Hilarious hypocrisy
May 12th, 2009 at 3:16 pm by David FarrarGoing back to the Rankin appointment, I can’t help but highlight this:
Green MP Sue Bradford said National was subverting the commission through political appointments, and accused it of sabotage.
Oh yes we can’t have political appointments to the Families Commission. I was thinking just that the other day as I sat in the Backbencher watching the former Chief Family Commissioner yell abuse and heckle National MPs, thinking this is what his job as a Labour List MP is about.
Pleased to see the Press has amended their story and deleted references to Rankin’s family.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
And disappointed you’ve seen fit to re-print them…
[DPF: So I should pretend The Press never printed them? I should stop criticising them as they have deleted it]
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Point well made Graeme.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
So which is it?
You CAN have political appointments because someone else has done it? Or you CAN’T because it’s a bad idea?
I presume given your disgust at a Family Commissioner taking political positions you are very much against a political figure like Rankin being appointed?
[DPF: I'm saying it is hypocritical to only complain about National making a political appointment, when the former Govt did so. I've blogged at length of the pros and cons of political appojntments generally if you want to know my view - check the archives]
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Well Sue Bradford would say that — because that’s what she does and she is projecting her own modus operandi on to others. Unfortunately there are many left-wing appointments from the last nine years where in my view the Labor Party in particular has tried to infiltrate key institutions with political appointments. I see this appointment of Christine Rankin as a move back to ordinary, right-thinking New Zealanders being appointed to important positions.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Moral of the story:
It doesn’t matter whichever party is in government as long as the socialists get whatever they want, and throw a tantrum when they don’t get it.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Let’s hope Christine R. can make something out of this bureaucratic-turkey department created to satisfy Possum Pete Dunne.
It must cost just about as much to keep Possum Pete on side as it does to control the country’s Possum Plague.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
No, but criticism could be made without repitition.
I missed that in the Press story. You seem to believe I shouldn’t have been told at all. Now I have.
“Pleased to see the Press has amended their story and deleted unecessary references to Rankin’s family”
[DPF: Fair point - will do]
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
So which is it?
You CAN have political appointments because someone else has done it? Or you CAN’T because it’s a bad idea?
The Government should not be appointing anyone to anything. Those Commissions should not exist. The SOEs should not be State-owned. So who cares?
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
“So who cares?”
Vote:Given his post, I suggest Mr Farrar does. As do you (if indirectly) given your answer it seems.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I dont understand the want to have her, she has so much baggage and to be honest she wasnt that good at her job. An ironic thing is part of her job is meant to defend the whole anti smacking legislation / right to hit child (depending on your view point – lets no go that path) when she campaigned against the bill.
Anyway the key is surely National must have access to much better personal than this, especially if they are moving away from ‘political appointments’ – the key here is they are not.
As DPF rightly said its incredibly hypocritical of the Greens or Labour to complain, but its pretty hypocritical to National as well who complained about the whole politisation of political appointments. Fact is they are both bad (though I will admit Labour is worse) but it would be nice to get beyond it and have our civil service more defined on who is best for the job.
“Labor Party in particular has tried to infiltrate key institutions with political appointments. I see this appointment of Christine Rankin as a move back to ordinary, right-thinking New Zealanders being appointed to important positions.”
It will be a move from left appointed lackies to right appointed lackies. The thing is I think National should fire the deadwood appointments Labour appointed – but replace with genuine talent rather than controversal candiatiates at best – which in my opinion Christine Rankin is. She wasnt that great (personally I think I am being to kind) last time, and I fail to see why National are rushing to have her back.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Sue Bradford needs a damn hard smack around her chops, she is a LIAR!!! She is talking complete rubbish about Rankin.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Bradford will be in an absolute lather over this, she has probably destroyed several Green offices, computers out windows, and bitten a chunk out of “Ruscle’s buscle”
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Bit of a disappointment really the whole Families commission should be given the big A, what a waste of cash. Having said that I really enjoy seeing old possum head and Bradford in fits of consternation. Good fucking job, I say put the boot into them, we have had to put up with their social engineering shit for the last nine years, time for some pay back.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
are you suggesting that Sue Bradford had a hand in Prasad’s appointment to the Families Commission? A bit unlikely, given it was Dunne’s baby and the Greens opposed it all the way saying it was a waste of money.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Maybe so Nandor but why if the Melons wanted no part of the families commission is Sue so worked up. Sue is upset because her beloved section 59 could well get kicked to the curb and good job if it does. So please don’t tell me the Melons have no vested interests in the commission.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Can anyone tell me why the Nats. actually bothered with Dunne. He’s a waste of space, always has been and always will be.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Bloody Hell Nandor, you said nothing of note for six bloody years yet in the time you have been a member of Kiwiblog you have made more sense that the entire Green party combined.
