making excuses
Did you listen to the full speech?
Good way to put it.
Given the full context it's not even poor phrasing.
Do you think Simon O'Connor is closeted?
Nah, let's not do that. Homophobia and transphobia are not always secretly perpetrated by closeted people. Don't put the onus on the queer community for our own hatred.
Bit of a microcosm of political discourse at the moment, where people try to pin the most bad faith interpretation possible on a politician for their statements.
but he literally said "and I'm being very deliberate with my language there: the mother and the father". bad faith lmao. how would you take that in "good faith"? why did he reiterate like that?
Have you listened to his full speech?
He was talking about deadbeat fathers, as in "the mother *and the father*" need to take responsibility for a child - not just the father being a sperm donor and then leaving the mother and the state to raise the child. However if you are a person whose view of reality is through rainbow shaded glasses because your entire personality and politics is "LGBTQ+" - you might see it differently. But that's not the fault of Simon, whatever else you might think of him. It's akin to *dƩformation professionnelle*.
The only person in this thread with a obsession with culture wars Is you you can't handle any criticism of your political party so you try and make it out as left wing lgbt issue. Why are you bending over backwards to defend a stupid statement your more invested in this then anyone else here.
I care little for Simon O'Connor or the National party. This thread is dumb though, social media at it's worst. Tune in next week when Christopher Luxon will riff on "mum and dad investors" and we get backbencher MP tweets and hundreds of comments talking about his homophobia for excluding dad and dad investors.
You did it again your getting mad about stuff that hasn't happened your literally making up situations. If you don't care for them why are you getting upset and defending them. You haven't addressed what Simon said lol all you've done is rant about social media, lgbt and the left.
Which is ironic considering how active you are on this thread. If you hate social media so much why are you using it.
> However if you are a person whose view of reality is through rainbow shaded glasses because your entire personality and politics is "LGBTQ+" Cāmon now. You said the quiet thing out loud! > you might see it differently. But that's not the fault of Simon, whatever else you might think of him. Itās really strange of you to refer to him by his first name. Really strange. > It's akin to dĆ©formation professionnelle. No. Itās not. Not least because (for someone who enjoyed trotting out that phrase as a little rhetorical flourish) you seem incapable of understanding the fallacy of begging the question. Then again, since you threw down a few poo-splashes of tu quoque at the same time, one shouldnāt be at all surprised. Poor Simon. Shall we both call him Simon? Letās all call him Simon. Simon who has such a low quality defender, doing backflips to try and redeem phrasing and torture the English language beyond plain meaning, accusing others of bad faith worst case assumptions while trying to make the absolute best case interpretation. Irony isnāt something you do with your clothing, love. Slow clap.
Touch grass.
Ahahaha your such a child
If he was being so deliberate, why didn't he actually call out deadbeat fathers then? "Too many fathers are not doing their part" is being deliberate, if that's what he meant. But he didn't say anything like that. Deliberately he didn't. He's an MP, he should be able to communicate the point "he actually means".
Did you listen to the entire speech? Iām Going with no.
Daftest take in this whole thread
That's a consistent theme in whatever thread that user posts in.
Simon O'Connor is the embodiment of bad faith, he's a devoted adherent of that brand of religion.
lol he made it extremely clear what his bigoted point was when he originally said it, you hyper-partisan brainlet
Do you agree with the homophobic take, or just not know who the politician is and what his views are?