Congratulations Chris & Peter
Congrats to Chris Carter who is reported to be joining his partner, Peter Kaiser, in a civil union today. Chris and Peter have been together for 33 years.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Labour
February 10th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Only 33 years? Shouldn’t they wait a bit longer and see if things are going to work out before rushing into this sort of thing?
February 10th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Yeah crazy kids just diving in like that.
Chuck feel free not comment.
February 10th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Ah, but I did have to giggle at this deathless bit of blushless nuptual bullshit from Mr. Carter:
He was reluctant to go into details, saying it was a private occasion. “We didn’t really want any publicity.”
Yeah, Chris, which is why you posted an announcement on GayNZ.com – which is presumably why your phiz is on the front page of the Herald, above the fold…
Long life and good luck to them both, but could Chris at least wait until Parliament resumes before he starts insulting my intelligence?
Oh, and at the risk of being pedantic could someone tell whoever writes The O’Herald’s headline that Chris Carter and Peter Kaiser are NOT “to wed” anytime soon – considering the amount of hot air expended on this very point during the CUB debate, you’d think they could get it right.
February 10th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
What a pathetic, sad arsed, troubled, little introspective pack of navel gazers we are as a society that this is front page news – its gay (third meaning).
February 10th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
who plays at being a women between these 2 men
February 10th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
who plays at being a women between these 2 men
February 10th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Iwikiwi:
And who plays at being the grown-up in your boudoir, chum?
February 10th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Oh go away, iwikiwi.
February 10th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I bet iwikiwi doesn’t see a lot of wedding invitations – would you want him talking to your prospective spouse?
February 10th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
You lot are a bit testy, werent you invited, ,ps chris carter directed the x-file series, thats a STRANGE series,
February 10th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Porcupine: My thoughts exactly. Things have to to a sorry pass indeed when people like Michael Laws are so desperate to make the cover of Womens Daze (having milked the ‘I got hives on Celebrity Trash Island’ story for all it’s worth) they resort to regularly reproducing themselves just to get their picture took.
If Carter, Laws et al admitted they were shameless publicity whores before posing for their close-up, at least they’d only be insulting our digestion and not our intelligence.
That having been said, good luck to the Carter-Kaisers (come on, they’re modern day socialists, a hyphenated name following nuptials is in the manual).
February 10th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
This really is not newsworthy.
February 10th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
I wonder if the whangamata marina society sent their best wishes?
February 10th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Sorry, but as a Christian, I obviously don’t agree. In fact I am almost tempted to say that the thunderstorm we experienced this arvo could almost be God voicing his displeasure at this sham and farce of a “wedding”.
I think those that passed this law have caused NZ to soil itself badly in passing that which promotes the ’sin’ that caused the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Sorry, but it had to be said.
February 10th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
No doubts the official that conducted the service was a stranded Humpback whale and the taxpayer funded honeymoon will be at Broken Arse Mountain.
God save New Zealand !!
February 10th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Fletch and dad4justice are living examples of why you shouldn’t let ya sperm back up and brainwash yourself.Get out of the dark ages ya sad bed-wetting sexual defectives.
February 10th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
I’ve seen a few sham and farcical hetero weddings Fletch, but there’s nothing to suggest the Carter/Kaiser event will be, is there? If they’ve been together 33 years already, presumably they’re committed?
February 10th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Psych Milt, my partner wore a dress when we got married ,and we didnt both go into the mens together to pee at the reception , what im saying is Two men kissing dosnt do anything to me ,maybe im not new labour and will call a gay a gay ? a good word ruined
February 10th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
So they got “civil-unionised”.Apart from them,Fletch and Bishop Tameke,who gives a shit?
By contrast,the “death” situation of that large-titted,blond American woman with the unfortunate “too much gum showing on the uppers when she smiled problem”..I forget the term for it,is way more interesting.She was iconic,ironic or whatever you like for all the millions of people who haven’t had a life since the OJ trial.Heh..
February 10th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
I guess they can both go to BDSM munches and gorge on Arab boys as a genuine couple now huh ?
February 10th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Fletch – If God created the thunderstorm to protest against the civil union, why didn’t he be more direct and say send an e-mail message instead.