I am not going to agree with you often but I do like your pragmatic approach to problem solving, more Green and less Red, wish the rest of your party thought the same way.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Top effort by Rankin on Close Up tonight the woman is N-U-T-S.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
By the way, the speculation over on Dim-post is that Rankin was appointed to undermine the Families Commission because it is a waste of money, etc., and will give the gov’t some reasons to eliminate it in a year or so.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Christine Rankin was fantastic on Close up tonight!
Vote:Worth recording and watching over and over!
May 12th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
yeah Razork, I like Christine Rankin too,
Vote:thinK I will go into my photoshop collection now and look at her for a long time,,
May 12th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
You can see why Klark was so keen to get rid of Rankin, she (Rankin) would never have sat back and done what she was told in the name of the sisterhood.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
peterquixote said: I like Christine Rankin too, thinK I will go into my photoshop collection now and look at her for a long time
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant p-q.
DPF, if you had a prize for the funniest post of the month (why don’t you?), p-q’s here would have to be a finalist for this month.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Sue Who??
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
A live TV debate between Bradford and Rankin, would be a sight to behold. Two fiesty wenches spitting fire and broomstone.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
nandor tanczos (21) Vote: 15 2 Says:
May 12th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
are you suggesting that Sue Bradford had a hand in Prasad’s appointment to the Families Commission? A bit unlikely, given it was Dunne’s baby and the Greens opposed it all the way saying it was a waste of money.
Prasad ‘Who’? He’s the only GG of NZ who’s name I could never remember (or, I could associate with), since I started kindergarden at the age of four.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Do you wanna start a REAL green party Nandor?
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
David, thanks for highlighting my story and providing a link. I just wanted to assure you that we didn’t delete references to Rankin’s personal background for any reason besides the fact that the story was updated during the day. We don’t shy away from what was printed.
I’m interested that you think that Rankin’s FAMILY isn’t relevant to her job as Families Commissioner. I’d agree it wouldn’t be if, say, she was appointed to the board of Transit, or TVNZ. But I think the public has a right to know the personal background of someone who is appointed to a body whose job it is to advocate on behalf of families.
Why is not relevant to her appointment that Rankin has been married four times? Or that her latest marriage is to a man who just six months ago buried his wife? I’m not going to fill in all the blanks here, but you’ll see from other posters on the previous comment you made that there is much more to this story than meets the eye.
For me, the fact that her new man and her celebrated the night away at National’s election night party, drinking champagne and kissing just a week after his wife had died goes to her judgment as a person, and certainly as a Families Commissioner.
Regards,
Colin Espiner
[DPF: Thanks for engaging and clarifying Colin.
Can I discuss things first generally, and then specifically.
Generally I think it is not a taken that being appointed to Families Commission means your family life is fair game. This is not a Commission of saints and role models, but a commission about promoting policies and programmes good for families. Should we ask all Commissioners have they ever cheated on their partners? Have they ever had a bad relationship? Also if fair game for Families Commission, why not journalists who report on social policy issues? And should we inquire of members of the abortion supervisory committee if they have ever had abortions? I really don't like where the line eventually goes.
Turning to the specific, I am aware of the issues regarding the latest marriage. But none of us know all the details of what happened there. I could postulate some scenarios but it would be too icky to go into. Suffice to say a relationship can be over long before a marriage is legally terminated.
But if you think the actions of Rankin over her latest marriage make her unsuitable, then why not interview her and put it to her, rather than just print a connect the dots story that leaves people wondering exactly what the heck it is about?
