The behaviour of parliamentarians is sometimes likened to that of preschoolers, although that is probably unfair to the under-5s.
Childish antics, pathetic name calling, shallow argument and disruptive conduct are all too common.
Now and again, though, our House of Representatives surprises.
Occasionally, Members of Parliament act with dignity, respect and thoughtfulness.
The debate last week on the first reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill was one of those times.
The Bill, which if enacted would allow for same-sex marriages, deals with matters that many in society hold dear; on the one hand what is seen as equality and human rights for sectors of the population and, on the other, social engineering and the modification of an ancient and cherished ceremony and its accompanying status.
The very idea of homosexuality and same-sex attraction is, even today, repugnant or at least wrong to many, while increasing numbers see it as natural as heterosexuality.
There is a large third group, too, bewildered and perhaps a little confused by the changes in society. They, understandably, find the modern visibility of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) disconcerting.
Times certainly have changed.
It is only 26 years since the debates, marches and then passing of the Homosexual Law Reform Act, decriminalising homosexuality.
It is only eight years since state-recognised same-sex "civil unions" were sanctioned, at the time a seemingly satisfactory alternative to "marriage".
Yet, at least for the first reading, some MPs have gone so far as to swing from opposing civil unions to supporting the current Bill.
Although same-sex marriage is recognised in nine nations (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina and Denmark), most of the world is still in opposition, and many African and Muslim majority nations remain strongly homophobic, with active persecution commonplace.
It is the liberal West leading the charge, particularly among younger people.
The influence of Hollywood and its attitudes and programming should not be underestimated in this, and the statement of United States President Barack Obama that he was "absolutely comfortable" with gay marriage has been influential.
Not surprisingly, the strongest support in this country comes from the bigger cities, the under 50s and better-off Pakeha.
Estimates of approval vary, with two-thirds backing the change in one widely accepted figure.
Opposition comes from many, or even most, of the churches - although the liberal wings are usually strong advocates - and from ethnic minorities, notably Pasifika, Chinese and Korean.
The size of the 80 to 40 majority at the first reading surprised.
While about a dozen or so MPs might have been agreeing just to allow the matter to go to a select committee and might vote against next time, such is the weight of approval that the Bill is now expected to pass through all three stages.
That will not, however, stop vociferous debate in the community.
The good manners in Parliament are unlikely always to be repeated because, as Prime Minister John Key has noted, such "emotional" matters are likely to "get quite ferocious".
Already, on the often anonymous and poisonous online space, bitter vitriol is being expressed.
Expect, too, increased lobbying from interested groups.
The push for same-sex marriage is not actually because many gay and lesbian couples are straining to "marry".
It is, fundamentally, about asserting "equal" rights, about full social equality and about public progress by a minority and its supporters.
Relatively few civil unions have taken place, and Louisa Wall, sponsor of the Bill, has herself said she and her long-term partner do not plan to "marry".
How New Zealand conducts itself over this matter as it proceeds will, indeed, reflect on our maturity - on both sides of the debate.
Those opposed will have to acknowledge a changing world where prejudice against people because of their sexuality is not acceptable, while advocates of same-sex marriage need to respect the genuine and deeply felt beliefs on the other side.