February 10th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Glad you said it Fletch. Now we need never bother taking you seriously again you sad little twit.
February 10th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Great to see the prats on this blog so quickly self identify.
I think it is news-worthy, I doubt that there’s many gay Ministers elsewhere in the Commonwealth who’ve entered into a civil union. It isn’t presented as state of the nation stuff, but is nevertheless interesting and worthy of note – I suspect that if any other Minister (or senior member of the Opposition) was married or civil unioned, that’d get some coverage too.
February 10th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
I think the UK’s Ben Bradshaw beat Chris and Peter to it, but good on them for going ahead.
February 10th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Dear Kiwiblog readers,
Just a quick note to say that I approve wholeheartedly of this civil union. The thunderstorm was in fact in response to Michael Cullen’s proposal for a fixed rate mortgage levy.
Yous faithfully,
God
February 10th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Heh heh heh.
February 10th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
I wonder how much the tax/rate payer contributed towards this ‘union’? The ceremony was held at the Waitakere City Council chambers (gratis?) and attended by all and sundry from gummint. Gee, I wonder who’s paying all these gummit guests reception, travel and accomodation costs? Id have a hard enough time accepting it if they were heterosexuals, let alone being homos.
February 10th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Can anyone actually identify where and when there was any destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. It, like the “flood”, seems to have left little record in human history.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:36 am
Paul W. wrote:
I suspect that if any other Minister (or senior member of the Opposition) was married or civil unioned, that’d get some coverage too.
Um, really? I don’t recall any media coverage when Paul Swain re-married. It was considered more news-worthy (and properly so) to report that he was seriously ill enough to be stood down as a minister for several months.
Putting aside the folks who have a very queer fascination with Chris Carter’s sex life, I’m struggling to see the news value beyond (clutch your pearls, girls!) Chris Carter’s homosexual. Personally, I look forward to a society that’s mature enough to build a bridge and get over it. (BTW, thanks to the DomPost for outing Clark’s new head spin doctor – well, at least it was news to me. I’m still struggling to see what possible relevance that has to her job, beyond the fact she’s also the partner of Maryan Street. And even then, that’s not exactly earth-shaking stuff given how small a town Wellywood is… unless you think the woman’s so useless – and her partner stupid enough – to pull strings to get her girlfriend a job.)
February 11th, 2007 at 3:40 am
It’s a bit of a worry that you are struggling to see the news value in this Craig. Not only news but good news to see it as news. It would certainly be news here in Australia and I suspect most other countries in the world.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:41 am
It’s a bit of a worry that you are struggling to see the news value in this Craig. Not only news but good news to see it as news. It would certainly be news here in Australia and I suspect most other countries in the world.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:19 am
James:
Strangely enough, I couldn’t give a wet fart in a hurricane that Kylie Minogue gave her boyfriend the flick either – which seemed to have the Ocker rags in a lather. What exactly made that of compelling public interest while (I’m sure) thousands of other men and women, hetero and homosexual, do the same in blissful obscurity every day of the week? I know this is as old-fashioned as changing for dinner, but I happen to think there’s a lot of wisdom in the old saw that “not everything the public is interested in is in the public interest.”
February 11th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Maybe you should throw one of your children into a volcano to temper your Gods displeasure.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Carter can now go around the world saying he is first gay politician in the Southern Hemisphere to have got a civil Union.
February 11th, 2007 at 10:15 am
So does that legally make him a second-class citizen?
February 11th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Craig, I recall media about Swain’s remarriage and I wasn’t living in NZ at the time.
February 11th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Its great that same sex unions can be celebrated. But the PUBLICITY around them is nothing but a party political broadcast pure and simple.
February 11th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Its a sad and disgusting day when someone can openly express their sexuality on the front cover of the national newspaper, but when someone voices their own personal disagreement with it in a blog, they are labelled ’sexual defectives’ or ’sad little twit’.
There is only tolerance in this country for the tolerant.
It is totally acceptable for people to disagree on civil unions. Just because someone isn’t pro-gay doesn’t mean they’re stupid or bigoted. Its why we consider NZ a democracy.
If your going to tolerate homosexuals, then you must also tolerate those who think homosexuality is not morally justified. We have such double-standards in NZ.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
“There is only tolerance in this country for the tolerant.”