Once again thanks for responding. It is great to be able to have a sensible dialogue on the issue]
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Colin, I doubt that many people knew or cared about Christines marriages and divorces until you jumped on it and dragged her through the mud.
She is one voice on a Board of seven. Why don’t you dig out the past of the other 6 people on the board then we can debate whether any of them should be there.
What is it with the media and conservitive women with a past?
The Herald on Sunday has already done its best to bring down Paula Bennett – another single parent who pulled herself up by the bootstraps – now look where she is.
Miss California, Carrie Prejean, is about to lose her title today because she held conservative views on marriage which President Obama also agrees with, as did 58% of Californians.
Don’t get me going on how Sarah Palin was treated.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
John Key wanted to dump the Family Commission. This is his way of compromising. Good move. Perhaps Christine will finally do something with this commission instead of wasting taxpayers money. I am reading Richard Prebble’s book OUt of the Red and it frightens me to see how many bureaucrats simply don’t have a clue how the real world works and sucks the tit off of the taxpayers. We’re talking unproductive billions weekly!! The better move would be to get rid of it altogether.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Actually, I think Rankin is the perfect fit to relate to the demographics of todays typical, NZ family. Solo, re-married, and/or, divorced with kids. She’s also smart and clever. All power to her.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 5:01 am
“Miss California, Carrie Prejean, is about to lose her title today because she held conservative views on marriage”
That may be , but she is actually investigated for appearing in semi nude photos before the contest. Personally I’m a supporter of same-sex marriage, but she is allowed to state her mind. Besides, all Hiltons are douchebags (whether it be Paris or Perez).
“Don’t get me going on how Sarah Palin was treated.”
Sure she was funny, had a good personality and were consistent with her views, but those views and beliefs were just plain nuts. She opposed polar bears being added to the endangered list, joked about going seal hunting and wants to “drill, drill, drill” into environmentally fragile areas.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 8:30 am
I couldn’t agree more with Rachael Rich and her comment “What is it with the media and conservative women with a past?”
It just seems to me that women who do not hold with the radical lesbian/feminist mindset that dominates our liberal elites appear to be fair game in the media. Christine Rankin is but one example.
On the other side Investigate magazine published an in-depth article about our former Prime Minister’s sexuality. Did the mainstream media follow that up? Heck no! Apparently sensitivity and decorum and respecting a person’s private life applies only to Liberal/radical women. Women with a right of centre perspective get no such consideration.
I too am appalled about the media’s treatment of Paula Bennett. Again her private life, and in this case the private life of her children, are scrutinised with a fine tooth comb. The treatment of Carrie Prejean and Sarah Palin show us that this media bias against conservative women is an international problem.
But I am pleased that Colin Espiner is also commenting on this thread. I look forward to him, and his media colleagues, getting stuck in to some left wing, feminist women and exposing their private lives and the lives of their families. Or else (preferably) respecting everyone’s right to a fair deal, respecting their private lives and leaving their families alone.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 8:50 am
How fucking dare you question a lezzer.
However a family woman is fair game
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Half the posters here have hypocrisy beyond all reasonable measure.
Maybe start spouting rhetoric about some ‘liberal or even worse”educated elite” (I mean god forbid we would want a logical thought through answer to an issue, we want “joe six pack”) conspirarcy and put logical thought into why something is wrong.
For example I fail to see how Helen Clark’s sexual preference is at all relevant, yet right throughout her reign certain posters on this blog kept seeing it as a point that she was unable to lead, personally think totally irrelevant. Yet when the reverse is done wo and behold liberal elitest conspiracy.
Personally I think that as a general rule a private life is irrelevant – and so I tend to agree with DPF initial assumption. This was particulaly in the case of Paula Bennett. However what someone has been posted to a post factors which are relevant – i.e. their personal views on that post could be argued to be relevant. The whole 4 marriage thing whilst most prob not ideal I dont care about – however the debate on her appointment should be focused upon her past performance (average) and the groups she has been involved with since. I do also find it ironic that some are arguing she is there to shake things up when in the past she was accused of extravagince, anyway.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 10:30 am
David and Scott, actually I fully agree with both of you on most of the points you raise.
You will be aware that in this country the media does NOT have a tradition of digging into the private lives of public figures. Indeed, we are regularly castigated by our overseas colleagues for being too “whimpy” in this regard. In most countries that have free media (Australia, Britain, the US, Canada, much of Europe) public figures are fair game regardless of the circumstances.
I’ve always argued that this is not fair. Opening public figures up to scrutiny of their families and their private lives, I think, is not only irrelevent and unfair but it discourages good people who may have a skeleton or two in their closet from taking on a role in public life.
For this reason, I’ve never followed most of the rumours that fly around about our politicians or others in public life. The stuff that went around about Helen Clark and her husband was absolute tripe.
HOWEVER there are a couple of exeptions to the general rule, in my opinion. One is hypocrisy. If a politician gets on their moral high horse about gambling but frequents casinos, that’s a story. If someone championing the anti-smacking legislation is arrested for beating their kids, that’s a story. This, essentially, is why Don Brash was outed over his extra-marital relationship: He used marriage as a political weapon to hit at Clark. That made him fair game.
The second exception is when it impacts upon a public figure’s ability to do their job. For instance, if a public figure is involved in a private activity that severely damages either their reputation or their capacity to perform the tasks for which they were employed, I believe the public has a right to know about that, too.
Scott mentions Investigate’s prying into Clark’s sexuality and asks why the MSM didn’t follow it up. The answer is bleedingly obvious. Her sexuality was none of our business. It didn’t impact on her role as Prime Minister. And she never, as far as I know, made disparaging remarks about people of a different sexual orientation.
With regards to Rankin, I can assure you there is no media bias against a conservative figure in this case. I thought two points were relevent to the story – besides the obvious political points both John Armstrong and I have made. One: She looked a poor fit for the commission, given her views on the anti-smacking bill. And, two: she had a personal life that I thought was at least relevent to the discussion.
I don’t think I could be accused of sensationalising this. Heck, I printed a fraction of what I knew. But I stand by what I wrote, and I think the public has a right to know that information if Rankin is applying for such a role.
David, you raise a good argument about where to draw the line over this stuff, and I admit it is a difficult one. But I think it’s a case-by-case basis, and a decision can usually be reached with some logical thought. With regard to the Abortion Supervisory Committee, no I don’t think we should know if everyone on the committee has had an abortion or not. But then, if a member of the committee was, say, running an abortion clinic, or was a member of a pro-life lobby group, then yes, I think the public should know.
And with regards to the Families Commission, of course we have no right to ask all of its members whether they have ever cheated on their partners. But I do question whether someone who clearly has had great trouble in her personal relationships is a good person to be advising others on theirs.
Finally, I agree with you about having to leave people to join the dots. Sometimes I wish I had the luxury the non MSM has to publish things that frankly would get a big newspaper chain such as mine sued. I would love to interview Rankin, but for some reason she won’t return my calls!
Regards
Colin Espiner
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
“I do question whether someone who clearly has had great trouble in her personal relationships is a good person to be advising others on theirs.”
Really, Colin? That would disqualify most of the psychology profession.
Plus with the benefit of a few microseconds thought one might suppose that the Families Commission is not there to advise people on their personal relationships but to identify problems and facilitate solutions. Both Rankin’s personal experience and WINZ career presumably contributes some knowledge and sensitivity relevant to those tasks that the serenely or even arrogantly complacent may not have?
Given her views on the anti-smacking bill I think she is an excellent fit for the Commission – and will probably give some of it one too. They should sell tickets.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Collin, if you think Clarks sexuality had no effect on her politics and her treatment of others then you are in cloud cuckoo land.
Vote:It resulted in an unbalanced human being whose lust was power over others.
Go join the real world for a while and take a look in from outside.