Seems fair enough. That’s a bit like saying that people only want to be nice to nice people. Don’t be a dick, people will be nicer to you. Life lessons in a nutshell…
February 11th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
33 years of filth and perversion, nothing to be proud of.
These sickos do not get any blessings from our NORMAL family.
This is the one reason we will never vote for Labour again, not to mention all the other Gays,bisexuals,and perves who are part of the labour govt.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Murray, I copied this from you blog for retards.
“Welcome to Hitting Metal With A Hammer. An Anglosphere Blog that exists entirely for the exercise of my free speech – not yours.”
You exercise your right to free speech and suppress other on your own blog. However, while DPF will give you free speech on his blog he is unlike to censor others with view points contrary to you or himself.
You claim to be right wing but you sound very much left in the way you like stifle free speech.
I do not have a problem with you and your homosexual friends doing what ever they what to in private amongst adults. That is their business. However, when children become involved through homosexual adoption or turkey baster insemination it is everybody’s business.
I think you should consider joined the Labour Party. They support hate speech legislation and only giving jobs to homosexuals or their bedfellows.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
‘I do not have a problem with you and your homosexual friends doing what ever they what to in private amongst adults. That is their business. However, when children become involved through homosexual adoption or turkey baster insemination it is everybody’s business’.
Well stated, CB.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Perhaps the next logical step for Labour will be to de-criminalise beastality? Statistical evidence suggests around 50% of all farmhands engage in it. Thats got to be a fair whack of voters that Labour can pinch from National.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
“Perhaps the next logical step for Labour will be to de-criminalise beastality?”
Yeah… …cause sheep can really, genuinely communicate their consent all of a sudden?
February 11th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Baaaah…Baaah, ow ow ooow…Baaah
February 11th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
“only giving jobs to homosexuals or their bedfellows.”
And a homosexual’s bedfellow differs from a homosexual exactly how?
It’s MENSA in here alright..
February 11th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Matty asks how sheep can communicate their consent.
If he had grown up on a farm, he would know that dogs often try to mount humans.
If a human consents to this, we have two consenting participants.
Is this any less normal than a man sucking his own excerement off another man’s penis?
February 11th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
“Is this any less normal than a man sucking his own excerement off another man’s penis?”
Yet more proof that the homophobic ranters spend a considerable amount more time than the rest of us envisioning dirty homosexual acts? Own up, did you type that with one hand?
So far today we’ve had Dad4Justice waxing lyrical about things being inserted into his throat, and now we have you getting all hot and bothered about poo-eating. I mean, I’m not condemning you for it – it’s a free society, and what you want to get aroused by is your business. But really, the rest of us just don’t share your obsessions…
February 11th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Matty grew up on a bloody farm, pork and dairy, large and industrial. Matty knows that animals try to mount all sorts of things.
However, what Matty struggles with, is the idea that, just because a dog is horny and rutting, it is suddenly regarded as “consenting” to interspecies sex. And that some on this blog don’t see the immediate, glaring difference between mounting a dog and mounting a consenting man/woman.
…and since when did homosexuality imply an interest in shit-eating?
February 12th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Yuk Yuk Yuk Yuk Yuk!!!
February 12th, 2007 at 7:18 am
I think it is a real tribute that New Zealand society to have matured to the level that it has made a safe place for the minority of its citizens that are gay.
Sadly as the above comments evidence there are still some sad, pathetic, immature, kiwis. These are the types of KKK characters who would have hated women gaining equality, and ethic minorities being treated with fairness. Small people that find what ever rationalisation they think justifies their craving to spew out their hatred and contempt. Small pathetic characters that hide behind self inflated senses of superiority often bolstered by a conveniently perverted religious belief. Small pathetic people that have absolutely no chance that any person will ever form a 33 year long relationship with them.
New Zealand moved on from such small pathetic minds and I for one am pleased.
Well done Christ Carter.
February 12th, 2007 at 7:18 am
I think it is a real tribute that New Zealand society to have matured to the level that it has made a safe place for the minority of its citizens that are gay.
Sadly as the above comments evidence there are still some sad, pathetic, immature, kiwis. These are the types of KKK characters who would have hated women gaining equality, and ethic minorities being treated with fairness. Small people that find what ever rationalisation they think justifies their craving to spew out their hatred and contempt. Small pathetic characters that hide behind self inflated senses of superiority often bolstered by a conveniently perverted religious belief. Small pathetic people that have absolutely no chance that any person will ever form a 33 year long relationship with them.
New Zealand moved on from such small pathetic minds and I for one am pleased.
Well done Chris Carter.
February 12th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Does it get poo on it ? It must do.
I asked my uncle, (who is gay) that question, he said “Ohh I don’t know dear, I always get a blow job straight afterwards”
February 12th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Mike Johnson – I’d prefer it if you didn’t overtly refer to Chris Carter as Christ. Its insulting.
February 12th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
“Mike Johnson – I’d prefer it if you didn’t overtly refer to Chris Carter as Christ. Its insulting.”
Laugh of the day! If only your prior posts lead me to hope you were being intentionally ironic…
Hoolian, you’ve posted considerably more insulting things in this thread yourself, and don’t have the excuse of them being a typo. Unless that was a typo when you asserted that being tolerant means tolerating the views of the intolerant too? Whoops.
Getting back to that, how ARE you getting along with the National Front these days?
February 12th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
“Hoolian, you’ve posted considerably more insulting things in this thread yourself, and don’t have the excuse of them being a typo. Unless that was a typo when you asserted that being tolerant means tolerating the views of the intolerant too? Whoops.”
err
If you do not accept the right of others to have an opinion that you disagree with, then you become intolerant.
Intolerence is not having an opinion that certain behaviour is unacceptable. That is a difference of opinion.
Intolerence is trying to suppress someone else’s opinion that differs with what you regard as acceptable.
So, not to tolerate the intolerent does lower you to the level of intolerence.
Feel free to disagree.
Sometimes, being able to agree to disagree is the only mature solution.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Yes, but should we tolerate the unjustifiably intolerant? Like homophobics on here, or radical Muslims, who have absolutely no tangible reason to condemn those that they do beyond gut reactional hatred and miseducation.
I think we need to include What Makes Sense and What Does Not Make Sense alongside these ambiguous terms.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Matty,
Who makes the decisions on what is unjustifyable?
Homophobic is a very intolerent phrase.
Are you saying that others are not allowed to dislike homosexuality? That is intolerence that is equal to or greater than any intolerence that has been shown by them, since I have not seen anyone advocating that it is not acceptable to hold the opinion that homosexuality is acceptable.
It is one thing to think that someone is disgusting or depraved for having an opinion in favour of something (most people would take that line over, for example bestiality). But that person is entitled to think like that, just as most people would feel entitled to be disgusted.
As I said before. Agree to disagree over something, and then get over it.
It is quite possible to strongly disagree with a person over one issue, and yet retain mutual respect in other areas.
If you find someone else’s ideas too big an issue to agree to disagree on, then your own internal tolerance is the likely cause.
I’m talking about tolerating ideas and opinions, not actions. If what I said makes you furious, and you want to beat the snot out of me, then I can tolerate that opinion, but I would be intolerent if you tried to put the opinion into action.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Matty, the logic or lack or logic of the pro homosexual never ceases to amaze me.
Do you consider radical Maori calling people racist because they object to the Maori seats and Maori language in schools as a reasonable response?
If you do not, how do you justify your use of the term homophobic as an attempt to silence those who object to any of the demands of the militant homosexual lobby?
Homosexuality is legal. I am not advocating making it illegal again. However, it is not an activity that does not in any way benefit society and should not be encouraged.
The far higher rate of HIV and other STDs amongst homosexuals is but one good reason why it should not be encouraged.
Do believe that someone who know they are HIV+ should have a legal obligation to tell any sexual partner of their HIV status?
The AIDS Foundation believes someone’s right to privacy trumps another person’s right to safety.
How do you think issues such as homosexual adoption should be decided? Should it be by referendum or people like you who “know” you are right.
I would be interested in your reply. I think I and others would be a little more impressed if you had the courage to use you own name.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Peter S, you’re making a big sophistic mess of yourself.
Condemning an individual for their chosen views is quite acceptable and a normal part of civil society. Attacking groups of people for their nature is not, which is the reason we have pejorative words like “bigot” around to describe that kind of path.
A lot of righties on this blog (hello Redbaiter) make the mistake of conflating disagreement with suppression of an opinion. Suppression means the use of force to prevent you expressing it. Disagreement just means that people will speak sternly to you for expressing it. It’s a pretty normal part of civil society, and has been forever. There’s no LAW or threat of force that prevents you calling your mum a “fucking cuntwad bitch moron” over dinner when she doesn’t past the salt quick enough, but it’s probably a bad idea because if you do it then people won’t be very nice to you afterwards – because your position is unjustifiable and socially unacceptable.
Same deal with being an intrusive, meddling bigot with an eye for the private relationships of other people. Nobody’s going to clap you in irons for it, but you might find yourself being rather disdained socially. If that happens then it is entirely your fault for being unable to extend basic good manners towards other people in your society.
This is, essentially, the state of affairs that comes with freedom of speech. You may be free to speak your mind in whatever way you like, but other people listening to what you say are similarly free to speak their minds about you. Nobody gets the threat of force used against them to shut them up, but if you’re afraid of harsh language then you’d be well advised to avoid saying deliberately offensive and hurtful things about other people in your society.
The parallel here is to look at the neo-Nazi problem. How do you handle it? Say “Oh, well, your White Pride ideas are valid and worthy of debate too..” even though they’re actually utterly facile and idiotic? Supress them with force? Or just allow them to speak their mind and then tell them they’re a bunch of morons and get on with your day? I favour everybody taking the latter approach, which is exactly what’s happened here in this thread to the rabid idiot brigade.
You’re confusing the obligation to tolerate somebody speaking their mind with an obligation to be polite to people who cannot muster basic politeness themselves. No such obligation exists, it’s not a required part of free speech. If somebody chooses to attack other people in a society on the basis of their nature then they open themselves to attack on the basis of their views.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Peter S – it seems to me that you are dangerously intolerant of peoples intolerance of your intolerance.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
“Do [you] believe that someone who know[s] they are HIV+ should have a legal obligation to tell any sexual partner of their HIV status?
The AIDS Foundation believes someone’s right to privacy trumps another person’s right to safety.”
I do, naturally, believe that HIV+ people should disclose their status or face liability. And, in fact, after checking the AIDS foundation website, it seems so do they. They STATE that there is no criminal liability if a condom is used, (a fact I admittedly find disturbing), but they do not ADVOCATE a lack of disclosure, as you imply.
I think ‘err..’ and Danyl Mclauchlan have given sufficient response to your other concerns. I use my own name out of a belief in transparency.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
err
Feel free to condemn & critiscise me. You are entitled to your opinion.
I just choose to disagree with you.
Call me intolerent, & I will continue to point out what I consider to be the hypocracy of your position. Each of us has views and opinions that we consider valid, but I can gaurantee that at least some of them will be deeply offensive to some other people, whilst others will agree stongly. That is just human nature.
The point is, intolerent is not a useful label, because it is a 2 way weapon. Its use is the hallmark of those that really cannot cope with a differing opinion. It is also often just a pathetic tactic to try to scare someone else away from an opposing position.
As I said before, a more useful ability than labelling someone is the ability to agree to disagree (with or without mutual respect), and to move on.
If you have a problem with that, then you can look somewhere other than me for the source of the problem.
Danyl,
Funny that. The more tolerent we try to be, the less tolerent we become.
I suppose that if you found a completely tolerent person, then you would have found someone who did not care for anything or anyone.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:27 am
err,
Maybe I was just unclear in my point, so I’ll clarify.
An acustion of intolerence is a bidirectional one.
Danyl points this out quite eloquently.
If you accuse someone of intolerence for an opposing view, then you either must be a hypocryte or completely tolerent yourself.
Being completly tolerent is what? Standing for nothing, believing in nothing, caring about nothing and having no opinions.
You can of course justify your own intolerence, to yourself at least.
Guess what, so can everyone else.
So some other people’s opinions offend you?
Everyone has opinions that offend someone. Join the club.
The position you take is no less bound by a set of rules that you wish to force on others (and to less preachy or zealotry sounding) than the religious right that you so distain.
Yeah, I recognise that by posting I have put myself in the same position, just as by speaking up against labeling someone intolerent I showed my intolerence.
But we could always take the mature path, and agree to disagree, then move on, and maybe find some common ground on another issue.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Oops, I thought the 1st post had got completely lost in cyberspace, or had somehow failed the moderation process.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Yes, but Peter S, you are all knee-jerk reaction. You provide no coherent justification for your “intolerance”, you just jump up and down saying “I don’t like this!”.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Matty,
I have no justification for disliking childish name calling?
Fair enough. I just dislike it.
Feel free to disagree.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:16 am
You’re talking about being called a bigot? I am assuming you don’t actually know the dictionary definition of the word then?
February 15th, 2007 at 9:01 am
I do know the meaning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot
“A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.”
Use it if you want. It is a bidircetional insult, and says more about the first to use it than anything else.
February 15th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
It’s not necessarily “bi-directional”, in that a good dictionary would include in its definition entailments of ‘prejudice’ and ‘lack of justification’.
February 15th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Matty,
You proved my point about intolerence of the opinions of others.
Im going to agree to disagree with you and move on by the way.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Same Sex Adoption Rights
Putting boys before men
The Civil Union (CU) and Relationship (statutory references) Bills confirm a new type of relationship model for NZ. Registered civil union couples are now granted recognition and relationship rights which are equal to those granted through marriage. For the first time ever same sex couples have access to full legal equality. The Care of Children Bill, a curious piece of legislation, recognizes same sex defacto partners as legal parents. Adoption reform is tied in to the above pieces of legislation. Labour’s socialist agenda by default, favours certain groups, a guarantee of problems. A significant proportion of society holds moral codes at least loosely based upon Christianity, with its attendant distrust of homosexuality. Same sex partnerships are still viewed with suspicion as same sex couples cannot have children. Many see the family unit built around the children as unique, something to be treasured. This legislation deeply disturbs them. Courts are now forced to give equal consideration to both homosexual couples and traditional one man and one woman family in matters of adoption.
Helen Clark’s government, aware of opposition, urged “it would not be only be proper for a conscience vote to be exercised but this would be preferable to electorate concerns.”
A conscience vote is where each MP voted on personal judgment: in reality it is open to abuse by ‘groupthink mentality’ a hallmark of Clark’s government and the left in general. Referendum would perhaps be more democratic. In NZ homosexuality became legal in 1985. This has increased the sense of public acceptability of homosexuality and a reduction in the levels of discrimination, a worthy goal of any caring society. Society disapproval though has left a dark legacy, perverting much of their culture, driving it underground; public toilet antics, HIV prevalence, and sexual promiscuity beyond the ken of most heterosexuals are some of the more sticky issues. One popular dictionary of homosexual language contains 56 different definitions for underage boy activities, chicken farmer, chicken rancher et al. There is little doubt that this is the legacy of the historical illegality of homosexual behaviour. Many heterosexuals do not understand that ‘aberrant’ behaviors associated with non heterosexuality are not intrinsic qualities of homosexuality, but are rather the result of alienation produced by a hostile society, the symptoms of abuse. Discrimination still continues, confirmed by gay activists regularly, and homosexuals and lesbians almost certainly on average will have a lower standard of living more criminality, unhappy relationships, typical of other oppressed minorities, possible reasons why they deserved and still deserve help.
Studies confirm increased prevalence of drug rape experiences and other sexually criminal behaviors in the gay community. This kind of abuse is corollary to the etiology behind much homosexual behavior. Auckland PhD student John Fenoughy says of the incidence of homosexual offending as compared with heterosexuals; “men who have sex with men may be at higher risk for experiences of sexual coercion for rape than compared to straight men because their gay male partners are also men and men (particularly partner friends and acquaintances) are by far the most common perpetrators of sexual coercion and rape. So like heterosexual-identified women, men who have sex with men are at high risk for sexual coercion and rape because they have male sexual partners. That isn’t to say that heterosexual women and lesbians do not rape and sexual assault their partners because there are reports of both of these, however the frequency with these behaviors as reported is MUCH LOWER than those reported by heterosexual women and gay men.”
And …”additional underreporting occurs when heterosexual-identified men do not report such sexual experiences for fear of being gay or bisexual. Gay and bisexual men may also underreport for fear of police outing them and or for fear of not being believed… but the chances of reporting that experience in our culture are very low.”
Children are innocents, not just the wards of their parents, but also of society and law makers. They require protection form a variety of influences and the law is duty bound to provide such protection. It is the first and foremost consideration of any family court processes. The Relationship and Care of Children Bills foster the UN’s socialist agenda, intent on removing the cultural and legal structures that have shepherded reproduction and the nurturing of children into the married family.
The officially stated aims are:
(Combating!) traditional sex roles and stereotypes;
Legally defining gender as merely a social construct rather than a biological distinction;
Rewriting text books and curricula at all school grades to promote the new definition of gender;
Funding gender studies that will foster these attitudes;
Retraining professions in gender issues and gender equity;
Conducting the public relations campaign on gender issues.
Every school now must teach that homosexuality is the equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Text books have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as kindergarten have to give equal space to homosexuals. These changes add up to a recipe for an increased chance of an unhealthy attitude towards sex, towards partners and others, due to the well known cycle of abuse. Consider that homosexuals can be both the creation of a sexual abusive childhood environment or born that way. Rejection and/or abuse by males can and does create lesbianism; also other women naturally gravitate towards women for love without any kinds of abnormal backgrounds. Nature or nurture, it can be either process, or both. The possibility of exposing children to this abusive legacy via same sex adoption environments is thus a real concern, especially when you consider that it’s probably not the parents who are the risk, but rather their surrounding homosexual culture. The state attempts to go too far too soon. Of course homosexual activists think of their own interests and rights and not the children’s in their pursuit of the right to parent. In America recent court decisions (Florida) have recognized the fallacy behind such legislation. Proponents of same sex parent rights cited studies as evidence that Florida had no child welfare basis for excluding homosexuals form adopting. The court wad not fooled pointing out that ‘critiques have highlighted significant flaws in the studies methodologies and conclusions, such as; the use of small self selected samples; reliance’s on self report instruments; politically driven hypotheses; and the use of unrepresentative study populations consisting of disproportionably affluent educated parents”
The court also found that the appellants failed to recognized that when addressing questions of adoption, child welfare, and custody, the fundamental operation principle is that ‘what is in the best interest of the child.’ While not always successful in achieving this goal, the principle should never be ‘in the best interest of the adult.’ Homosexual activists have consistently tried to implement this subtle change, placing this objective above even the best interests of children.
It is of course difficult to obtain valid data for the legislative process regarding same sex relationships that is not based on either fear driven dogma, or leftist social engineering. A NZ gay website contained inaccurate generalizations and unresearched conclusions similar to those so prevalent in the Christian hetero community: “gay dads tend to be stricter disciplinarians but also allow kids considerable cognitive independence.’ ‘Children of lesbian mums had excellent interpersonal skills particularly with their sons, while their daughters grew up to be stroppy independent women …” These are utterly ridiculous generalizations, as bad as the homophobic utterances of several MPs.
Political correctness prohibits scientific research that could otherwise refute many of the ill founded claims made by proponents of these bills. In the search for objectivity, critic Lynn Wardle of the (discredited) Maxim institute is forced to rely upon the discredited work of Paul Cameron, expelled for the American psychological association and denounced by the American sociological association for repeated violations of leftist research ethics.
While it is most reasonable to assume that non heterosexuality is not an illness, its legal encouragement is of doubtful worth. Placing children at increased risk of abuse merely to advance other interests group’s agenda is also dubious. These pieces of legislation would be far more acceptable if devoid of currently fashionable leftist social engineering. Perhaps the best answer would have been to wait a generation. As society naturally lost its fear and mistrust of the homosexual, future generations of same-sex patents wouldn’t carry the negative legacy of societies long term disapproval. For Helen Clark’s government to legislatively place our children into any increased risk environment is grossly irresponsible, no matter what other advantages such law changes could hold. Specific prohibition against homosexual adoption should be implicit. Now we wait for the abuse figures to come rolling in…Forget the politics, its all about the kids.