I find it interesting that now that the MSM is in danger of folding in on itself, because it dishes up daily self serving rubbish that no one is prepared to pay for, all those that have supplied the same are now taking an interest in trying to survive by posting to blogs all over the place. Blogs don’t pay unless you own them. Message here is that you better get yourself a blog that someone will pay to support before Fairfax and Murdoch go completely underwater.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Hmm, Viking2, interesting. Just wondering where you think the news comes from that you all debate happily on these blogs every day? Does it just fall out of the sky? You guys find it yourselves? Oh, that’s right, it comes from the “self serving” mainstream media. Blogs are fun and important, but don’t over-estimate their worth. They certainly don’t pay very many wages, and are read by a fraction of the public that watches television, listens to the radio, and reads newspapers.
As for your views on Clark, I didn’t say she didn’t have political views (which I think were influenced by more than just her sexuality) I said it didn’t impair her performance as a prime minister. If she had been an alcoholic, for example, then that would have impaired her. You might not like Clark’s politics, but calling her “an unbalanced human being” seems a bit uncharitable, just because her views were different to your own.
Vote:May 14th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Hi Colin. Many thanks for your posting on this blog. I know that you are a busy man and have to write very many words each week, so I for one appreciate your thoughtful replies.
With regard to Christine Rankin, you believe that her views on the anti-smacking bill, make her unsuitable for the position of families commissioner. I actually believe the opposite. Because she opposed the anti-smacking bill and generally has a more socially conservative line then she is an ideal appointment for a new government and a new direction. Remember the anti-smacking bill is still opposed by 80% of New Zealanders. That the government would appoint her shows that they are broadly in line with most of the electorate on this particular issue. I would hope that John Key and national take particular notice of the referendum on this matter which I understand is occurring shortly. I am confident that the referendum will show that the people of New Zealand believed that smacking should not be a criminal offence and parents should be able to physically correct their own children.
With regard to Helen Clark, your view is that questions about Helen Clark’s sexuality are irrelevant to her role as Prime Minister. The difficulty I have with this is, given her party’s championing of gay issues, then her sexuality is directly relevant. To me the Labor Party over the last nine years has championed the homosexual agenda despite heavy electoral opposition.
Making prostitution legal was the first step. There was massive debate about this and this was incredibly controversial, and still is. Why did they do it? I believe it was a stalking horse to shake up the electorate and then to bring in their real agenda, gay marriage, or as close as they could get to it. So they brought in civil unions, they protected homosexuality as a human rights and they amended every piece of legislation to take into account the gay rights agenda. This was incredibly radical and I imagine most of the electorate was not pressing for it. But they went ahead anyway — why?
My understanding is that the previous Prime Minister of New Zealand was at the forefront of making these bills into law. Why? Outside of the Liberal enclaves of Central Wellington and Auckland my experience is that New Zealand is fundamentally a fairly conservative electorate. Why did the labour government risk a massive electoral backlash, unless they fully believed in this issue, to the point where many of them had a personal stake in it? And what could be more newsworthy, than why the then Prime Minister of this country, should be so passionate about making homosexuality fully accepted into law and eventually into society?
Vote:May 14th, 2009 at 9:24 am
“has championed the homosexual agenda despite heavy electoral opposition. ”
Just cause the majority of people think something doesnt make it right, and the so called agenda was getting closer to being treated equally by the state, which one would think should be a starting point in a modern society.
I love how the same posters who get inflamed by the above condem the actions of countries like Afganistan for their abhorrent rules currently being introduced, which ironically enough were the law in this country until recently and were supported by the “majority”.
“Why did they do it”
Cause National doesn’t have the balls to protect minorities. Even Don Brash sold out his own personal beliefs for a shot at power.
The so called ‘radical reform’ is actually pretty much in line with other Western countries.
Vote:May 14th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Who gives a fuck about HEC.
Shes gone.
Christine Rankine will do a great job shaking the handwringing commies at the Families Commission into the 21st C.
Vote:May 14th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Responding to Jeff83 — I actually responded to you on another post. But here is my response regarding the right or wrong of homosexuality — which I think is the broader question you were wanting a response to –
The arguments against homosexuality include — religion. Most of the world’s religions think that homosexuality is wrong and have done so since time immemorial. Christianity, which is the foundation of Western civilisation, has believed for two millennia in the sinfulness of mankind generally, and of homosexuality being an example of this. With regard to the Bible homosexuality is mentioned I think around nine times, and is always presented negatively. So as far as we can determine, homosexuality is outside of the will of God.
Secondly — biology. Everyone reading this post, everyone writing on this blog, everyone living in New Zealand today, is the product of a heterosexual union between a man and a woman. I appreciate there are “test tube baby’s”, but they are an incredibly small minority brought about by artificial reproductive techniques. In fact every person who ever lived is the product of a sexual union between a man and a woman, with the exceptions of Jesus, Adam and Eve. So natural biological reality stares us in the face. Men and women are created in a way to come together and bring about the propagation of the species.
Thirdly — experience. Homosexual behaviour leads to a lower lifespan. Homosexual behaviour has a negative health outcome. It also seems to lead to diminished levels of mental health. Homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous and many have over 100 sexual partners.
Fourthly — history and tradition. Most societies, whether Christian or not, have throughout recorded history considered homosexuality immoral. Even in remote tribes of Papua New Guinea, homosexuality is a capital crime.
So there you have it Jeff — religion, biology, experience and history shows us that homosexuality is wrong. Unfortunately we in New Zealand have allowed a vociferous radical minority, hellbent on acceptance, to push their views into law. Even now, if all references to homosexuality were deleted from the law books, I would be interested in which way New Zealand society would go? I suspect the view that homosexuality is wrong would resurface and become once again the majority opinion.
Vote:May 14th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Scott, how would you react if I substituted Christianity for homosexuality in your previous post. Would you be campaigning for Christian rights or would you just dismiss them as a sort of “Christian agenda”?
By the way. I do support Christine Rankin’s appointment on the basis that commie Michael Cullen received an appointment by the nats.
Vote:May 14th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
“Homosexual behaviour has a negative health outcome. It also seems to lead to diminished levels of mental health. ”
Read much by Stephen Fry, do you Scott?
“Even in remote tribes of Papua New Guinea, homosexuality is a capital crime.”
No doubt, you view sharia law stoning to death of adultresses as similarly valid?
Your christian presumption of some god-given right to judge others’ private business as “wrong” is duly noted…
Vote:May 15th, 2009 at 1:34 am
Homosexuality is actually only punishable with a few years in jail in Papua New Guinea and that was because of fundamentalist christian influence. Some PNG tribes actually viewed heterosexuality as a sin.
Championing gay rights was the only good thing HC did, She fucked up almost everything else in my opinion.
Vote:May 15th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Replying to Ophiuchus — you could substitute “Christianity” for “homosexuality” I suppose? Your point would be? I just think that’s a contentious little argument — if you have a real point feel free to make it.
Ratbiter — similarly I am not sure about the point you are trying to make either. If you have a point please make it.
The only point I could make out was about judging private matters. Sadly the gay agenda of Helen Clark means that it is not a private matter. It is written into law that homosexuality is a protected category and it affects all of us. It means that we cannot have a decent godly society. It means that marriage and civil unions are there in the public square. It may not trouble you, but it sure does trouble me. And I don’t think it is in line with God’s will for our lives.
Over the long term I do not think that gay militancy and gay rights can coexist in the same society with biblical Christianity. They are too contradictory.
But on the other hand I think my points are pretty valid. That everyone ever born, with a few notable exceptions, is the product of a heterosexual union is a pretty powerful argument.
But if the arguments of biology, which obviously stares us in the face, and the arguments of the Bible, which is the foundation of our civilisation, does not sway you, I’m not sure what will.
Vote:May 15th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
O please!
Since when was The Bible ‘the foundation of our civilisation”? There is very little civilising in the bible. And what does it have to offer today’s secular NZ? Are you saying that we should kill homosexuals? if not, why not. After all, that is god’s will, as revealed in the bible.
Vote:May 15th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
In reply to Jack. This is what I mean. I write a number of paragraphs of argument, explaining my reasoning. And you write five questions in 4 lines? Do you seriously want me to reply to all of them?
My point to you, is the same as to the previous two bloggers. If you have a point, make it, and explain your reasoning. I’ve done that. So a few paragraphs from you Jack, with your opinion and why you hold it. Then I will be happy to reply.
Vote: