Superb hypocrisy

May 5th, 2010 at 11:57 pm by David Farrar

This is George Rekers. He a leading US anti-gay activist who is one of the founders of the Family Research Council and a director of NARTH – the National Association for Research & Therapy of , which teaches men how not to be attracted to men. He has testified in court that the Bible is the infallible word of God and that is a sin.

This is Lucien. He is a male prostitute, or a rent boy, and as you can see is available on rentboy.com. Lucien is 20 and claims to ave an eight inch uncut cock. I am no expert on these things, but understand most rent boys claim this size. Anyway back to the main story.

The Miami New Times reports that Mr Rekers and Lucien have just returned from a 10 day vacation in Europe. They were photographed arriving back in Miami together.

Now I know you are all assuming the worst, but there is an innocent explanation for all this. No Mr Rekers is not a hypocrite of the highest order. He did not spend ten days sinning with Lucien. He had a perfectly good explanation for their holiday together.

Rekers recently had back surgery and needed someone to help him with lifting his luggage!!!

I think there is a Tui billboard looking for a home.

Tags: , , ,

338 Responses to “Superb hypocrisy”

  1. Jim (398 comments) says:

    LOL. As soon as I saw that top photo of Rekers I sensed something was amiss. There’s something creepy about moustached older folks with comb-overs hooking up with partners (either gender) in their teens or thereabouts. Twenteen is still rather young. That the master is a churchy anti-gay type just fits one of the stereotypes.

    Same thing is creepy in South East Asia: old guys with young things under their arms who are clearly not their daughters.

    Not saying an age gap is necessarily bad; sometimes it looks like a good match, other times just plain wrong + $$$.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    Yeah I’m always looking for someone to lift my junk up as well :-P

    That poor man. What a sad way to live your life. It’s one thing to think you can remove yourself from a homosexual lifestyle (which is possible I’m sure), but these guys always talk of being “cured” by Jesus etc. Well pride comes before the fall. If they were a little more humble about it, and acknowledged how hard it is to change your orientation, they might not succumb to temptation quite so much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    The mind Boggles.

    Thought the punchline might have been he was taking the prostitute to Lourdes!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Lazybum (259 comments) says:

    Needed a suitcase lifter eh?
    I am sure he could have got a 20 yr old bint strong enough to lift the suitcase.

    Just like our last PM, nothing worse than a closet homosexual.

    [DPF: 30 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. pentwig (240 comments) says:

    Reker didn’t need a suitcase lifter
    He wanted a shirt lifter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    It’s not what it looks like ! I uuhhh…. have a bad back and I got stuck bending over to open my luggage, and this kind young man you see standing behind me was vigorously helping me straighten my back. It took some effort, I can tell you !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    These fundamental Religious types do appear to have a strange outlook. I don’t care if they are Gay or not. It is just the moral high ground that they take with everyone else.

    Hopefully he will lose all credibility and his sinecure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. tvb (4,421 comments) says:

    In Hollywood they call them “personal trainers”. I feel a poem coming on about shirt lifters and suitcase lifters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    I see that Rekers is a psychiatrist. Explains a lot.
    Studying all that wacko theory and wacko patients can’t but screw with your own mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    I’ll bet he had work done on his back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    LOL at the google ads on this page – gay sauna in Auckland, and a Bible study course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    I’m reporting everyone who has made derogatory remarks above about this poor fag to the Human Rights Commissioner. This kind of discrimination against homosexuals needs to be stamped out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. SouthernRight (53 comments) says:

    I could name at least one National MP who likes his trips to Asian lands for a little shirt lifting time, except the stories I hear wont involve shirt lifting because the boys he likes are too young to wear shirts – Christians are an easy target because they don’t fight back. Go and find some muslim shirt lifters and report on them!!

    [DPF: 30 demerits for smear accusations of paedophilia]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    This kind of hypocrisy makes me feel sick, both in and of itself, and also because it gives the MSM and bloggers everwhere yet another platform to taint Christianity by association. The Bible says “Be sure your sins will find you out” and that appears to be the case here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    It’s not tainting Christians, it only taints hypocritical Christians and Christians who fool themselves about the reality of homosexuality.

    In this case, holier than thou may have been proven correct, in a backhanded sort of way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    You mean like Mohommad Southern… oh sorry my bad that was peadophillia wasn’t it.

    Just out of interest how many people convicted of kiddie porn in the last year were obseriving Christians, on CRAP it looks like not being a Christian is the real problem.

    Or maybe religion has bugger all to do with it. Although the compulsive anti-Christian attacks do have all the hall marks of a fundementalist crusade by zealots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    George can’t be the full tin as he hires a fag bag boy for sin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Bugger all Murray?

    Religion has a lot to do with it when a sexual orientation is condemned – and sexual orienteers are condemned – on religious grounds and the same religious bigots indulge in the same sort of practices.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Murray – maybe we should go to NZ’s great christian leader Mr. Capill for comment…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    It’s not so much that he’s Christian, Murray, but that he’s a vocal anti-homosexuality campaigner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    “Sharing the gospel” probably just means that he was yelling “Oh god !” a lot…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Fletch (6,387 comments) says:

    Gee, I think we need a special section for these posts – Kiwiblog, The Tabloid Edition…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Do you think he wanted to get caught?

    I am nonplussed how he could rent a boy and not think it would get out sometime, somehow and the damage he has done to NARTH is incalculable as they are all professionals within their specialities.
    Notwithstanding that within the American PSychiatric Assn and American Psychological Assn they face a very hostile political environment.

    I also weep for the damage this will do to the evangelicals, Imagine that a sharing the gospel holiday or a /bible study meeting in a sauna is right out now!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Mike, I suspect that some religious “leaders” think they are above getting caught, they are so swept up in their own self importance and “special status” with God that they think they can get away with whatever they want.

    But they should find out that a quick repent at the gates of heaven won’t do diddly squat for their earthly reputation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Atheist1 (174 comments) says:

    heeheehee love it. Where’s KKKKKris……?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    No no no, you’ve got it all wrong, he was teaching the gospel, he was re-enacting Matthew 16:23 “Get thee behind me, Satan !”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    “Sharing the gospel” probably just means that he was yelling “Oh God” a lot…

    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    nice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Jeff83 (745 comments) says:

    What a naughty boy.

    The devil made him do it.

    Ha. Your on fire today DPF, thats two great posts in a day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    AHEM:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/05/general_debate_5_may_2010.html#comment-689243

    Hat tip RRM?

    [DPF: I actually had someone email it to me, which is how I saw it. I don't read GD much. But well done on highlighting it first]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Hypocrisy is overrated.

    Can a smoker be in favour of banning cigarettes? The fastest way to silence someone is to shout hypocrite and often it’s just a fancy way of saying shut-up. Anyway if you’re going to listen to an evangelical banging on about the sin of homosexuality, wouldn’t you give it more weight coming from someone who’s done some field work? Nothing worse than a pure academic with no experience.

    His photo reminds me a little of Peter Plumley Walker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Well indeed — caught out badly. Most people dislike hypocrisy and most people, would list honesty and integrity as key values for them. And indeed Jesus himself says don’t be commenting about the speck in your brother’s eye while ignoring the plank of 4 x 2 in your own. So presumably this is a biblical value we do support?

    However — presumably he did nothing wrong, according to your godless liberal world view, it was just that he was hypocritical about it? So hypocrisy is bad? And homosexuality is good but as long as you don’t lie about whether you support homosexuality or not?

    And homosexuality is good. That is a universal truth. Even though the Bible says it is bad, the infallible Pete George and others know that it is good.

    So Christians are bad if they are hypocrites?

    How can a godless liberal be a hypocrite? Or is hypocrisy only something that Christians do?

    [DPF: I don't see homosexuality as good or bad. I just see it as the way some people are, and view it just like some people are left handed or have blonde hair.

    Of course hypocrisy is not reserved to Christians. But I point I will make is that the longer the list is of the things you condemn, the more chance there is you may be a hypocrite. One reason why high taxes is pretty much the only thing I condemn :-)]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    “However — presumably he did nothing wrong, according to your godless liberal world view, it was just that he was hypocritical about it? So hypocrisy is bad? And homosexuality is good but as long as you don’t lie about whether you support homosexuality or not?”

    ^^^ Got it in one, Scott.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    I haven’t said homosexuality is good Scott. I have no inclinations that way personally. But it is a fact of life for some people. It’s not for me to condemn them for having different sexual feelings to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    So he was so far in the closet he ran into Mr Tumnus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Who told you Capill was a great Christian leader… oh wait YOU decided to characterise him as such inorder to pursue your fundy agenda.

    None so blind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Jeff83 (745 comments) says:

    “Who told you Capill was a great Christian leader… oh wait YOU decided to characterise him as such inorder to pursue your fundy agenda.”

    He was the head of a christian party was he not..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Or is hypocrisy only something that Christians do?

    Scott, unnecessarily defensive. This man is a hypocrite because of what he says, presumably from his Christian beliefs, and his counter-actions. That’s the subject. Would you be more comfortable if future discussions on hypocrite Christians carried a disclaimer: “Non-Christians can also be hypocrites. This posting makes no claims or otherwise on the relative prevalence of hypocrisy amongst Christians and Non-Christians.”

    And homosexuality is good. That is a universal truth. Even though the Bible says it is bad, the infallible Pete George and others know that it is good.

    Using the Bible to make a point to godless people is by definition a futile exercise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    I’ve never understood why a homosexual would want to be an xtian, or vice versa. I mean, the OT punishment for poovery was death, and there’s plenty of NT material to show that their god is still grumpy on the subject. Why would anyone choose such a bizarrely incomptatible combination of lifestyles? It’s kind of like a jew wanting to join the nazi party and trying to convince himself they weren’t actually antisemitic after all. It really is pushing shit uphill. So to speak…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Pete George — no homosexuality is good, you know that and it is the official policy of New Zealand government. It is in law — we must not discriminate against homosexuals. Therefore it is an officially approved lifestyle. So it is good. This must be a universal truth. So what is the source of that universal truth?

    Malcolm — same thing to you. How can you know it is good? If you don’t believe in the Bible, what other source of authority do you have?

    I am kind of serious about hypocrisy. No doubt this fellow is a hypocrite. We can all agree on that. However this charge of hypocrisy only seems to apply to Christians and also conservatives. Liberals can never be hypocrites. Because they don’t hold to a moral standard — except when they do. So homosexuality is good and homophobia is bad. This is a universal truth. This is a moral standard.

    Are you seeing the difficulty here?

    Now can Liberals be hypocrites? Not sure — does that mean they believe in the Liberal lifestyle while living a life of blameless monogamy with their childhood sweetheart and raising two impeccably behaved children who go to private schools? Way too many conundrums.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    That doesn’t follow Scott, lots of things are legal in NZ without any social connotation that they are good.

    All it means is that it is not the business of the state, nor any self-appointed moral guardians, to interfere in the private world of people’s sexual relationships. It’s nobody’s business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Fletch (6,387 comments) says:

    Scott, well put.
    Chesterton once wrote – “Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Malcolm — same thing to you. How can you know it is good? If you don’t believe in the Bible, what other source of authority do you have?

    I don’t know if it’s ‘good’, but I can’t see that it’s bad. And I don’t condemn others for doing what harms no one and which has no ill effect on me.

    However this charge of hypocrisy only seems to apply to Christians and also conservatives. Liberals can never be hypocrites. Because they don’t hold to a moral — except when they do. So homosexuality is good and homophobia is bad. This is a universal truth. This is a moral standard.

    Hypocrisy has nothing to do with absolute moral standards or whether you’re conservative, liberal, short or fat. If you tell people not to do something or that it’s bad and then do it yourself, you’re a hypocrite. No absolute morals required and anyone can be a hypocrite.

    Having said that I think the term is over-used and when you hear it you should think “well, who is uniquely qualified to speak on this topic”. In most cases we are all guilty of some degree of hypocrisy. And if you can’t see that, you’re a hypocrite :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    The difficulty I see Scott is in your understanding.

    There is a big difference in accepting that people should have the freedom of choice to act how they like (lawfully), and thinking that what everyone else does is good.

    There are quite a few heterosexual practices I wouldn’t call good, but I also accept that willing partners have a right to enjoy different things to me.

    Anyone can be a hypocrite. If I said that I loved my children and would never harm them, and then beat them, I’d be a hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Scott – “Therefore it is an officially approved lifestyle. So it is good. This must be a universal truth. So what is the source of that universal truth?”

    It’s written in a book. And your source is? Oh wait, a book. And like thousands of other books in the genre, your book claims to have been written by magic by the all-knowing sky fairy and therefore infallible. This seems to have been an important marketing tool when impressing illiterate bronze-age shepherds, but to modern minds its kind of obvious that when a book claims to have been written by magic, it’s just exactly that, a claim, with no better proof than any of the other books. The words that say “this book was written by magic” are still just spots of ink forming a pattern on mashed-up wood fibre.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    @Fletch

    Chesterton once wrote – “Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God.”

    That would be one, very inane assertion given governments are supposed to have none of the purported properties of God.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Nothing like a post with reference to homosexuality to get the demerits flowing, is there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Chesterton once wrote – “Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God.”

    That does sound terrible. But what if God is just a creation of the human mind:

    “Once you abolish the imaginary sky-fairy, the Government become the imaginary sky-fairy.”

    Not as scary now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. tom hunter (4,838 comments) says:

    ……..I have a bad back and I got stuck bending over to open my luggage…..

    That’s it. He can get out of this by claiming he was taken advantage of whilst indulging in his luggage fetish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Another example of a “Christian” abuser of power who thinks he should interfere in the private lives of others and then do as he pleases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs

    He tells his flock they should only have sex to procreate, but he is alleged to have 60+ wives and hundreds of children – he has taught that a devoted church member is expected to have at least three wives in order to get into heaven, and the more wives a man has, the closer he is to heaven.

    He is alleged to have sodomised young boys, some of his “wives” have been as young as twelve, and he has been convicted of assisted rape.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. tom hunter (4,838 comments) says:

    ….the Government becomes the imaginary sky-fairy

    I think you’ll find there may be some religious groups that worship this fantasy.

    But they’re actually less dangerous than the ones who have made it corporeal – and insist on real-life sacrifices to feed it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Okay — we all agree that hypocrisy is bad — and we all agree that people of whatever political or religious persuasion can be hypocrites.

    And the reason we don’t worry about homosexuality is that, we wouldn’t say that it is good, but it doesn’t bother us. Therefore, live and let live, appears to be the dominant moral imperative here.

    So basically we don’t have a moral anchor. Nothing is either right or wrong, it’s just whether we find it personally distasteful or not? Hypocrisy we find distasteful, homosexuality we don’t care enough about it for it to worry us either way?

    But Christianity is wrong — there is no God (sky fairy as Malcolm delicately puts it). That is a universal truth. That we can believe in — no God. How am I doing so far? Have I got that right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Tom, absolutely. There’s no shortage of bad people and it’s pretty easy to create more by giving them the taste for controlling others. But anchoring ourselves to the dubious moral authority of an imaginary sky-fairy is not the answer and has never been the answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Chthoniid 11:01 am,

    [Fletch:] Chesterton once wrote – “Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God.”

    That would be one, very inane assertion given governments are supposed to have none of the purported properties of God.

    I think you miss the point of the quote entirely, Chthoniid.

    It is more speaking about morality – that the God of the Bible is the giver of absolute and objective morals/values, and of what is required to have a healthy society – the ultimate law giver, if you will.
    When we “abolish .. God”, then government becomes the default ‘god'; and thereby ALSO becomes the sole arbiter of morality and values. Do I really need to cite the consequences of the previous nine years under an atheistic Labour led Government; of their legislating essentially for immorality? Prostitution Law reform (among others), anyone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    However — presumably he did nothing wrong, according to your godless liberal world view, it was just that he was hypocritical about it?

    Yep, assuming he isn’t married, which would add to the damage. Also, a lot of people see prostitution as wrong.

    So hypocrisy is bad? And homosexuality is good but as long as you don’t lie about whether you support homosexuality or not?

    Yep, hypocrisy is bad. Also kind of hilarious.

    And homosexuality is good. That is a universal truth. Even though the Bible says it is bad, the infallible Pete George and others know that it is good.

    It’s not “good”, it just is. Same as heterosexuality.

    So Christians are bad if they are hypocrites?

    How can a godless liberal be a hypocrite? Or is hypocrisy only something that Christians do?

    Liberals can be hypocrites by doing something un-liberal, like being racist. Especially if they’re loud about liberal values.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Nothing is either right or wrong, it’s just whether we find it personally distasteful or not?

    There is plenty that most people would see as “wrong”. For example, it is wrong to try and dictate that your own narrow personal preferences should be forced on everyone else.

    So basically we don’t have a moral anchor.

    Don’t you? I do, it’s called common sense and common decency.

    Kris: It is more speaking about morality – that the God of the Bible is the giver of absolute and objective morals/values, and of what is required to have a healthy society – the ultimate law giver, if you will.

    Fine if that’s where you get your moral compass from Kris, but it’s extremely misguided (or arrogant) to assume that other people can’t get moral guidance from something different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    I agree with you Kris. So far in this debate we seem to have no source of moral authority apart from whatever I feel about a subject. Who can base a civilisation on such a vacuum?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Scott (574) Says:
    May 6th, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Pete George — no homosexuality is good, you know that and it is the official policy of New Zealand government. It is in law — we must not discriminate against homosexuals. Therefore it is an officially approved lifestyle. So it is good. This must be a universal truth. So what is the source of that universal truth?

    Actually, there is nothing in the law that says something is good or bad. Without going into the discussion of a “universal” truth, the source of morals or morality is generally the society (again, a wide term) and laws merely reflect that view.

    Homosexuality is generally regarded (of course not by all, but by most) as a private matter between consenting adults. Why should something like that be bad? It is really not the highest on the agenda in terms of moral issues except for the zealous few.

    It is not his homosexuality that is the issue, but his stance against it. That is being a hypocrite.

    And by no means is that restricted to Christians or conservatives.

    Ultimately we are all in some way hypocrites as we surely don’t always live up to a 100% of our own expectations in every single aspect of our lives.

    However the main difference is of course when you start preaching about it to other people, be it about homosexuality or be it about being environmentally friendly. I am sure you are more than happy to call Al Gore a hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    So basically we don’t have a moral anchor. Nothing is either right or wrong, it’s just whether we find it personally distasteful or not? Hypocrisy we find distasteful, homosexuality we don’t care enough about it for it to worry us either way?

    Correct. Well put. Though we do share enough tastes for be able to speak meaningfully about some things being wrong. Consent is a big one. Being old enough to consent is another.

    But Christianity is wrong — there is no God (sky fairy as Malcolm delicately puts it). That is a universal truth. That we can believe in — no God. How am I doing so far? Have I got that right?

    That’s also an opinion. That’s an opinion about what is true. While what is right/wrong is a matter of taste/values – different from truth, in my opinion. In one, the question is, “Is this true/false?” In the other, the question is, “Is this good/bad?” Different questions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    I agree with you Kris. So far in this debate we seem to have no source of moral authority apart from whatever I feel about a subject. Who can base a civilisation on such a vacuum?

    Everyone from the beginning of civilisation onwards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    It’s a false analogy Kris. That’s what makes it inane nonsense.

    Your presupposition there has to be an external, source for ethical rules is fallacious. I get my moral rules from myself.
    And while I have absolutely no affection for the Clark Government, to describe it as atheistic is absurd.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    No Ryan — I cannot agree with you on homosexuality just being “is”. Homosexuals are a protected class of person in New Zealand law and it is explicitly mentioned that we must not discriminate against them. Therefore they must have been victims of discrimination. Therefore they must have been unjustly discriminated against. Therefore their lifestyles must be okay. It must be okay to be a homosexual. Surely?

    Indeed the previous government spent much of their political capital bringing into effect these laws about homosexuality. They are convinced that homosexuality is a right and good thing. Homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle just as good as a man and a woman getting married. That is why we have civil unions so that homosexuals can enjoy a married like state.

    Therefore homosexuality must be a good thing. This must be a universal truth that is independent of our preferences. So the government has told us. The government must be God. Because the government knows what is right. And has imposed this commandment upon us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Fletch (6,387 comments) says:

    Actually, there is nothing in the law that says something is good or bad. Without going into the discussion of a “universal” truth, the source of morals or morality is generally the society (again, a wide term) and laws merely reflect that view.

    So eszett, what you’re saying is that there is no ultimate morality. If the Allies had lost WWII and Hitler had won and enforced and popularized his Aryan world view across all nations, that that would now be what is moral because all society would be following that view now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Scott, the opposite has happened. The Government has stopped commanding some people (via laws) to not practice their preferred sexuality, they have given them freedom of choice, which is the opposite to imposing legal restrictions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    t is more speaking about morality – that the God of the Bible is the giver of absolute and objective morals/values, and of what is required to have a healthy society – the ultimate law giver, if you will.
    When we “abolish .. God”, then government becomes the default ‘god’; and thereby ALSO becomes the sole arbiter of morality and values. Do I really need to cite the consequences of the previous nine years under an atheistic Labour led Government; of their legislating essentially for immorality? Prostitution Law reform (among others), anyone?

    Complete bullshit! Prostitution is older than the Bible. Maybe you should show some respect to tradition, Kris.
    Never mind that the Bible reflects a moral standpoint that is 2000 years old and well outdated on most issues. (Blasphemy, Slavery, Adultry, Human Rights, Equality for women, etc)

    The Government does not make up morals and values, it simply reflects what morals and values there are in society. You may not agree with them, but ultimately it doesn’t matter. Simply because your arguments are weak, outdated and don’t make any sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Fletch (6,387 comments) says:

    I get my moral rules from myself.

    Well, in your view, everyone gets their moral views from themselves. So if someone else’s moral view conflicts with your moral view who should be seen as right? And what is law if only the imposition of someone else’s view upon the country?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Jeff83 (745 comments) says:

    “Who can base a civilisation on such a vacuum”

    And here I was thinking some of the greatest ancient civilisations, be it the chineese, Eygptians, early romans, greeks (I could go on) were based on a world without a Christian god. And they still had “rights and wrongs” some of these varied greatly, but most still saw things like murder as wrong, and no so less than many “christian” civilsations.

    So Scott what you say is absolute bollocks like most of the funde christian shit that is spouted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Jeff83 (745 comments) says:

    “Well, in your view, everyone gets their moral views from themselves. So if someone else’s moral view conflicts with your moral view who should be seen as right? And what is law if only the imposition of someone else’s view upon the country?”

    Most people do not need a giant sky fairy to tell them what is right and wrong on the larger issues (rape / murder). Its the more delicate issues that it give rise to reliance on religion, and funnily enough its often because the religous view can not be sustained without relying on some ‘holy book’ – i.e. views on homosexuality etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Fletch (6,387 comments) says:

    The Government does not make up morals and values, it simply reflects what morals and values there are in society. You may not agree with them, but ultimately it doesn’t matter

    It doesn’t matter? Really? And what do you mean by society?
    You’re admitting that you think there is no ultimate right or wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Fletch (6,387 comments) says:

    Jeff, it depends upon what you term as “murder”. Some societies practiced child sacrifice. There is no way to prove that murder is wrong if you don’t bring God’s ultimate law into it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    No Ryan — I cannot agree with you on homosexuality just being “is”. Homosexuals are a protected class of person in New Zealand law and it is explicitly mentioned that we must not discriminate against them. Therefore they must have been victims of discrimination. Therefore they must have been unjustly discriminated against. Therefore their lifestyles must be okay. It must be okay to be a homosexual. Surely?

    Yes, just as it’s okay to have red hair or okay to play folk music. I just wouldn’t say go out of my way to call any of those things “good” just because they’re not bad.

    Indeed the previous government spent much of their political capital bringing into effect these laws about homosexuality. They are convinced that homosexuality is a right and good thing. Homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle just as good as a man and a woman getting married. That is why we have civil unions so that homosexuals can enjoy a married like state.

    Yes, giving rights to some consenting adult citizens and not to others is distasteful.

    Therefore homosexuality must be a good thing. This must be a universal truth that is independent of our preferences. So the government has told us. The government must be God. Because the government knows what is right. And has imposed this commandment upon us.

    Yes, it has moved in the direction of imposing equal rights to all consenting adult citizens. Inequality is distasteful to liberal values. If there was a law preventing green-eyed people from marrying, a liberal government would have a duty to give the “commandment” that having green eyes “is a good thing” in your language.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Jeff 83 — for a supposedly well-educated man, you seem to be resorting to shouting and abuse fairly quickly.
    So anything Christian is wrong? It is just excrement. So we know one truth — anything a Christian says is wrong. That is a universal truth.

    I appreciate many societies in the past were not based on the Christian God. But they were based on an external religious source of morality. They believed in right and wrong, universal truth if you like.

    Now we modern people have outgrown this idea. We don’t believe in any universal truth, apart from what we do believe in. Hypocrisy is wrong. This is a universal truth. Homosexuality is okay. This is a universal truth.

    To oppose homosexuality would be to impose our moral preferences on somebody else. And that would be wrong. That is a universal truth — imposing our moral preferences on somebody else is wrong.

    Just trying to find out what the universal truth is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    I really wonder what’s going on in xtians heads when they think that by default they would be rapists and murderers and every bad thing they can think of, were it not for their belief in the sky fairy to keep them from turning to pure evil and chaos. Speak for yourselves. Are they really not able to see that ninety nine point whatever of the population are held to the straight and narrow by the fairly obvious realisation that everyone’s lives are better off without rapists and murderers? And the “point whatever” that cause the trouble are fucked in the head and would be causing trouble regardless of whatever their belief system is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Scott 11:21 am

    Okay — we all agree that hypocrisy is bad — and we all agree that people of whatever political or religious persuasion can be hypocrites.

    And the reason we don’t worry about homosexuality is that, we wouldn’t say that it is good, but it doesn’t bother us. Therefore, live and let live, appears to be the dominant moral imperative here.

    So basically we don’t have a moral anchor. Nothing is either right or wrong, it’s just whether we find it personally distasteful or not? Hypocrisy we find distasteful, homosexuality we don’t care enough about it for it to worry us either way?

    But Christianity is wrong — there is no God (sky fairy as Malcolm delicately puts it). That is a universal truth. That we can believe in — no God. How am I doing so far? Have I got that right?

    Spot on, Scott.
    While I am the last one to condone hypocrisy, especially amongst Christians – who SHOULD have a higher standard than the world – I do think this is just another beat-up of Christianity by DPF, and the usual suspects.

    Heck, hypocrisy in the church/Christendom is a major problem, and I think it grieves the hearts of both God and true followers of Christ. But let’s be honest, Christians are NOT perfect, and it’s not hard to find an example of where one has fallen into sin.

    But back to what Scott raised:
    Without “a moral anchor. Nothing is either right or wrong, it’s just whether we find it personally distasteful or not”. And this is the dilemma of an atheistic society/individual – there are no absolutes; the individual chooses what is and isn’t ‘acceptable’. And if enough people either embrace this ‘new’ practice, or enough are indifferent to it, then we have a law change to reflect this ‘new’ belief system.

    Of course sometimes things are pushed through despite a HUGE majority opposition to a suggested law change. For example, 1986’s Homosexual Law Reform, or last years criminalisation of corrective discipline of children by parents under Bradford’s Bill.

    But regarding atheists, and there being no absolutes – the ONLY thing they are ABSOLUTELY sure of is that there are NO absolutes, and thus, by definition, Christians/Christianity must be wrong; absolutely wrong.

    And of course, Christians are regarded as being bigotted, judgemental, and intolerant for merely suggesting that such things as homosexuality are not only wrong, but are in fact a sins.

    On the other hand Liberals/Atheists/Progressives are tolerant of EVERYTHING, except that which would challenge and refute THEIR (generally accepted) wisdom and authority.

    So yes, Chesterton got it right – “Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    Without “a moral anchor. Nothing is either right or wrong, it’s just whether we find it personally distasteful or not”. And this is the dilemma of an atheistic society/individual – there are no absolutes; the individual chooses what is and isn’t ‘acceptable’. And if enough people either embrace this ‘new’ practice, or enough are indifferent to it, then we have a law change to reflect this ‘new’ belief system.

    Kris, the individual does not ultimately choose what is and isn’t acceptable. If they did, how would they make those choices? And does anyone really feel capable of “choosing” to find something good that appears to them as wrong?

    The individual’s values are provided to them by their context – biological, cultural, historical, social, personal, religious. I cannot choose to approve of murder any more than I can choose to enjoy the taste of crude oil, but neither moral values nor taste in food requires an “absolute” for its utterances to be meaningful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    ^^^ A strident anti-homosexuality campaigner gets caught loving the cock, but somehow it’s all a beat-up.

    Righto…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Fletch (6,387 comments) says:

    If I might quote again from William Lane Craig –

    It would, indeed, be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot be good without belief in God. But that was not the question. The question was: can we be good without God? When we ask that question, we are posing in a provocative way the meta-ethical question of the objectivity of moral values. Are the values we hold dear and guide our lives by mere social conventions akin to driving on the left versus right side of the road or mere expressions of personal preference akin to having a taste for certain foods or not? Or are they valid independently of our apprehension of them, and if so, what is their foundation? Moreover, if morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest? Or are we in some way held accountable for our moral decisions and actions? …

    Now it is important that we remain clear in understanding the issue before us. The question is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives? There is no reason to think that atheists and theists alike may not live what we normally characterize as good and decent lives. Similarly, the question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God? If the non-theist grants that human beings do have objective value, then there is no reason to think that he cannot work out a system of ethics with which the theist would also largely agree. Or again, the question is not: Can we recognize the existence of objective moral values without reference to God? The theist will typically maintain that a person need not believe in God in order to recognize, say, that we should love our children. Rather, as humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz puts it, “The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    Poor old William Lane Craig. Keeps trying, never gets it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    I think William Lane Craig excellently points out that God provides morality for some of those who need to have it given to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Biomag83 (94 comments) says:

    As a guy that suffers from same sex attraction disorder I can feel for this guy. Its a struggle and sometimes one falls in the same way an alcoholic will relapse. I know that some people will say “just be happy” I always laugh at that, Ive never once meet a happy Homosexual. I was once lectured on this by a flamboyant homosexual that I should be happy like he is ect. The next day he was found dead in his car, he had gassed himself. If the homosexual community is so normal why is it that it has such a high rate of sucide, depression, mental health problems and drug and alcohol addiction? The self proclaimed leaders of the homosexual community never tackle these issues except to say they a caused from Homophobia lol. Well most of my freinds are conservative and know that I am tackling this demon of same sex attraction and I have never ever expereinced homophobia. Indeed the most bigoted, self centered, intolerant and close minded people I have ever meet are the guys I have encountered when I used to be on the scence. To be sure I still sometimes see homosexuals going out with their mates and part of me wants to jion them but in my heart of hearts Im really happy who I am and what I think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    RRM, it’s more that Craig points out that within a paradigm in which “good” is implicitly defined in terms of God, God’s existence is necessary for evaluations of “goodness” to be meaningful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    And this is the dilemma of an atheistic society/individual – there are no absolutes; the individual chooses what is and isn’t ‘acceptable’.

    Incorrect – there are absolutes. I’m certain I’ll die. I’m certain you’ll die.
    I don’t see how either of us can be certain about what happens then.

    Incorrect – an individual only chooses what is acceptable within the laws of the country they live in. It’s called society. There have been many of them, Christian, non-Christian, non-religious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Repton (769 comments) says:

    Liberals can never be hypocrites.

    Did you miss this post from the other day, Scott? http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/05/more_hypocrisy_exposed.html

    I guess you’d consider Chris Carter a liberal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    One wonders whether it makes sense to debate with someone who calls themselves “put it away”. But in this case I will make an exception because there is an interesting question raised here. “Put it away” says this —
    “I really wonder what’s going on in xtians heads when they think that by default they would be rapists and murderers and every bad thing they can think of, were it not for their belief in the sky fairy to keep them from turning to pure evil and chaos. Speak for yourselves. Are they really not able to see that ninety nine point whatever of the population are held to the straight and narrow by the fairly obvious realisation that everyone’s lives are better off without rapists and murderers? And the “point whatever” that cause the trouble are fucked in the head and would be causing trouble regardless of whatever their belief system is.”

    Well actually there are quite a few people throughout history who didn’t come to the fairly obvious realisation that everyone’s lives would be better off without rapists and murderers. For example in tribal society — the Maori of New Zealand and the Comanche of the United States are two examples — they thought that murder was okay of people who were not of their tribe or of an allied tribe.
    So we know from history that in the decades prior to 1840 there were many massacres in New Zealand. Where one tribe had got superior firepower (muskets) and were able to massacre another tribe.
    The Comanche likewise felt that it was their warrior duty to raid white settlers of their horses and massacre and rape the settlers themselves.

    So it is not always abundantly clear to everybody that murder and rape is wrong. Indeed I would suggest that you are using the legacy of Judaeo-Christian reasoning imbued in you by two millennia of Christian civilisation to come to the conclusion that murder and rape is always wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. David in Chch (519 comments) says:

    The ban on homosexuality in the bible is less about having sex with a man than on wasting the “seed”, and that is apparertly only mentioned a couple of times.

    Why stop at sex with men? Where is the ban on eating shellfish, which is mentioned many more times in the Old Testament? Where is the ban on associating with women who are having their period? Where is the ban on even sitting on a chair used by a woman having her period unless and until it has been cleansed?

    There was a man in New York who tried to live by each and every Old Testament rule. It almost drove him, his friends and his wife crazy. It almost ended in divorce, and almost in the loss of every one of his friends. There is so much more there than is used by the modern day evangelicals. They pick and choose what they choose to promote. This, by the way, has nothing to do with god (or God) or with Christianity or in fact with any religion. It has much more to do with power and control over others. Do as I say …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    @Fletch

    Jeff, it depends upon what you term as “murder”. Some societies practiced child sacrifice. There is no way to prove that murder is wrong if you don’t bring God’s ultimate law into it.

    There are many ways to argue that murder is wrong without employing a God-mechanism. Both contractarianism and utilitarianism have solid arguments for why.

    As to child-sacrifice, there are good biblical mandates such thing. Jephthah sacrificed his daughter to Yaweh, who seems to have been absolutely thrilled at the idea and did nothing to stop it. Even Yaweh happily committed mass murder of infants during the passover.

    I’m quite happy not depending on the morality of Bronze-Age shepherds for my value-system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Chthoniid 11:38 am

    It’s a false analogy Kris. That’s what makes it inane nonsense.

    If you say so, then, it must be true. But sadly, I disagree.

    Your presupposition there has to be an external, source for ethical rules is fallacious. I get my moral rules from myself.

    So what’s it like living in a world of Moral Relativism? Never been able to imagine it myself. But hey, good luck; I suspect you’re going to need it.

    And while I have absolutely no affection for the Clark Government, to describe it as atheistic is absurd.

    I’m pretty sure that Klark has admitted openly that she is an atheist. And one didn’t need to look too hard at the rest of those in the Labour led government, and the lifestyles and values they portrayed, to see that they were/are even MORE atheistic, on a percentage basis, than is the rest of the country.
    So perhaps not quite as “absurd” as you make it out to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    [Kris K]:And one didn’t need to look too hard at the rest of those in the Labour led government, and the lifestyles and values they portrayed, to see that they were/are even MORE atheistic, on a percentage basis, than is the rest of the country.[/quote]

    You can’t be any MORE ATHEISTIC than me – I simply don’t believe in God.

    Fortunately for Parliamentarians, I assess which ones to vote for based on what they propose to do here on earth, rather than on what I think their personal spiritual beliefs might be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    But yeah, topic went ———> that way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Following on from Kris’s point — presumably now that the government has told us that homosexuality is okay, a change of government can tell us that it is not okay?

    Prior to 1986 homosexuality was a crime. Now homosexuals are protected by the law and given the same rights as heterosexuals. This was imposed on us by the Labour government, if I recall correctly. Even though at the time, 1986, there was massive opposition to the change.

    Now another government, not this national government who are far too wishy-washy, but another government of firmer views could conceivably make homosexuality a crime once again. Would that be wrong?

    Given many here think homosexuality is okay and others of us think it is a sin, how can this question be decided? In the absence of universal moral truth, is it just a question of who can shout loudest?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull 11:54 am,

    Yes, it has moved in the direction of imposing equal rights to all consenting adult citizens. Inequality is distasteful to liberal values. If there was a law preventing green-eyed people from marrying, a liberal government would have a duty to give the “commandment” that having green eyes “is a good thing” in your language.

    It is intellectually dishonest, Ryan, to compare ‘having green eyes’ with someone being (choosing) homosexual. This whole “consenting adults”,and being “born that way” crap is all getting a bit tired, if you ask me.

    [No doubt DPF will come in with his usual equating of left handedness with being homosexual]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Fair enough Repton. I am happy to concede that Chris Carter is both a liberal and a hypocrite. If we can only catch him eating whale meat?!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    It is intellectually dishonest, Ryan, to compare ‘having green eyes’ with someone being (choosing) homosexual. This whole “consenting adults”,and being “born that way” crap is all getting a bit tired, if you ask me.

    It is not intellectually dishonest. It neatly illustrates the loaded terms Scott is trying to inject into the liberal perspective on the matter, which is what he was asking about. Giving equal rights to gay New Zealanders is no more a “commandment” from the government that being gay is “good” than it would be if the law treated green-eyed people or folk-music-playing people differently and the government amended things in favour of equality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    [Scott]:Prior to 1986 homosexuality was a crime. Now homosexuals are protected by the law and given the same rights as heterosexuals. This was imposed on us by the Labour government, if I recall correctly. Even though at the time, 1986, there was massive opposition to the change.

    Now another government, not this national government who are far too wishy-washy, but another government of firmer views could conceivably make homosexuality a crime once again. Would that be wrong?”

    [/quote]

    If you want the state to criminalize others’ sexual preferences, you are to the left of Helen Clark.

    Who the fuck are you Scott to decide what two consenting adults should be allowed to do in the privacy of their own bedroom? Removing the ban on homosexuality was about basic human freedom, not about destroying your precious religion.

    This arrogance that your christian values should be imposed on others is the reason atheists (and others) always take issue whenever you start quoting the bible.

    Don’t like gay sex? Don’t do it, and STFU.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Put it away 11:55 am,

    I really wonder what’s going on in xtians heads when they think that by default they would be rapists and murderers and every bad thing they can think of, were it not for their belief in the sky fairy to keep them from turning to pure evil and chaos.

    I guess you haven’t been reading the papers recently, then, regarding the escalation of both murders and rape (among other things). Who’s really living in la la land, eh PIA?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    Following on from Kris’s point — presumably now that the government has told us that homosexuality is okay, a change of government can tell us that it is not okay?

    Prior to 1986 homosexuality was a crime. Now homosexuals are protected by the law and given the same rights as heterosexuals. This was imposed on us by the Labour government, if I recall correctly. Even though at the time, 1986, there was massive opposition to the change.

    Now another government, not this national government who are far too wishy-washy, but another government of firmer views could conceivably make homosexuality a crime once again. Would that be wrong?

    It would be un-liberal. It would be wrong-to-liberals. It would be right-to-you.

    Given many here think homosexuality is okay and others of us think it is a sin, how can this question be decided? In the absence of universal moral truth, is it just a question of who can shout loudest?

    Meta-values. Given that there is no consensus on morality for everyone, liberal democracies seek to ensure the greatest freedom possible to pursue your own idea of what is good. The freedom to worship at church or wherever you want, to marry someone of the same sex as you, to read whatever you want to read, say whatever you want to say, etc. – this makes it possible for people to mind their own business about how they live their lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    I think Kris the key phrase in Ryan’s reasoning was about “liberal values”. What we are having imposed on us is liberal values. So homosexuality is either a good thing or a least morally neutral according to “liberal values”.

    Now according to Conservative values and Christian commandments, homosexuality is not morally neutral, it is a bad thing. It should be discouraged by the law.

    Therefore another government, might change the law to make homosexuality illegal. Indeed if homosexuality is just a preference like “chocolate or strawberry”, then where would be the harm? And in the absence of universal moral values, who can say it is wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    In other words, Scott, freedom is valuable to almost all people, whatever their values, because it is freedom that makes it possible to pursue what is good within the framework of their values. The only restriction is that you are restricted from restricting other people’s freedom to do the same. That’s why it clashes for you – your values find it good to limit the freedom of other people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    RRM — so that is your moral argument clearly laid out is it? You are a Christian and so you should STFU.
    Well — who can reply to such brilliant reasoning?

    It reminds me of the pastor who made this note in his sermon script — “point weak, shout louder”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    Therefore another government, might change the law to make homosexuality illegal. Indeed if homosexuality is just a preference like “chocolate or strawberry”, then where would be the harm? And in the absence of universal moral values, who can say it is wrong?

    In the absence of universal food-taste values, who can say that chocolate tastes good? You see? You don’t need universal values for statements to be meaningful.

    As for the harm, “harm” is a value-referential term too. The harm, to the liberal, is the reduction in equality and freedom in the society. Those things are good to the liberal, and so the reduction of them is “harm” to the liberal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    I have a lot of conservative values Scott, and I don’t see anything morally wrong with homosexuality.

    Just wondering though, with your fondness for the Commandments, do you think we should also stone people to death for working the sabbath?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Ryan – It is not intellectually dishonest. It neatly illustrates the loaded terms Scott is trying to inject into the liberal perspective on the matter,

    green eyes is not a choice, the way you use your body sexually is.
    that’s why people swap back and forth.
    you can’t have green eyes one day and blue another.
    at least not yet :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Thank you Ryan — I am wrong because “That’s why it clashes for you – your values find it good to limit the freedom of other people.”
    So I limit the freedom of other people to do what they like. Whereas you as an enlightened person allow people to do whatever they want.

    So I am a fundamentalist bigot and you are an enlightened person.

    So you are right and I am wrong? And that is universally true. Despite what I think, I am wrong. So right and wrong do exist. You perceive what is right correctly (freedom to do whatever you want) and I just want to limit people’s freedom.

    So we have a fundamental universal truth. Ryan is right and Scott is wrong. Good, I’m glad we’ve cleared that up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    green eyes is not a choice, the way you use your body sexually is.
    that’s why people swap back and forth.
    you can’t have green eyes one day and blue another.
    at least not yet

    I included “playing folk music” in there as well.

    But whether or not something is a choice has no bearing on my point, which is that to cease to discriminate against something is not saying “it’s good” – or at least, no more for homosexuality than it would be for green eyes or folk music.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Jeff
    “Who can base a civilisation on such a vacuum”

    And here I was thinking some of the greatest ancient civilisations, be it the chinese, Eygptians, early romans, greeks (I could go on) were based on a world without a Christian god.

    All of those civilisations had God’s and some several Jeff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Biomag83 12:12 pm,

    Once again, more words of wisdom from Biomag. Someone who knows the realities surrounding the homosexual lifestyle, and of those who follow it.

    I always appreciate your input on this topic, Biomag.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    Thank you Ryan — I am wrong because “That’s why it clashes for you – your values find it good to limit the freedom of other people.”
    So I limit the freedom of other people to do what they like. Whereas you as an enlightened person allow people to do whatever they want.

    I didn’t call myself enlightened, but yes, I want people to do whatever they want, so long as it does not interfere with the same freedom for others.

    So I am a fundamentalist bigot and you are an enlightened person.

    I didn’t say that.

    So you are right and I am wrong? And that is universally true.

    Nope, I rather emphatically said something quite different. I said that I am liberal and you are not. I also said that values aren’t “universally” anything.

    Despite what I think, I am wrong. So right and wrong do exist.

    Nope, again, you’re either intentionally ignoring an awful lot of what I’m saying or I’m being very unclear about it.

    You perceive what is right correctly (freedom to do whatever you want)

    And again, there’s no “perceiving correctly” of values. Values are not true or false, they are good or bad – and “good” or “bad” is an evaluation that can only be made from within some value framework or other. I don’t “perceive what is right correctly”. I hold liberal values, which are different from yours.

    So we have a fundamental universal truth. Ryan is right and Scott is wrong. Good, I’m glad we’ve cleared that up.

    Scott, let me know now if you’re intentionally putting totally different words into my mouth. I have said almost the opposite of everything you just claimed that I’ve said.

    EDIT: Though you are factually incorrect about the nature of contextual values. That’s not a good/bad evaluation, that’s a true/false one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Chthoniid — this argument has come up many times. Generally we make a distinction in the Old Testament about laws that are universal ie the 10 Commandments, and laws that relate to the Jewish sacrificial system and the specific covenant between God and Israel as God’s chosen people .

    With the new covenant, Christian society has generally not taken on board those rules and regulations and laws that were particular to the old covenant. So for example although Christian societies have discouraged working on the Sabbath and even made laws to discourage the practice, working on the Sabbath is no longer seen as a capital offence.

    That would be my understanding. There would be other theologians who have studied the Sabbath law for example and I’m sure can provide a much fuller explanation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    David in Chch 12:16 pm,

    The ban on homosexuality in the bible is less about having sex with a man than on wasting the “seed”, and that is apparertly only mentioned a couple of times.

    Why stop at sex with men? Where is the ban on eating shellfish, which is mentioned many more times in the Old Testament? Where is the ban on associating with women who are having their period? Where is the ban on even sitting on a chair used by a woman having her period unless and until it has been cleansed?

    Fortuitously, David, Christ came to release us from the curse of Old Testament law. But where the New Testament RESTATES OT requirements/commandments then Christians need to take those things seriously. For example, homosexuality, fornication, and adultery are ALL restated as commandments in the NT of things God abhors, and of which we are not to partake.

    Whereas I quite enjoy my shellfish, pork, etc., for example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Okay then Ryan. You are a Liberal and I am a Christian.

    Therefore we just have different values. Therefore neither of us is “right” or “wrong”. Therefore regarding homosexuality we just have different values. Your values, liberal ones, are in fashion right now. The law of the land regarding homosexuality is liberal.

    However a majority of people at some future date might vote in the government that changes the law. So homosexuality could become a crime once again. And that would be okay because that is just the Conservatives or Christians or whatever legislating their values.

    And that would not be wrong, because it is all just about values. Because neither of us is right or wrong, because right and wrong (in your reasoning anyway) do not seem to exist.

    So we just need a change of government, and we can reverse the whole liberal agenda, and that would be okay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Ryan
    again you make your perspective the point that homosexually is the same as a physical trait that we have no control over.
    That is not correct, as green eyes are not the same as a behaviour.

    Now whether a behaviour is natural or learned is one thing.
    Whether it is acceptable or not in a culture or society per se is another.
    Whether that acceptance or not is due to health, moral, philosophical or other grounds is another.

    I am in the camp that Homosexuality is a behaviour and it is not natural, it is a human construct for pleasure and identification.
    If I look at the human body I see that there are two forms, men & women and it is clear that they are constructed differently but complementary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    With the new covenant, Christian society has generally not taken on board those rules and regulations and laws that were particular to the old covenant.

    Hmm, so you have a set of moral absolutes, that just happen not to be absolutes…interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Jeff83 (745 comments) says:

    Jeff 83 — for a supposedly well-educated man, you seem to be resorting to shouting and abuse fairly quickly.
    So anything Christian is wrong? It is just excrement. So we know one truth — anything a Christian says is wrong. That is a universal truth.

    I appreciate many societies in the past were not based on the Christian God. But they were based on an external religious source of morality. They believed in right and wrong, universal truth if you like.

    Now we modern people have outgrown this idea. We don’t believe in any universal truth, apart from what we do believe in. Hypocrisy is wrong. This is a universal truth. Homosexuality is okay. This is a universal truth.

    To oppose homosexuality would be to impose our moral preferences on somebody else. And that would be wrong. That is a universal truth — imposing our moral preferences on somebody else is wrong.

    Just trying to find out what the universal truth is.

    I have no problem with Christianity, was brought up in a christian household and my mother and sister believe in it. Nor do I have a problem with religion. What I do have massive issues with is people who believe religion has a monopoly on ethics, they simply don’t and its a load of bull.

    What I also have an issue with is intolerance, and those who justify their intolerance through hiding behind the smokescreen of religion.

    Personally many of the greatest people I have met are religios, and personally am not aethist. But views espoused by those like Kris, who whilst I would guess is a good person, are dangerous in the wrong hands.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Is there a workable set of absolutes Chthoniid ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Jeff83 (745 comments) says:

    Scott:

    I guess further to the above, the problem I have with the whole anti homosexual agenda is that it is truly a tiny part of the bible, and really not what it is about at all. The new testament is primarily about love thy neighbour as one loves them self, a great message, that gets lost by loops on the fringe who hijack a couple of paragraphs. I mean if I wanted to I could hijack a couple of lines in the old testament to commit genocide, as theoretically the Israelites were instructed to do.

    Further the main anti “gay” part is the story of Sodom. A key part people leave out is the main issue was that people were cheating on their spouses etc to commit “Sodomy” but further it is from the old testament which I would call a moral foundations claim shaky at best. Its best part is its 10 commandments; many other parts are less helpful to put it mildly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    I am happy to concede that Chris Carter is both a liberal and a hypocrite. If we can only catch him eating whale meat?!

    That’s funny!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    RRM 12:29 pm,

    If you want the state to criminalize others’ sexual preferences, you are to the left of Helen Clark.

    Who the fuck are you Scott to decide what two consenting adults should be allowed to do in the privacy of their own bedroom? Removing the ban on homosexuality was about basic human freedom, not about destroying your precious religion.

    But it’s ok to criminalise ALL parents who may choose to smack their children for the purposes of correction?

    And actually Christians never legislated for homosexuality to be criminal; society as a whole saw the value in NOT HAVING homosexuality ‘normalised’ by law. And the Homosexual Law Reform change in 1986 was not mandated by the people of this nation, but rather by the ideologues sought on socially engineering our society. Some of you guys have astoundingly short memories. Or maybe some of you are just VERY young (but I doubt that). The other option is that you have bought into the lie that removing our Judeo-Christian heritage and morality is a good thing, and to ‘advance’ as a society/culture we must cast off the old shackles.

    Perhaps you agree with the social change ideologues, or perhaps you are even part of their number; but in either case it doesn’t bode well for our society. The evidence that the experiment is failing surrounds us each day; and with ever increasing impact on our daily lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Jeff83 (745 comments) says:

    Jeff
    “Who can base a civilisation on such a vacuum”

    And here I was thinking some of the greatest ancient civilisations, be it the chinese, Eygptians, early romans, greeks (I could go on) were based on a world without a Christian god.
    MikeNZ
    All of those civilisations had God’s and some several Jeff.

    And here I was thinking that I limited my statement to a Christian god.

    Further the above civilizations “gods” would be described as being made up by those who derive moral authority from a bible, so therefore its what the authors of those gods thought which was moral.

    The point is the christian “god” never has and never will have a monopoly on morality, rather a particular (or in reality many interpretations) of what it is. Morality predates christanity or jewism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Jeff83 (745 comments) says:

    “The other option is that you have bought into the lie that removing our Judeo-Christian heritage and morality is a good thing, and to ‘advance’ as a society/culture we must cast off the old shackles.

    Perhaps you agree with the social change ideologues, or perhaps you are even part of their number; but in either case it doesn’t bode well for our society. The evidence that the experiment is failing surrounds us each day; and with ever increasing impact on our daily lives.”

    What evidence. Not enough witch hunts for you Kris? Not enough people killing themselves for how they were born. Not enough people living a lie?

    YOU YOURSELF has said it is not normal for humans to be celebrate (in reflection on catholic priests). However you have a double standard for people born gay. Well fancy that.

    I am a proud liberal and will fight tooth and nail with you and your kind till the better end to ensure you do not send us back to the stone ages. Fortunately in most sectors we (being liberals) are gradually winning, and yes I do think society is as a whole a better place for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    Okay then Ryan. You are a Liberal and I am a Christian.

    Therefore we just have different values. Therefore neither of us is “right” or “wrong”. Therefore regarding homosexuality we just have different values. Your values, liberal ones, are in fashion right now. The law of the land regarding homosexuality is liberal.

    I agree.

    However a majority of people at some future date might vote in the government that changes the law. So homosexuality could become a crime once again. And that would be okay because that is just the Conservatives or Christians or whatever legislating their values.

    “That would be okay” is a value statement. It would be okay or not-okay, depending on your value framework.

    And that would not be wrong, because it is all just about values. Because neither of us is right or wrong, because right and wrong (in your reasoning anyway) do not seem to exist.

    So we just need a change of government, and we can reverse the whole liberal agenda, and that would be okay.

    Unless you are operating from a value framework of “whatever the government does is good”, the fact that the government has legislated something does not make it automatically “okay” (which, as above, is a value statement).

    You say “neither of us is right or wrong” and “right and wrong don’t seem to exist”, but that’s not quite it. Both of us are right-to-some-values and wrong-to-some-values. Just because there’s no absolute standard of what tastes good, doesn’t mean food has no taste. Just because there’s no absolute standard of what is morally good, doesn’t mean things are neither right nor wrong. It’s just that “tastes good” and “tastes bad” and “is morally good” and “is morally bad” are judgements that only have meaning from within a value framework.

    So if the government started legislating against equality again, that would be bad-to-liberals and – if it was the kind of inequality you approve of – would be good-to-you. Similarly, when the government legislated in civil unions, that was good-to-liberals and bad-to-you.

    It’s not a question of the majority deciding what is right and wrong, any more than the majority decide what tastes good. There are things that most people will find morally wrong and there are things that most people will find bad-tasting. Majority-rule governments might reflect the values of a majority, but that does not make their actions right – it just reflects that they are right-to-most-people-in-that-society. Still wrong-to-others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Scott — “With the new covenant, Christian society has generally not taken on board those rules and regulations and laws that were particular to the old covenant. So for example although Christian societies have discouraged working on the Sabbath and even made laws to discourage the practice, working on the Sabbath is no longer seen as a capital offence.”

    But, but, but, I thought the bible gave us MORAL ABSOLUTES? And now you’re telling us these rules are “generally” followed and/or in some kind of grey area between mild discouragement and capital punishment? Jeez it almost sounds like they’re picking and choosing the rules they agree or disagree with already, and claiming it as moral authority. I for one am shocked…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. minto57 (197 comments) says:

    Homosexuality keeps on promoting itself as special and this is the rub the continuing demand for more rights.
    Hate speech and lowering the consent age, I seem to remember as being touted by the last goverment.
    I think the majority wish homosexuals would just keep consenting in private.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Jeff83 1:21 pm,

    The point is the christian “god” never has and never will have a monopoly on morality, rather a particular (or in reality many interpretations) of what it is. Morality predates christanity or jewism.

    While your last sentence is correct, there were still individuals who had personal relationships with the Jewish/Christian God prior to the Jewish people.

    If we accept that the Jewish people started with Jacob (Israel), there are numerous Old Testament individuals who pre-date Jacob, and who knew God. For example; Abraham, Lot, Noah, Job … right back to Adam and Eve. This same God has His hand on humanity throughout ALL of human history. And on this basis, ‘pure’ morality has always been associated with the One who gives Moral Law.

    And while there may be other ‘values’ systems throughout human history, they are a dim reflection of ultimate moral law as given by the Creator God. They are but lesser perversions of absolute moral law, and will NEVER measure up to God’s standard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    I expect Toyota will be remaking their iconic advertisement…

    Two blokes rush from the airport hand-in-hand toward their Landcruiser, only to find the carpark exit surrounded by the paparazzi.

    One turns to the other and says “Bugger”.

    The other replies “Not now, there’s photographers about”.

    Or something like that…. :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Thanks for your comments Jeff 83. A shame that you have left your Christian upbringing behind in my view. However maybe God will help you to repent of your repentance of your repentance.

    Your latest comment was this “I am a proud liberal and will fight tooth and nail with you and your kind till the better (I think you meant bitter) end to ensure you do not send us back to the stone ages. Fortunately in most sectors we (being liberals) are gradually winning, and yes I do think society is as a whole a better place for it.”
    So the Liberals are winning and society is a better place for it and if conservatives and Christians were in the ascendancy, then society would go back to the stone ages.
    So the truth is that society is a better place when liberals are in power and liberal values hold sway? And the truth is that when conservatives and Christians and others that are not liberal are in power, then society will be heading back to the Stone Age?

    So those are universal truths, independent of our preferences? You , Jeff 83, knows the truth that makes society better. And the other side (people like Kris and Fletch and myself) are full of lies that would send society back into darkness. Is that about your argument?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Ryan — thanks for your reply. The crux of your argument appears to be this —
    “There are things that most people will find morally wrong and there are things that most people will find bad-tasting. Majority-rule governments might reflect the values of a majority, but that does not make their actions right – it just reflects that they are right-to-most-people-in-that-society. Still wrong-to-others.”

    So we are without any “right” or “wrong”. There is no right or wrong, just things that people do that leaves a bad taste in the mouths of other people? But who can say what is right or wrong?

    There is no objective “right” or “wrong”. It is just what people find offensive or not?

    So again we could conceivably have a government that criminalises homosexuality. And without any objective right or wrong, who can say that what they are doing is wrong?

    So the universal truth of right and wrong, is that there is no universal truth of right and wrong. The truth is there is no truth. I think we have cleared this matter up.

    Basically we need enough of us to get into power and we can put in place any laws we like, laws that suit our own preferences. That actually appears to be where our nation is heading, and has been for some time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    So again we could conceivably have a government that criminalises homosexuality. And without any objective right or wrong, who can say that what they are doing is wrong?

    So the universal truth of right and wrong, is that there is no universal truth of right and wrong. The truth is there is no truth. I think we have cleared this matter up.

    You need to distinguish between truth and value. No absolute value does not mean no absolute truth. So, amended, your statement would be: “The universal truth of right and wrong is that there is no universal right and wrong. The truth is there is no absolute value.”

    Basically we need enough of us to get into power and we can put in place any laws we like, laws that suit our own preferences. That actually appears to be where our nation is heading, and has been for some time.

    You can. And should you succeed, those actions will be wrong-to-liberals and right-to-you.

    So we are without any “right” or “wrong”. There is no right or wrong, just things that people do that leaves a bad taste in the mouths of other people? But who can say what is right or wrong?

    There is no objective “right” or “wrong”. It is just what people find offensive or not?

    There’s no “just” about it. Our experiences of right and wrong are generally stronger than simply a “bad taste in the mouth”. Everything you have ever experienced as morally right or morally wrong is this contextual value at work. If you refer to other people’s moral sensations as “just a bad taste” or “just what people find offensive”, you must apply the same terminology to yourself. I see no reason to believe you experience right and wrong differently from other people.

    To be clear, I am not “reducing” morality down to “mere personal taste”. Everything we have ever known as morality, including those people who believe in “absolute morality”, is contextual, and this fact does not invalidate their (or your) experiences of right and wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Jeff83 1:25 pm,

    What evidence. Not enough witch hunts for you Kris? Not enough people killing themselves for how they were born. Not enough people living a lie?

    I was more alluding to the moral decline of society; where even young boys (minors under 16) carry out such things as murder and rape. And then we have the increasing number of individuals like Bell, Burton, and Rikihana (who we were debating just yesterday) who rape and kill, and seem to have no conscience or sense of value of human life.
    It wasn’t always this way; and if you’re honest you know this to be the case.

    YOU YOURSELF has said it is not normal for humans to be celebrate (in reflection on catholic priests). However you have a double standard for people born gay. Well fancy that.

    I believe forcing celebacy (I assume that’s what you meant) on others (priests), or claiming people are ‘born homosexual’, are both unnatural (the Bible makes these same statements). You may ‘think’ homosexuals are born that way, but God’s word says otherwise; that they choose this lifestyle. So no, I don’t believe I have a “double standard” in this regard at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Basically we need enough of us to get into power and we can put in place any laws we like, laws that suit our own preferences. That actually appears to be where our nation is heading, and has been for some time.

    Sort of, that’s generally how things work. But especially with morality type laws there is usually quite a lag, the changes are normally a lot slower than the immediate wishes of the evolving majority.

    Wouldn’t we be better off (most of us anyway) if atheists accepted that Christians were mostly ok and well meaning, and Christians accepted that atheists were mostly ok and well meaning, (plus other groups but just trying to keep it simple) and we worked towards improving our society with common values.

    Sometimes that means accepting some things won’t be to various individuals liking, but in the main shouldn’t that approach work? If one group continually looks down on another group as having inferior morals it’s not going to solve much, if anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull 1:59 pm,

    To be clear, I am not “reducing” morality down to “mere personal taste”. Everything we have ever known as morality, including those people who believe in “absolute morality”, is contextual, and this fact does not invalidate their (or your) experiences of right and wrong.

    Scott, I’m pretty sure Ryan would describe himself as a determinist. That we basically determine our own truth/values, and PERHAPS even our own reality (correct me if I’m wrong, Ryan).

    But in a sense I agree with Ryan; if there is no Ultimate Moral Law giver then there can be no such thing as ‘absolute moral law’. Which would be consistent if you, as does Ryan, believe there is no God.

    Once again, correct me if I’ve got any of this wrong, Ryan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Thanks for your comments Pete. Basically — why can’t we all get along? You have your truth and I have my truth, that sort of thing.

    I believe in the sky fairy (as Malcolm puts it). You believe there is no sky fairy.

    I believe in Jesus. You don’t.

    What values do we have in common?

    Indeed atheists insist that there are no atheist values, apart from “there is no God”. The latest campaign on buses and billboards from atheists proclaimed something like “There is probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life”.

    So what values can we have in common to make a decent society? You guys have got nothing, except stop worrying and enjoy your life because there is no God. I’m not sure we can base the nation on such a tiny sliver of moral guidance.

    Indeed, so many of you have said there is no universal truth. So given that no universal truth exists, what is the basis for our agreement? I mean we want to send society back into the Stone Age (close minded fundamentalists that we are) and you want to send society onward to the liberal utopia that is just around the corner.

    And given no universal truth, who can say that my hankering for the Stone Age is wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    Scott, I’m pretty sure Ryan would describe himself as a determinist. That we basically determine our own truth/values, and PERHAPS even our own reality (correct me if I’m wrong, Ryan).

    You’re a bit off on this one, Kris, but I appreciate the effort. I’m a determinist in the sense that I believe that our choices are ultimately determined by factors outside of our control (ie., ultimately no free will in the choices that we make), and I also believe that other elements of our view of the world – our individual contexts – are determined by things outside of our control.

    So I don’t choose to find murder or rape wrong, for example. The world presents itself to me in that way, and I cannot choose to find murder or rape acceptable – it’s a fact of my existence that I find it wrong.

    I can’t choose my reality. I am an expression of my reality, and my reality is an expression of me. Same for everyone else. Depending on what you mean by “reality”.

    The main practical implication is that I tend to see criminals more as unwell than as intentionally evil.

    But in a sense I agree with Ryan; if there is no Ultimate Moral Law giver then there can be no such thing as ‘absolute moral law’. Which would be consistent if you, as does Ryan, believe there is no God.

    I tend to treat statements about God on a case-by-case basis, Kris – everyone I talk to means something different by the word, so I don’t have a stock standard opinion on it.

    Once again, correct me if I’ve got any of this wrong, Ryan.

    You’re right on that one, more or less. My main point is that moral statements still have meaning in the absence of an absolute moral law giver (whether that’s a personal God such as you believe in, or a universal moral law like karma or something, or something else).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    Indeed, so many of you have said there is no universal truth.

    Scott,

    Who said that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Well Kris, I hope you understood Ryan’s reply. It all seems pretty vague to me. Once you backslide there is no telling where you are going to end up?

    But I feel the world presenting itself to me as a place where I should be number one. I choose the path to world domination. That is an expression of my reality. I just need to persuade the other 6 billion people that share this planet of my reality. Then I will be ruler of the world.

    Now that is a universal truth I can believe in!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Sorry Ryan — “implied” there is no universal truth. I mean we have been banging on about this topic all day. Universal truth still appears to elude the majority of commentators here. Indeed there has been so much ducking and diving to elude the possibility of universal truth, while still claiming to make statements about right and wrong.

    However Christians do believe in universal truth. For everybody. Whether they want to acknowledge it or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    rex
    thats priceless.
    sat night live may well do it soon.
    claim money now off of them!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Scott, you seem to be picking small pieces and trying to apply them absolutely.

    I’m more or less an atheist. But I don’t see any point in the atheist bus approach, I see that as no better than a Christian trying to tell me what to believe.

    I believe in Jesus, just differently to you. I believe he existed, I believe he had a significant local influence in his lifetime, and has had a huge global influence since (or has been used as a catalysts for a huge influence).

    I believe in god, just differently to you. I see god as a concept in understanding and guidance that many people have used and use. It can have benefits for some people, it can be misused by others.

    I believe in morals. The word comes from Latin, meaning usage, custom. If I look up the word here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral – I can agree with what various sources mention. There is not a single reference to god or religion. Only some religious people seem to think it is exclusive to them.

    I don’t understand why some people with beliefs seem to think that unless everyone shares those exact same beliefs they are somehow inferior, wrong, bad. Or incompatible with living in harmony.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    So what values can we have in common to make a decent society? You guys have got nothing, except stop worrying and enjoy your life because there is no God.

    I think, trying to deduce a system of values based on a bus billboard, involves such heroic leaps of conjecture to be absolutely meaningless in result.

    You might find it more beneficial to inquire honestly as to what different atheists employ as a basis of their values.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    So what values can we have in common to make a decent society?

    If you care to allow others with different beliefs to have some good attributes, and if you care to look for the many common things that don’t stand out because they are not debated, you might find some of your answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Jeff83 (745 comments) says:

    Scott,

    Just a little busy at the mo so a very brief response. I would argue there is no abolute truth, I dont like the idea of absolutes. The only thing I am absolutely sure of is we are here on a rock we like to call earth.

    I dont preclude the possibiltiy of a god existing which believes all the things written in teh bible, I think it is however highly unlikely and if it did exist I still would not agree with it. I do think it is allot more likely there is a spirtual realm, but that is neither here nor there.

    My key point is this, morality can be sourced from many places. Some people take it from a ‘holy text’ be it the bible, Koran, old testiment, teachings of Buddah, lessons passed on by elders of old ‘gods’, some people take it from what their parents believe in, some people take it from what society deems as morally approraite and some people take it from what they deem is in the best interests of humanity.

    Fortunately most of these agree on the key concepts, not to kill, not to assault, not rape, and those which believe in individual property (not all do) not to steal to at least some extent.

    However it is on the more ‘human issues’ of sexuality where they do not agree, depending of course on ones interpretation of each. Whilst I believe my view point is superior and more enlightned to be blunt than yours, it is mine. I however believe that you have the right to believe what you want, and I believe it is this freedom our ancestors fought for in WW2.

    What I do not believe in however is that I should be able to force my views on you, just like I strongly believe that you should not be able to force your view point on others. I would say you would agree with this, however it is of course the business of detail.

    You see I believe that someone who is gay, should be able to live their life without the state interferring as they want, as long as they are not hurting others. I do not believe you should have to accept that it is ok, but I think I have the right to call you a bigot for holding those views, much like you believe you have the right to say you believe that person faces eternal damantion for their lifestyle / views.

    To eloberate this further I believe in civil unions, you dont. That is fine you are entitled to that view but I dont see why you should then be able to enforce that view on another and therefore limit their life by your views.

    The same applies to the rest of the issues, excluding abortion which I actually really dont agree with personally but can see both sides arguments, and see that never will both sides from a compromise.

    “And given no universal truth, who can say that my hankering for the Stone Age is wrong?”

    I can’t say that is wrong, although I can say you can have a universal truth, just not one which says something that specific. However I can just say based on my values, of equal rights for woman, decent life spans, the pursuit of happiness all that, that the time we live in now is better than any point in our history.

    I would agree there are things in the past which were better. Violent crime was down. Why? Well a combination of reasons which do include a greater ‘mob’ mentality where others perceptions mattered more, but there was also less economic disparity (economic inequality has been shown to be one of the greatest causes of crime), there were less people, and arguably less sexual and family violence crime was reported. Yes I think liberalism has increased crime in part. But I think the extent of it is overstated, and I think the cost is worth the reward so to speak. I would say it would be allot harder in todays age to lead a nation to war like in WW1 and WW2 where it was, due to less questioning of command.

    edit so brief response got carried away ha.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    Sorry Ryan — “implied” there is no universal truth. I mean we have been banging on about this topic all day. Universal truth still appears to elude the majority of commentators here. Indeed there has been so much ducking and diving to elude the possibility of universal truth, while still claiming to make statements about right and wrong.

    As I’ve repeatedly said, “right and wrong” are a different kind of statement from “true and false”. The absence of “universal value” does not mean or require an absence of universal truth.

    That said, it looks like Jeff’s said he doesn’t believe there’s universal truth, so I was wrong about no one denying universal truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    What I do not believe in however is that I should be able to force my views on you, just like I strongly believe that you should not be able to force your view point on others. I would say you would agree with this, however it is of course the business of detail.

    You see I believe that someone who is gay, should be able to live their life without the state interferring as they want, as long as they are not hurting others. I do not believe you should have to accept that it is ok, but I think I have the right to call you a bigot for holding those views, much like you believe you have the right to say you believe that person faces eternal damantion for their lifestyle / views.

    Jeff
    so its ok for you to lambast others who don’t believe as you do with emotional painting words?
    Someone could say that you are a bigot for your views against traditional marriage people surely?

    stating that he believes there is a heaven and hell based on his belief that the bible was inspired from God so that people could know Him and be with Him in heaven forever and saying that according to that people will go to hell.
    It is not the same as you calling him a bigot.
    sorry jeff you are not correct there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Scott 2:38 pm,

    Well Kris, I hope you understood Ryan’s reply. It all seems pretty vague to me. Once you backslide there is no telling where you are going to end up?

    Ryan and I thrashed this out once before, so I kind of get where he’s coming from. But of course I think he’s wrong. ;)

    But I feel the world presenting itself to me as a place where I should be number one. I choose the path to world domination. That is an expression of my reality. I just need to persuade the other 6 billion people that share this planet of my reality. Then I will be ruler of the world.

    Now that is a universal truth I can believe in!

    I’ll sign up as long as I can get the 2IC slot.
    But sadly for both of us, I think the world domination stakes may be earmarked for others. Firstly, the two great imposters, followed shortly after by the Real Deal™.

    I guess I’ll just have to stick to dominating my cat. :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    I guess I’ll just have to stick to dominating my cat

    Quick .. edit !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Pete George (4900) Says:
    May 6th, 2010 at 2:42 pm

    so Pete what is the purpose of being born, of living and where do we go when we die?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    so Pete what is the purpose of being born, of living and where do we go when we die?

    While we’re at it, what is the colour of being born, of living, and where we go when we die?

    And, for that matter, how tall is being born, living, and where we go when we die?

    What’s the square root of being born, of living, and where we go when we die?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    It’s regeneration of life Mike.

    I don’t think it would work if everything lived forever, everything would remain the same so there would seem to be little point. So things are born, grow, age and die (if they are lucky and/or careful).

    I’ll strive for happiness, contentment, satisfaction and survival, until my time has come to exit as a living being. And when I die I’ll contribute to the next generations of living things. If I was still at my current address I’ll be going into the paddocks there. Ashes to dust.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    What a refreshingly civilised debate to read. Thanks.

    (of course that’s just my own baseless opinion, precariously pulling itself up by it’s own shoelaces in the no-man’s-land of moral relativism).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    MikeNZ 3:07 pm,

    … what is the purpose of being born, of living and where do we go when we die?

    The atheist’s dilemma … (and no, the answer isn’t 42)

    If we can’t establish a common basis for morality within society, then good luck with getting any sort of consensus regarding your above question.

    But at least Pete (and others) has people available to him SHOULD he want to know the answer to such questions …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    If we can’t establish a common basis for morality within society, then good luck with getting any sort of consensus regarding your above question.

    I don’t understand the question. What do you mean by “purpose”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    You may think it’s a dilemma Kris, but it is nothing like a dilemma for me. You can deal with it your way, and I’ll deal with it my way. I know as much as I need to about it.

    I guess I could put a tender out for the best offer of psychological assurance. Should I go with Warren Jeffs, and marry as many women as I can? Nah, I wouldn’t want to end my years like him.

    I doubt George Rekers is going to finish his years as well as he would have hoped or expected either.

    It’s you that says we can’t establish a common base for morality – I suspect that means you don’t think I will agree to your ideas on what it means.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    so Pete what is the purpose of being born, of living and where do we go when we die?

    Why does there need to be a purpose, assuming we could agree on the meaning of “purpose”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Pete George 3:18 pm,

    It’s regeneration of life Mike.

    I don’t think it would work if everything lived forever, everything would remain the same so there would seem to be little point. So things are born, grow, age and die (if they are lucky and/or careful).

    Actually, Pete, I recall reading somewhere that scientists don’t know WHY we age and eventually die. It appeared to them as though living things were ‘designed’ to regenerate themselves perpetually.

    And, in the case of humans, there is a balance between cells dying and being replaced at the same rate up until the mid 20s – after that more cells die than are replaced, and this process accelerates until we eventually die of old age (if we get that far).

    So, in essence, scientists were saying aging and dying are in fact NOT natual processes, but are rather unnatural. That we appear to be ‘designed’ to live forever, but that after a certain point ‘something’ causes cells to be corrupted, and die off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    I would have thought that it’s quite natural Kris. After all, everything does it. Try some different scientists (I suggest not ones involved in the cosmetics industry).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    Actually, Pete, I recall reading somewhere that scientists don’t know WHY we age and eventually die. It appeared to them as though living things were ‘designed’ to regenerate themselves perpetually.

    I’ve noticed Kris, that we never seem to read the same biology. There’s quite a lot of evolutionary reasons why we die.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull 3:27 pm,

    I don’t understand the question. What do you mean by “purpose”?

    … sorry, we should have said ‘dolphin’, “… and thanks for all the fish”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Thanks for your extended reply Jeff 83. Sticking with the gay question you believe your view is right and my view is wrong, indeed my view is bigoted. I have a right to hold my view, according to you, and you have a right to hold yours, again according to you.

    However your view is okay because it allows homosexuals to do what they want. So therefore your view is superior to mine because it does not interfere with consenting adults ability to do whatever they want. Is that about right?

    However our two views are mutually exclusive. We have two views about how society should be. You think homosexuality should be legal and homosexuals should be able to do whatever they want. I sincerely believe that homosexuality is immoral and harmful and it is not right to allow homosexuality to be condoned by society. Whose view is to prevail?

    At the moment society represents your view. We have a whole institution, civil unions, that have been created with the express purpose of allowing homosexuals to have the status of marriage (or very close to). In my mind that mucks up society. Our laws condone something that is harmful and immoral. Therefore our law is wrong and needs to be changed.

    You see the problem? Homosexuality/gay rights and biblical Christianity cannot coexist in society. They are implacably opposed. Now in the absence of universal truth, you don’t believe in universal truth, how can this problem possibly be resolved?

    The answer is what Kris and Fletch have been saying. The government tells us what is right. Now for the last nine years the government has been composed of gay rights activists and lesbians with a few trade unionists thrown in the mix. Now the present government contains very few gay right activists. Presumably this government, or some government in the future, might change the law to make homosexuality illegal.

    Again — in the absence of universal truth — who can say who is right and who is wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    …You think homosexuality should be legal and homosexuals should be able to do whatever they want. I sincerely believe that homosexuality is immoral and harmful and it is not right to allow homosexuality to be condoned by society.

    Scott, you seem to be tip-toeing around the criminality part of this issue. Just out of interest, do you think homosexuality should be a crime and that people should go to prison for this crime?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Hi there Malcolm. Based on past experience I have found you to be a bit of a bad faith debater to be honest.
    So I will not answer your question directly.

    What I would say is that legislation needs to be based on morality and morality is based on religion. If Christianity is true, and I believe it is, then homosexuality is morally wrong. Therefore the law should do everything in its power to discourage immoral behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    what a train wreck of a thread.

    DPF using the words 8 inch uncut cock is just wrong! i thought the site had been hacked!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Biblical Christianity cannot co-exist with modern society. If I stoned an adulterer to death the government (actually our legal system) will tell me that wasn’t the right thing to do.

    Most people recognise that societies and laws and religions evolve over time. We might not agree or like everything in our modern society, but we have to accept what we can’t change.

    I have no idea what universal truth is supposed to be. Is that where one religious group claims righteousness and labels everything else as wrongeousness?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,069 comments) says:

    I recall reading somewhere that scientists don’t know WHY we age and eventually die.

    Telomerase deletion, oxidative damage, cellular senescence – there are plenty of well understood reasons why we die.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    @Scott – fair enough, thanks for telling me. I’m not sure why you consider me to be a bad faith debater but if you care to explain I would be interested to know.

    Back on topic. I just wonder why you’re opposed to legalised homosexuality and say the law should do everything in its power to discourage such immoral behaviour, yet you seem reluctant to state the obvious consequence of that. Namely that homosexuals should go to prison. It gives the impression that despite the certainty of your moral position, you also know that it’s just wrong to put people in prison because they happen to be attracted to people of same sex and act on that desire in a consenting way. Which undermines your whole absolute morality argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Biblical Christianity cannot co-exist with modern society. If I stoned an adulterer to death the government (actually our legal system) will tell me that wasn’t the right thing to do. I think that’s fair enough.

    Most people recognise that societies and laws and religions evolve over time. We might not agree or like everything in our modern society, but we have to accept what we can’t change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Pete — with regard to “stoning adulterers” — see my remarks at 12:51 PM.
    With regard to “universal truth” — it’s what we have been going on about all day. Do try and keep up.

    I can’t see why Biblical Christianity can’t be part of modern society.

    Are you saying Peter that those of us who try to follow Biblical Christianity are wrong? And you Pete George have the truth? Where does it say that a modern person has to be an atheist? I must have missed that memo.

    Honestly — my humble opinion is that you blog far too often for what is a fairly limited amount of philosophical reasoning that you possess. Most of what you write is based on your own experience (I didn’t smack my kids and they turned out okay), that sort of thing. Maybe you could blog less often and read more widely? just a thought.

    Anyway must go — Scott out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Pete George 4:07 pm,

    Biblical Christianity cannot co-exist with modern society. If I stoned an adulterer to death the government (actually our legal system) will tell me that wasn’t the right thing to do.

    Are you being deliberately disingenuous, Pete?

    Biblical Christianity is based on New Testament theology. Old Testament practices, such as stoning for adultery, were not restipulated in the NT, and hence are not how Chritsians are to respond when confronted with such sin.

    As I said before, only those things ‘carried over’ from the OT into the NT formulate Christian doctrine. And while the NT may condemn such things as adultery and homosexuality, the penalties attached to such things are handled ENTIRELY differently – but I’m sure you knew that, eh Pete?

    Like Scott said of Malcolm; I think you are a bit of a “bad faith debater”, Pete.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Malcolm – I’m starting to wonder if the reason Scott’s cagey about what he wants to do with the homosexuals could be because he probably favours the Bible’s recommendation – execution. But excellent point, if he’s convinced in the absolute morality of the bible, then he should have no qualms about just coming out with whatever it is that he believes the bible recommends for homosexuals, and say “Abslolute truth – deal with it !” and not be swayed by what any of those feeble morally relative people think. And weaselling out of committing himself to a position by claiming you’re a “bad faith debater” is extremely poor form.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Repton (769 comments) says:

    So, in essence, scientists were saying aging and dying are in fact NOT natual processes, but are rather unnatural. That we appear to be ‘designed’ to live forever, but that after a certain point ’something’ causes cells to be corrupted, and die off.

    If a species did not age, the children of the species would be unable to compete with the adults. This would hinder the species’ evolution, and thus it would die out as the environment changed. Species that die are more adaptable.

    [an interesting thought, given that some scientists are working on "anti-aging" treatment. Imagine a world in which the rich could reasonably live forever, or at least for a few centuries. Would it be an improvement?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Fletch (6,387 comments) says:

    Back, and I see the thread has progressed (although the thinking stays the same).

    Malcolm, I don’t think homosexuals should be thrown in jail. I think people should be able to do what they like, sure, but it’s when the State steps in and legalizes something that is dangerous and dysfunctional, and that it’s OK to teach kids this in school, and not only teach then that it’s an option, but that they all MUST believe it is normal is where is gets my goat.

    Last month we had a thread with a guy having sex with a donkey.

    Should he be allowed to? He was arrested if I remember. Why? Because it wasn’t his donkey? Or because it was just wrong.
    If he wants to then why shouldn’t he be able to? He’s not hurting anyone else. Let’s just make it legal shall we. It’s his orientation – he was born that way. Let them get married. They might have genuine feelings for one another.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Thanks, PIA. Scott’s last response to Pete is high-handed and quite amusing. Spending the day arguing that the Bible is your sole source of morality and then suggesting that someone has limited reasoning ability and should read more. Priceless.

    FWIW, I don’t think Scott favours execution of homosexuals. I’m guessing he’s even a bit queasy about saying they should be in prison. Which is why he dodged the question. But that’s only my opinion of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Ok, to anyone that may remain, I know some have been going on about universal truth all day but no one has explained it, I still have no idea what it is supposed to be.

    FFS Scott, plenty of Christians seem to manage with modernised views, most don’t see ancient history as something to aspire to. Sure, learn from it, be interested in it, but the world has changed substantially. Knowledge has changed substantially.

    Honestly — my humble opinion is that you blog far too often for what is a fairly limited amount of philosophical reasoning that you possess.

    Maybe you could blog less often and read more widely?

    Reading between the lines, does that mean you think I should read the bible and convert to your narrow way of thinking? Based on very old writings rather than modern experience?

    I read quite a lot. I learn different things to you. I believe some different things to you. It would be a very boring world if all the intellectual stimulation we had was 6 billion people discussing the same old scripts, ad nauseous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    [an interesting thought, given that some scientists are working on "anti-aging" treatment. Imagine a world in which the rich could reasonably live forever, or at least for a few centuries. Would it be an improvement?]

    Not if today’s “successes” are anything to go by. I say Judy Bailley on TV last night – a near flawless anti-aged farce, give me the real thing any day.

    There is only one thing that stops aging – death. And it cannot be reveresd. get used to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Fletch (6,387 comments) says:

    Pete, no matter what has changed right will always be right and wrong will always be wrong.
    The more we stray from that right and wrong I believe the more problems society will have.

    I remember a quote by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (who studied the Russian Revolution and the death of approx 60 million of his people) about Atheism and God –

    “ Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.
    Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Malcolm, I don’t think homosexuals should be thrown in jail. I think people should be able to do what they like, sure, but it’s when the State steps in and legalizes something that is dangerous and dysfunctional, and that it’s OK to teach kids this in school, and not only teach then that it’s an option, but that they all MUST believe it is normal is where is gets my goat.

    Thanks for an response, Fletch. With respect, you’re contradicting yourself: “I don’t think homosexuals should be thrown in jail. I think people should be able to do what they like, sure” then you say “but it’s when the State steps in and legalizes something… …. is where it gets my goat.”

    Something is either illegal or it is not. Are you saying you don’t want it illegal, but you also don’t want it legal as that’s tantamount to an endorsement by the state? If so, you’re trying to make the law fill a role which it cannot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    The problem is Fletch, “right” and “wrong” vary between people and over time.

    It was “right” to have as many kids as possible because only some were likely to survive. Now it would be “wrong”, especially if Kris’ anti-aging scientists make a discovery that works. Would anyone want the population of China to be double what it is now?

    People who practice conception-safe sex like George Rekers may be doing the modern world a favour – a form of sustainable sex?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    Pete, if it is of any comfort to you, homosexuality is no longer illegal in this country, and it is highly unlikely that it ever again will be. So the paranoia of marginalised god cranks on the internet is scarcely worth arguing with. You won, they lost, eat that.

    Now excuse me, it’s after 5pm so it’s time I went and worshipped the invisible fairies at the bottom of the garden. I know they see everything I do, and will surely judge me at some loosely-defined day of atonement. If you don’t believe in them and their moral authority, it’s simply because you haven’t read widely enough…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    I think people should be able to do what they like, sure, but it’s when the State steps in and legalizes something that is dangerous and dysfunctional, and that it’s OK to teach kids this in school, and not only teach then that it’s an option, but that they all MUST believe it is normal is where is gets my goat.

    The State stepping in and preventing consenting adults from doing anything with each other is dangerous and dysfunctional.

    Last month we had a thread with a guy having sex with a donkey.

    Should he be allowed to? He was arrested if I remember. Why? Because it wasn’t his donkey? Or because it was just wrong.
    If he wants to then why shouldn’t he be able to? He’s not hurting anyone else. Let’s just make it legal shall we. It’s his orientation – he was born that way. Let them get married. They might have genuine feelings for one another.

    Fletch,

    Do you have trouble distinguishing between farm animals and consenting adults? If you think about the differences between animals and consenting adults, can you spot any flaws in your analogy there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Kris k:You may ‘think’ homosexuals are born that way, but God’s word says otherwise; that they choose this lifestyle.

    Where? Jesus himself stated that homosexuals were born that way and he never personally condemned it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Chiz – “Where? Jesus himself stated that homosexuals were born that way…”

    Uhh, pretty sure you just made that up. Chapter and verse please…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Its in Matthew 19:12 where Jesus points out that some people are born eunuchs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. noskire (842 comments) says:

    # Put it away (717) Says:
    May 6th, 2010 at 8:26 am

    LOL at the google ads on this page – gay sauna in Auckland, and a Bible study course.

    Actually the majority of Google Ads you see are individually targetted based on your browsing history…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    chiz – I don’t think you know what a eunuch is, if you think that has anything to do with homosexuals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Back then eunuch was a much broader term that it is today and generally meant anyone who couldn’t or wouldn’t procreate. We know from both secular and religious documents that it included people that today we would call gay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Noskire – ahhh no, on this article the ads are about gay saunas and jesus. On the “Labour heads left” which is about farms, the ads are about buying stock, milk production, and cow supplements. On the unemployment article, the sole ad is “find your dream job”. See a pattern emerging here ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Steve (4,561 comments) says:

    Good post DPF. Stopped all of the religious nutbars and fruitcakes from hijacking General Debate.
    Can you do it again tomorrow please? Actually can you give them their own post every day?
    It makes General Debate a good post even with the resident druggie there

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Obviously you’ve been searching for jobs involving sex with cows in saunas under the influence of ‘supplements’, whilst drinking milk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Chiz that is just silly. You cannot make an argument by choosing to redefine a word.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    I’m not redefining it. That was what it meant back then. We have many other documents from the same period that use it the same way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. noskire (842 comments) says:

    Put it away – I don’t see those ads. See the pattern. http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/html/about.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Bible Dictionary – Eunuch definition

    literally bed-keeper or chamberlain, and not necessarily in all cases one who was mutilated, although the practice of employing such mutilated persons in Oriental courts was common (2 Kings 9:32; Esther 2:3). The law of Moses excluded them from the congregation (Deut. 23:1). They were common also among the Greeks and Romans. Three classes of eunuchs are mentioned in Matt. 19:12.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=eunuch&ia=easton

    Matthew 19:12 Jesus explains here the three kinds of eunuchs.
    a) Some are born without the ability to reproduce.
    b) Some are emasculated by men, such as the eunuchs that attend royal women in the courtyards, or in harems.
    c) And some have personally chosen to live like a eunuch so that they might focus wholeheartedly on the Kingdom of Heaven.

    So there you have it, you can call the Pope a eunuch according to JC.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Jaime Raine (43 comments) says:

    Scott Mackay – it saddens me that five years after leaving university your views still appear to have not matured from the ones you held back then.

    I sincerely believe that homosexuality is immoral and harmful and it is not right to allow homosexuality to be condoned by society.

    What exactly is immoral and harmful about it? Is there some kind of causative link between homosexuality and crime non-believers don’t know about?

    A blog post from a while back.

    Christianity is a religion based on divine revelation. Many believe that God has revealed his way to the world, and that those who believe in him, and trust in Jesus will be saved. Some Christians think that God actively causes those who are saved to believe, while others think that those who believe are saved, either way it doesn’t matter; those who believe are saved, and those who don’t believe are unsaved, and are going to Hell.

    And why do people not believe? It is not because non-Christians weigh up the evidence, consider the balance of probabilities, and conclude that the most likely explanation for the world is not Christianity. No. That would mean God is sending rational, well-intentioned people to Hell. And God is just! So many Christians believe that the real reason non-Christians do not believe is because they don’t want to. If non-Christians really admitted to themselves that Christianity is true, they would have to change their lives! They don’t want to, so as their only act of rebellion, they deny the message. And so rational, prudent decisions become rebellious acts – if the outcome is disbelieving the main message of Christianity.

    This creates a policeman in the mind of every Christian. When approaching a question, the Christian, rather than asking ‘what is the right thing in this situation?’ or, ‘is my thinking correct here?’, is asking themselves ‘am I submitting to what God has said?’. In theory these questions should be the same, but the thinking becomes biased, because if the Christian is differing from what is “God’s word”, it is rebellion, and something to be repented of. And so, a Christian can become ashamed for questioning, and attempt to repress such questions.

    And of course, this creates a most effective ad hominem argument against non-Christians – their arguments are not valid arguments, they are excuses. If a non-christian is showing some promise, but still questioning, they are merely ‘coming to terms with the truth’, and these can be gently dealt with. But athiests, Muslims and heretics? They are hiding, rebelling from the truth. Their arguments need not be taken seriously, (except if you’re talking, you might want to listen to some of their arguments in order to better convince them of Christianity). And sadly, there’s really no effective way to respond to Christians who consider that atheists hold their worldviews through willful self-deceit or brainwashing. If atheists argue against this, it just comes across as more denial, because they don’t want to believe they are avoiding faith.

    Christianity has had a huge effect on the world we live in. Jesus’ message was revolutionary, and His ideas have been influential in western culture. Being brought up Christian I have an appreciation of many of the ideas within Christianity. But I also have an awareness that all is not right within the Christian movement. In recent years I have been increasingly concerned with how the modern Christian movement has a tendency to suppress disagreement on issues such as homosexuality. It includes the way Christians treat non-Christians, and also the way Christians treat their own mind, suppressing any questions they might have.

    In terms of doctrines, doctrines such as the notion that church dogma is from God, and therefore questioning it, and using your own mind is in essence an act of rebellion. Merely holding a view that differs from ‘what God has ordained’, is sinful, and requires repentance. And if you aren’t repentant, there is the doctrine of Hell; that all those who are outside the Church are destined to burn in eternal torment. Put these together, and and there is the threat; agree with us, or face the consequences.

    In terms of sub-culture, it can be a little more subtle (and often overlapping with theology). There is the separation of Christians and non-Christians, often fueled by Christian disapproval of non-Christian activities such as hmosexuality. Combined with a tendency for Christians to marry only Christians, this means Christians are often ‘locked into’ christian subcultures, making it difficult for them to ever question the status quo, and making life outside of the subculture seem foreign and off-putting should anyone ever consider leaving Christianity. And then again, there is the mixture of sadness / betrayal / contempt that Christians express towards those who are on the outside, for those who refuse to accept Christianity.

    What’s my problem with it? Well, I have a number of reasons, which I have already hinted at. First, it can cause Christians to treat non-Christians badly, by treating them as rebellious for simply holding a different view. Especially Christians who have ‘drifted away’, who are viewed with much sadness. Second, it can cause Christians themselves a lot of unnecessary difficulty when going through life, it requires them to hold onto views that they may feel aren’t quite right, which can create an internal conflict. It also causes fear and worry if they question, and causes sadness and betrayal if anyone they know question and decide to become non-Christian. And finally, it gets in the way of rational thinking on issues such as homosexuality, as Christians are required to put their better judgment aside and accept whatever doctrine a particular Church teaches. So Christians can get in the habit of accepting things without proper evidence, and can become obsessed with what is right or wrong, and fail to make decisions based on what is best.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Steve (4,561 comments) says:

    Pathetic.
    Get a chatroom. So much shit it dribbles out of your mouths. Look at the mess

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Repton 4:41 pm,

    So, in essence, scientists were saying aging and dying are in fact NOT natual processes, but are rather unnatural. That we appear to be ‘designed’ to live forever, but that after a certain point ’something’ causes cells to be corrupted, and die off.

    If a species did not age, the children of the species would be unable to compete with the adults. This would hinder the species’ evolution, and thus it would die out as the environment changed. Species that die are more adaptable.

    [an interesting thought, given that some scientists are working on "anti-aging" treatment. Imagine a world in which the rich could reasonably live forever, or at least for a few centuries. Would it be an improvement?]

    My understanding of the mechanism is much as the account in Genesis, where Adam, for example, lived to 930 years old. Of course this is after the fall when there was some degree of corruption, but still, much longer life spans than today’s 70 odd years. My take would be that maturity would be achieved in the same time as it does today, say 25 years. But after that the person would stay at ’25’ until say the last 20 years of their life, after which they would age and die.

    Of course with such long life spans of over 900 years it wouldn’t have taken long to populate the earth after the creation. Imagine being sexually productive for say over 800 years – how many kids could you have; certainly many hundreds per couple. And similarly after the flood of Noah – even though life spans were reduced to between 400 – 600 years, that’s still a lot of kids per couple, and hence a pretty quick recovery of the population base.

    God did intervene and systematically reduced the life span down to our current 70 years. So I don’t think there would be a clash between the interests on younger versus older generations – just a different dynamic to what we have today.

    And imagine if you had a penchant for older women – my wife’s only 700 years older than I am, and yet she doesn’t look a day over 25. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    yes Kris, but nothing in genetics supports your assertions about longevity.

    Put simply, the mutation rate in the human genome is around 200 base-pairs per generation.
    The mitochondrial DNA carried on the X-chromosome has been clocked at 200,00 years. If we look at our Vitamin C pseudogene, that takes us back roughly 5m years.

    The only way you can accommodate the clocked mutations in our genome into a 6000 year time frame is to accelerate our mutation rate to about 1000 times faster than we have observed.

    That would mean things like Downs Syndrome- appearing 1300 times per 1000 births rather than 1.3 times. Not only don’t we observe this (no real surpirse), any attempt to align our mutation rates with your thesis, would simply have wiped out all humans in a horrible, mutational meltdown. Nothing could survive this massive inflation in mutation rates.

    Given your YEC assertions, mutational meltdown would also inevitably kill everything else as well. It’s just one of the lovely extinction vortexes YEC is prone to throw up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    “a horrible, mutational meltdown.”

    Sounds like Kiwiblog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    lol…well, at least someone read my post!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    I just skim through all your godless scientism nonsense looking for fun word sequences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Fletch (6,387 comments) says:

    What exactly is immoral and harmful about it?

    Gosh, where do I start?
    For one, it decreases life expectancy more than smoking does and yet we’re telling kids they shouldn’t smoke.

    In Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74yrs., while the 561 partnered gays died at an average age of 51.

    In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77 and the 31 gays at 52 yrs. In Denmark, married women died at an average age of 78 yrs. compared to 56 yrs. for the 91 lesbians. In Norway, women married to men died at an average age of 81. v. 56 for the 6 lesbians.

    “The consistency of reduced lifespan for those engaging in homosexuality is significant,” said Dr. Cameron. “The same pattern of early death turned up whether we looked at obituaries in the U.S. or deaths in marriage. Given the greatly reduced lifespan for homosexuals, school children should be strongly and consistently warned about the dangers of homosexuality even more so than smoking. Those school districts which are introducing pro-gay curricula need to rethink their priorities.”

    Read the full report HERE

    According to a report done by Auckland University –

    Gay and bisexual students show elevated rates of alcohol and drug use, sexually transmitted infections and mental health issues. [They are also] more depressed, more likely to self harm and more suicidal than heterosexual youth.

    120 survey tablets were shared between 8002 students aged 12 to 17. They gathered information about their sexual preferences and their mental health.

    “It gives young people a voice and this group, same sex attracted, can be marginalised and hidden,” says Dr Simon Denny. He believes this can have a significant impact on their mental health.

    The survey found that while 10 percent of heterosexual students showed significant depressive symptoms, the figure tripled to 30 percent for those attracted to the same or both sexes.

    The survey also found this group are five times more likely to have attempted suicide.

    And while 19 percent of those attracted to the opposite sex admitted to self harming behaviour, for those attracted to the same sex or both, the figure was higher at 53 per cent.

    So, yeh, nothing harmful about it at all.

    Here’s another excerpt from Canadian gay paper XTRA Feb 17, 2009 –

    Over the past 10 years [Government] have contracted with experts on gay, lesbian, bisexual health to produce studies … issues affecting queer Canadians includes lower life expectancy than the average Canadian, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, inadequate access to care and HIV/AIDS… all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our community… higher rates of anal cancer in the gay male community, lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer … more GLBT people in this country who die of suicide each year than die from AIDS, there are more who die early deaths from substance abuse than die of HIV/AIDS… now that we can get married everyone assumes that we don’t have any issues … A lot of the deaths that occur in our community are hidden … Those of us who are working on the front lines see them and I’m tired of watching my community die”

    So, no risks there then. The below is also from their own documentation..

    * Life expectancy of gay/bisexual men in Canada is 20 years less than the average; that is 55 years.
    * GLB people commit suicide at rates from 2 to 13.9 times more often than average.
    * GLB people have smoking rates 1.3 to 3 times higher than average.
    * GLB people have rates of alcoholism 1.4 to 7 times higher than average.
    * GLB people have rates of illicit drug use 1.6 to 19 times higher than average.
    * GLB people show rates of depression 1.8 to 3 times higher than average.
    * Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 76.1% of AIDS cases.
    * Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 54% of new HIV infections each year.
    * If one uses Statistics Canada figure of 1.7% of GLB becoming infected, that is 26 times higher than average.
    * GLB people are at a higher risk for anal cancers.

    For the exact quotes, please see the highlighted areas on pages 3 & 4 of the HRC complaint.
    Click here for the whole original HRC complaint document.

    To see some of what the gay activists want, check HERE from their own site…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Fletch, I expect most homo/bi people are aware of greater risks involved. Life can be tough sometimes if you inherit the wrong genes, or live a higher risk lifestyle.

    Do you know why they have higher rates of alcohol and drug dependency, mental health problems and suicide?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Fletch (6,387 comments) says:

    Pete, if you drive your car the way it wasn’t designed to be be driven, it’s going to break down and crap out sooner as well. It’s like a group of people decided that they are going to drive their cars in reverse everywhere. Yes, it can physically be done, but it wasn’t designed to be driven like that. It’s going to die sooner, and the person driving is not only endangering themselves, but all the other people on the road.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Jaime Raine (43 comments) says:

    Fletch – you’ll note that I specifically said causative links, not correlational, as I am aware of statistics similar to the ones you have posted (per Eve’s Bite by Ian Wishart). Your argument is as valid as saying we should ban Maori from having children as it is their race that is causing their high crime rate, rather than looking at addressing the issues – e.g. welfare, education, etc. One of the Church’s main roles in the community is social activism. In light of the issues you have raised Christians ought to be providing drug advice and depression counselling for homosexuals, rather than saying it’s their sexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    Atheist1 (81) Says:
    May 6th, 2010 at 9:15 am
    heeheehee love it. Where’s KKKKKris……?

    Laugh all you want idiot.

    Irrespective of the hypocrisy I don’t think Kris is anywhere in particular right now taking delight at the latest public misdemeanor committed by some pervert.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Fletch, given all those ill-effects attributed to homosexually, why do you think so many people choose to be homosexual? What are the advantages of being gay which outweigh those disadvantages?

    It’s partly a rhetorical question as I don’t believe most gay people choose to be gay, and infact two that my wife and I know have spent the better part of their lives trying very hard not to be gay. But nonetheless I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on how you reconcile “homosexuality is a lifestyle choice” with the obvious disadvantages of that lifestyle. In fact it’s not at all obvious what possible reasons there could be for a heterosexual person to decide to “be gay”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Hi chaps-one last post for the evening. I realise I shouldn’t chip away at Pete George but honestly 5000 posts of his life experience all day long has worn me down. However be assured Pete that Malcolm and others want you to post even more than you do now.

    James Raine- we were talking about universal truth and how to get there without God. And by the way I am not Scott McKay or whoever you think I am.

    My comment about “I sincerely believe that homosexuality is immoral and harmful and it is not right to allow homosexuality to be condoned by society” relates to if there is no universal truth then how can we decide what to think and do about an issue like homosexuality?

    You think you are right and that I am wrong and my views have not progressed. So you are enlightened and I am a backward,bigoted kind of fellow. Does that sum up your argument?

    You James Raine have arrived at the truth? And Christians like me are wrong? Is that what you are saying?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. jcuknz (704 comments) says:

    It is not that they are driving the car backwards that is the problem but people who write like you Fletch. It is a design of nature and should be accepted as such. I wonder if homophobia doesn’t stem from jelousy of their living standards as single persons by hetrosexuals ground down by having to support a family. That the Bible condems it I would suggest stems from that it was written centuries ago when the world was very much larger than it is today and mankind could propagate without a care. But Nature had this variety/species ready for when man started to breed itself into extinction. Compared with the male who has multiple children with a wife I would suggest that the homesexual is behaving with considerable responsibility to his fellow man. A better solution than wars to keep the population down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Scott, you’re being immature and high-handed. Earlier you chided Jeff83 for being abusive and now you’ve going off topic and abusing someone for the number and quality of posts they make. Why not just stick to the topic and let your arguments speak for themselves?

    While you’re at at, are you going to substantiate your claim that I’m not a good-faith debater? It’s a bit low to make such a claim on a debate blog and then bugger off without backing it up. What do you say? Or was it just because you didn’t want to answer a reasonable question which might undermine the point you’ve been making all day?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    I’ve had a bit of a look around for Universal Truth and most seem to be religious people trying to claim their version is the right, unassailable and only correct one. So the vast majority of people, including most Christians, must be liars?

    One suggestion sounded reasonable though: I cannot speak for others in the universe…
    http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/404550

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Some vocal opponents of homosexuality can simply be trying to smokescreen their own homosexual preferences?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    I find myself still here.

    Malcolm – I realise I shouldn’t chip away at Pete George but honestly 5000 posts of generally his life experience and nothing else-all day and every day on every subject?? But again – if you are a fan of Pete’s post you are always free to say so. And what I said about Pete was fairly mild compared to the volley I received from Jeff83.

    My complaint about you is this- On the subject of abortion I replied moderately,abortion in very limited circumstances such as rape and incest, and was slated by you for it. Obviously just a gotcha kind of moment as far as you were concerned. If I was moderate you would accuse me of being inconsistent. If I was hard-line,abortion in no circumstances,you would accuse me of being a bigoted fundamentalist who doesn’t care about others. So whatever I said I couldn’t win.

    So that’s what I mean about bad faith debating.Questions asked in an innocuous way-but in reality your purpose is to provide you with a gotcha moment,rather than actually a desire to understand the other’s point of view.

    Must go-Scott-out

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Scott, thanks I will have a look. I don’t recall the debate but I do recall I was surprised by your upset response but I put it down to how easy it is to mistake someone’s tone on the internet. We’re all just trying to get our point across, otherwise we wouldn’t be here and often your point is best made by pointing out that someone else’s POV is based on a contradiction. FWIW I’ve never called anyone a bigoted fundamentalist – I avoid that sort of pejorative language.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Here it is:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/04/50_years_for_abortion_doctor_killing.html#comment-678357

    and your response:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/04/50_years_for_abortion_doctor_killing.html#comment-678370

    I know it’s an emotive topic but from my re-reading you got upset and defensive when I pointed out that you can’t be in favour of abortion in certain circumstance and yet want to condemn abortionist who are doing what you approve of.

    Anyway, thanks for the response.

    cheers

    Malcolm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    Fletch, awaiting your reconsideration of your “marrying a donkey” analogy (here) earlier today in light of suggestions that there’s a difference between consenting adults and farm animals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Jeff83 (745 comments) says:

    MikeNZ: stating that he believes there is a heaven and hell based on his belief that the bible was inspired from God so that people could know Him and be with Him in heaven forever and saying that according to that people will go to hell.
    It is not the same as you calling him a bigot.
    sorry jeff you are not correct there.

    Actually I would agree with you – albeit in reverse, I would say what he is saying is worse, I am just saying his views make him bigoted against a group of people, where he is saying I am going to burn in a fire pit for eternity because my views of morality do not coincide with a book he considers infallible, but I do, as it wasn’t written by god but sheppards and interpreted again by humans. Even if it contains god’s message I cannot believe that humanity has not in areas corrupted its meaning.

    MikeNZ Someone could say that you are a bigot for your views against traditional marriage people surely?

    Yes they can, they use the word liberal, ungodly whatever. Personally doesn’t affect me as I strongly think them wrong. Been told many times by good old Christians in town that I am going to hell. Have a good chuckle and go on. Not because of knowledge of not a god, but rather confidence that such a god existed is one of fairness and equality and lack of bigotry against minorities. If this god didn’t have does values then I have no intention of worshipping such a being, as I see it as faulted as humanity itself. To take it a step further if I get offered the choice of ‘Nirvanna’ but have to say gays are evil along with the rest of the mumbo jumble, or get thrown with the rest of the rabble, I choose the rabble. I strongly do not believe this to be the case though, considering the real message of Jesus was one of love thy neighbour, the rest is people trying to defend their own dislike of the non norm.

    Ryan: That said, it looks like Jeff’s said he doesn’t believe there’s universal truth, so I was wrong about no one denying universal truth.

    This whole “universal truth” thing is getting a little stretched. I believe there are some universal truths. We are alive (like I said in an earlier pos), if I remove your head you will die, the basics of physics, at least in our Galaxy. However what I was trying to say, albeit not so eloquently is that there is no universal right or wrong as right or wrong is a human (or arguably a deistic) invention based on values. Even if there was a god, just because they think it is right doesn’t mean it has to be right. ‘God’ supposedly told the Israelites to commit genocide, personally I do not agree with that and if that god does exist then I think he was morally wrong, but that is not an absolute.

    Absolutes are something which cannot be denied, and very few of those really exist.

    Scott: So therefore your view is superior to mine because it does not interfere with consenting adults ability to do whatever they want. Is that about right?

    I wouldn’t say my view is superior (although clearly I believe in it – so yes I consider it so, but you clearly believe the opposite) rather that I don’t think my view, or your view should be able to be forced onto either party. Just like I don’t believe in many religious activities, I don’t believe I should be able to interfere with others views.

    The route you choose, having the state force laws based on a particular religion, is a very dangerous and scary one indeed.

    who can say who is right and who is wrong?

    This obsession with a universal right or wrong is deluded in its beginnings. Christians themselves cannot agree on what is universally right or wrong, hence why so many denominations exist. Some would argue the idea of a head of the church (Pope) for one denomination is inherently wrong. Some would say the use of props by some denominations effectively is worshipping statues (i.e. crosses etc). Same again on many other issues in the church. This goes further in respect of sex before marriage, priests marrying, homosexuality (not everyone shares Kris etc’s views on Christianity…thank god).

    So where does that leave us. That leaves us where humanity can agree something is universally right or wrong then its up to the law to intervene, or where its effects impact on third parties (murder, rape, theft, smoking in public places etc), but beyond that it is a subject of individual morality.

    There is a brilliant saying in the bible which goes along the lines of “thou who has not sinned can throw the first stone”. Clearly we are all imperfect. Hell I clearly am. But humans flaws are not in the interest of the state except they impact others. Someone being gay, having a civil union does not impact you, so stop trying to force your views on them having to live some kind of limited life. If you are right go and gloat in the next life, I will be roasting some marshmellows.

    I find it ironic for those who hold the state in such distain want that same state to make illegal what they believe is morally wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Fletch (6,387 comments) says:

    Fletch, awaiting your reconsideration of your “marrying a donkey” analogy (here) earlier today in light of suggestions that there’s a difference between consenting adults and farm animals.

    Ryan, I think you took me the wrong way there. What I am basically talking about is people’s right to do what they want, and their so-called sexual “orientations”. I do not believe that there is an homosexual “orientation” as such. I do believe that people can desire persons of the opposite sex either because they choose to, or perhaps because of some traumas or other events that have effected them; no one knows. What i am suggesting is that you can’t use ‘orientation’ as a reason. Why cannot a pedophile use orientation as an excuse? That he was born that way and is solely attracted to children? I’m sure that some who belong to NAMBLA would support that.

    As an aside, I see that the media has been very careful in avoiding discussing the homosexual component in recent sex-abuse or pedophile cases. more than not, these cases of abuses by priests in the past have been against boys and are homosexual in nature, but the liberal media has been very careful not to get into that side of it. However, by all accounts, more pedophile offenders identify as homosexual than not, even based on gays own research (see photocopied sources at the end of this document).

    You think it’s funny someone marrying a donkey (and so do I), but I bet it’s coming…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Fletch (6,387 comments) says:

    re: the term “homophobe”. What exactly is meant by that? When gays say that they want to conjure up an image of a hater and a racist. But what is the difference between homophobia and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality. It’s all about painting a picture, by gay activists.

    As a rhetorical weapon, homophobia is unequaled. It serves first to define anyone who opposes the legitimization of homosexuality as a hate-filled bigot. The universal inclusion of all opponents as homophobic is of course not emphasized. Homosexual activists publicly associate this label with violent “gay bashers” and hateful fanatics. When they use the term they want people to think about the killers of Matthew Shepard, but in conventional practice they include every man, woman and child who believes homosexuality is abnormal or wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Sorry I had to leave halfway through.
    a better discussion than others.
    Good it didn’t generate into personal flaming.

    Just remember to give your party vote to ACT at the next election and give John Key and National a smack. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Extreme terms are often used unfairly Fletch – anyone on Kiwiblog should be well aware of that. But my interpretation of homophobe would cover quite a wide range, from hate filled bigots to those who just don’t accept homosexuality as acceptable under any circumstances.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Fletch (6,387 comments) says:

    Pete, OK. I mean, I don’t hate homosexuals at all, any more than a vegetarian hates people who eat meat. I disagree with their practices, but that doesn’t mean I hate them or am bigoted toward them. Discrimination against harmful conduct is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary. Sexual conduct has serious public health consequences which society has both a right and an obligation to regulate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    ^^^ Far more straight people are having sex than gay people. So WHO’S spreading public health issues around?
    In the interests of consistency, are you proposing state regulation on the lovemaking activities of heterosexuals too?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Fletch 10:33 am & 10:40,

    Good posts, Fletch.

    Paul’s writings in Romans also highlights the fact that when men reject God they end up worshipping the creature (themselves), and follow vain and lustful imaginations (homosexuality, but extends to ALL forms of perversions; including bestiality). Following these perversions of sexual expression is but ONE result of mens’ minds becoming darkened and reprobate through their rejection of God, and of not allowing Him to illuminate their consciences:

    Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
    Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
    Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
    Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,
    and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
    Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Compared with the male who has multiple children with a wife I would suggest that the homesexual is behaving with considerable responsibility to his fellow man. A better solution than wars to keep the population down.

    jcuknz, that is a very strange idea for not just justifying homosexuality but the promotion of homosexuality. My countries in the Western World particularly Europe have birth rates well below replacement level. New Zealand is barely at replacement level and it will likely to go below that soon. Many underdeveloped countries have too high a birth rate but the topic is about the developed world and New Zealand should be of primary interest to those on this blog.

    People who marry and raise children well should be encouraged they are our future. The liberals and particularly the militant homosexual lobby whose aim it is to put homosexuality and de facto relationships on equal footing with marriage are causing great harm to society.

    Scientific evidence shows that homosexually is mainly determined more by environment rather than ones genes. The fact that most homosexuals are bisexual to some degree support this. That is unless your theory is that people are born either homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.

    http://www.mygenes.co.nz/

    Even if it was equally determined by environment and ones genes why encourage it particularly to vulnerable children and adolescents?

    Would New Zealand be better off if the percentage of homosexuals was two or three times what it is?

    Let me make this clear. I am not advocating making homosexual illegal again or pressuring homosexuals to have therapy. However, I strongly object to it being promoted to young impressionable adolescents. I also object homosexuals adopting children and surrogacy. I suppose this makes me a homophobe in the eyes of liberals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    RRM 11:03 am,

    ^^^ Far more straight people are having sex than gay people. So WHO’S spreading public health issues around?
    In the interests of consistency, are you proposing state regulation on the lovemaking activities of heterosexuals too?

    Funny you should say that, RRM.

    The Bible holds homosexual acts, fornication, and adultery in much the same way – ALL are condemned by God. And ALL contribute, perhaps equally, to the increasing moral haze surrounding what is and isn’t appropriate expressions of our sexuality. God’s word is clear in this regard; sexual expression is to be limited to a man and wife in a committed marriage relationship.

    And while these things MAY not fall under under condemnation through state legislation, there is the clear implication that these things break Moral Law – at least biblical moral law, in any case.

    Which results in the ongoing erosion of the moral fabric of society IMHO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    Ryan, I think you took me the wrong way there. What I am basically talking about is people’s right to do what they want, and their so-called sexual “orientations”. I do not believe that there is an homosexual “orientation” as such. I do believe that people can desire persons of the opposite sex either because they choose to, or perhaps because of some traumas or other events that have effected them; no one knows. What i am suggesting is that you can’t use ‘orientation’ as a reason. Why cannot a pedophile use orientation as an excuse? That he was born that way and is solely attracted to children? I’m sure that some who belong to NAMBLA would support that.

    Neither are children consenting adults.

    The point here is not that everyone should do anything they want. The point is that consenting adults should be able to do anything they want with each other, without restriction by the state. Farm animals and children do not enter that equation.

    As an aside, I see that the media has been very careful in avoiding discussing the homosexual component in recent sex-abuse or pedophile cases. more than not, these cases of abuses by priests in the past have been against boys and are homosexual in nature, but the liberal media has been very careful not to get into that side of it. However, by all accounts, more pedophile offenders identify as homosexual than not, even based on gays own research (see photocopied sources at the end of this document).

    “Gays own research”?

    You think it’s funny someone marrying a donkey (and so do I), but I bet it’s coming…

    Only if an awful lot of people follow your lead in not distinguishing between consenting adults and farm animals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    from hate filled bigots to those who just don’t accept homosexuality as acceptable under any circumstances.

    Pete by doing that you raise the bar as ” if you don’t agree with me you hate homosexuals”
    1. you are incorrect and show poor logic or that you are an extremist as are those who are homophobes.

    2. you are deliberately painting people with emotional words designed to marginalise them and in effect state they are non persons who have no voice, so don’t listen to them.

    3. your behaviour in this area is inconsistent with you previous statements that you are a reasonable person.

    Therefore By your definition I am a homophobe, That is a lie from you and I refute it.

    I don’t agree with it as ( lifestyle choice) a matter of design and purpose.
    My God, your God doesn’t come into it as a first approach.

    I do not believe that it is hardwired but is a behavioural choice and I tend towards the traditional psychological approach before the homosexual activists got hold of the APA’s in that it is a scripting/imprinting error compounded by messages/actions of intent by others already afflicted and their supporters.

    The normal imprinting would be between a man and a woman as that is what we are designed for, anything else goes against that design.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull 11:27 am,

    Only if an awful lot of people follow your lead in not distinguishing between consenting adults and farm animals.

    So, Ryan, you believe that if a young boy were groomed by say a member of NAMBLA up until the age of consent, let’s say 16, and then the relationship was ‘consumated’ on his achieving the age of 16, that this would be ‘acceptable’ because he ‘consented’, but a bloke having sex with a donkey is NOT ok because the donkey didn’t ‘consent’ ?

    Do you see the problem with this line of reasoning, Ryan?

    And please don’t say that children, or impressionable youths, or even young ‘men’ are not groomed by homosexuals. I would argue that this is the prime mechanism by which males ‘become’ (or ‘choose’ to be) homosexual; not some pathetic ‘born that way’ copout.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    Kris – fair, but Fletch was trying to steer the argument towards public health, a direction I am happy to go since the God stuff inevitably leads towards agreement to disagree (e.g. “My God says__” vs “I don’t care what your God says” etc etc )

    ^^^And plenty of impressionable youth are groomed by the opposite sex too. Pedophilia and ephebophilia are hardly unque to homosexuals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Mike, do you fear what homosexuality might do, or is doing in society? If not, then homophobe would be too strong a term – but I have never called anyone a homophobe.

    What causes non-human species who don’t believe in God to participate in homosexual or bisexual behaviour?

    Kris: when men reject God they end up worshipping the creature (themselves), and follow vain and lustful imaginations (homosexuality, but extends to ALL forms of perversions; including bestiality)

    Having that sort of krap thrown at you sounds a lot worse than being called a homophobe.

    Does “not some pathetic ‘born that way’ copout.” suggest homophobia? Sounds like contempt to me, and contemptible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Mike, do you believe there could be a genetic component however small as proposed by Dr NE Whitehead, PhD (research scientist) in “My Genes Made Me Do It!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    RRM 11:46 am,

    ^^^And plenty of impressionable youth are groomed by the opposite sex too. Pedophilia and ephebophilia are hardly unque to homosexuals.

    I agree, RRM, and would hold these practices in a similar vein to homosexuals grooming young boys. Although, to be honest, if it is an older man grooming a younger boy/man then, in these cases (which I believe to be the MAJORITY), I believe pedophilia and ephebophilia are (LARGELY) just a subset of male-male homosexuality. It’s all just really semantics if we’re only debating the age of the ‘victim’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Pete George 11:47 am,

    Kris: when men reject God they end up worshipping the creature (themselves), and follow vain and lustful imaginations (homosexuality, but extends to ALL forms of perversions; including bestiality)

    Having that sort of krap thrown at you sounds a lot worse than being called a homophobe.

    … only IF the glove fits, eh Pete?

    That wasn’t you in that donkey encounter down south by any chance … and while I suspect not, I do sense a certain amount of heightened defensiveness in your comment …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Pedophilia and ephebophilia are hardly unque to homosexuals.

    RRM, child abuse and crime are hardly unique to Maori but that does not stop many on this blog posting racist posts as if Maori were almost the only offenders. It is a fact that Maori disproportionately represented in crime and child abuse.

    While paedophilia and ephebophilia are not unique to homosexuals, homosexuals are disproportionately represented in both these areas. You just have to look at the percentage of homosexuals in the population and consider the amount of abuse against adolescent boys. Can you name a heterosexual equivalent to NAMBLA? That is a heterosexual group who purpose is to legalise sex between adults and those under the current age of consent.

    I will no doubt get a response that all the priests who had sex with boys were paedophiles and not homosexuals. Even if these priests only had sex with underage boys they would still be homosexuals. To claim an adult male who has sex with a 15 year old boy is not a homosexual is not creditable

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    [Chuck Bird]: While paedophilia and ephebophilia are not unique to homosexuals, homosexuals are disproportionately represented in both these areas.

    [Kris K]: I believe pedophilia and ephebophilia are (LARGELY) just a subset of male-male homosexuality. It’s all just really semantics if we’re only debating the age of the ‘victim’.

    Well in a similar vein I “believe” (whatever that means) that gay pedophilia is over-represented in Catholic boarding schools. Do we therefore:

    (1) Ban homosexuality?
    (2) Ban Catholic boarding schools?
    (3) Ban Pedophilia?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    So, Ryan, you believe that if a young boy were groomed by say a member of NAMBLA up until the age of consent, let’s say 16, and then the relationship was ‘consumated’ on his achieving the age of 16, that this would be ‘acceptable’ because he ‘consented’, but a bloke having sex with a donkey is NOT ok because the donkey didn’t ‘consent’ ?

    Do you see the problem with this line of reasoning, Ryan?

    Yes. The problem is that you perhaps don’t see “grooming” as a form of abuse on a minor.

    And please don’t say that children, or impressionable youths, or even young ‘men’ are not groomed by homosexuals. I would argue that this is the prime mechanism by which males ‘become’ (or ‘choose’ to be) homosexual; not some pathetic ‘born that way’ copout.

    And you would be wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    RRM 12:19 pm,

    Well in a similar vein I “believe” (whatever that means) that gay pedophilia is over-represented in Catholic boarding schools. Do we therefore:

    (1) Ban homosexuality?
    (2) Ban Catholic boarding schools?
    (3) Ban Pedophilia?

    And if your assertion were found to be true, on the basis that it was priests/fathers interfering with underage boys, then I think the current laws on ‘unlawful connection’ and ‘sex with a minor’ would cover these situations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull 12:26 pm,

    Yes. The problem is that you perhaps don’t see “grooming” as a form of abuse on a minor.

    And please don’t say that children, or impressionable youths, or even young ‘men’ are not groomed by homosexuals. I would argue that this is the prime mechanism by which males ‘become’ (or ‘choose’ to be) homosexual; not some pathetic ‘born that way’ copout.

    And you would be wrong.

    So, Ryan, on the one hand you admit grooming takes place, but on the other you imply there is no link between ‘grooming’ and someone impressionable ‘choosing’ to become homosexual?

    Sounds a bit like “having your cake and eating it too”, if you were to ask me, Ryan.
    You need to redeem yourself on this one, methinks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    [Kris K]: And if your assertion were found to be true, on the basis that it was priests/fathers interfering with underage boys, then I think the current laws on ‘unlawful connection’ and ’sex with a minor’ would cover these situations

    Exactly Kris!

    But if that’s the case, how come you seem to be holding up pedophilia as a reason to clamp down on Homosexuality? Faced with pedophilia in homosexuals, you want to ban the homosexuals. but faced with pedophilia in the church, you will not contemplate banning the church. This is what we call a double standard.

    Basically I suggest you are not interested in the pedophilia aspect at all. You know in your heart that homosexuality is wrong, because God told you so, and any excuse will do to ban it, be it pedophilia or a higher than average number of parking tickets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Well in a similar vein I “believe” (whatever that means) that gay pedophilia is over-represented in Catholic boarding schools. Do we therefore:
    (1) Ban homosexuality?
    (2) Ban Catholic boarding schools?
    (3) Ban Pedophilia?

    RRM, I have already stated that I am not advocating banning homosexuality or making it illegal. What I do advocate is to stop promoting homosexuality to school children as an equally valid lifestyle choice. This no doubt leads to an increase in early experimentation and makes young people more vulnerable to homosexual paedophiles.

    The law changes that put homosexual partnerships on par with marriage and proposed changes to adoption law put society’s stamp of approval on the homosexual lifestyle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    This is just an example of what I am talking about. I do not have a problem with homosexuals haveing sex with each other but when they want recruit in the schools that is going way too far.

    http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=2&STORY_ID=5228&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=1

    GARDEN OF THE PROVINCES

    Teach kids about gay sex!

    Education about gay and lesbian sex is paltry in Canada. Educators say that it is up to the teacher’s discretion and level of comfort to talk about these issues. There are gay sex modules, but they’re not provincially mandated. Queer youth have the right to be taught sex ed just as much as straight kids, and schools must recognize that they need to provide resources for them. It is irresponsible not to teach teens how to do it safely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    So, Ryan, on the one hand you admit grooming takes place, but on the other you imply there is no link between ‘grooming’ and someone impressionable ‘choosing’ to become homosexual?

    Sounds a bit like “having your cake and eating it too”, if you were to ask me, Ryan.
    You need to redeem yourself on this one, methinks.

    You objected to the liberty of consenting adults by proposing a hypothetical situation with the least-consenting least-adult person you could imagine. You’ll have to do better if you want to challenge the rights of consenting adults to do what they like. And you’ll have to do much, much better if you want to argue that sex with a farmyard animal is analogous to sex between consenting adults, when the consent and the adulthood are the key factors.

    I have no doubt that adults are out there right now psychologically abusing minors. You are wrong that this is anything like “the prime mechanism by which males become homosexual”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    [Chuck Bird]: What I do advocate is to stop promoting homosexuality to school children as an equally valid lifestyle choice. This no doubt leads to an increase in early experimentation and makes young people more vulnerable to homosexual paedophiles. The law changes that put homosexual partnerships on par with marriage and proposed changes to adoption law put society’s stamp of approval on the homosexual lifestyle. [/quote]

    My little girl is 5 so I won’t have to worry about this for a while.

    However in the small chance that she decides/discovers she’s gay during her adolescence, I don’t want her becoming depressed or harming/killing herself because attitudes around her make her feel “abnormal” or “wrong.” I would far rather have a gay stepdaughter, than a shadow of one or a dead one.

    I sure as fuck don’t want her growing up to be the kind of person who wants to judge others and impose her prejudices either.

    So I have no problem at all with it being promoted as a “valid” thing to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    Chuck, what would you say to someone saying:

    What I do advocate is to stop promoting Christianity to school children as an equally valid lifestyle choice. This no doubt leads to an increase in early experimentation and makes young people more vulnerable to Christian youth groups. The law changes that put Christian partnerships on par with marriage and proposed changes to adoption law put society’s stamp of approval on the Christian lifestyle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Kris, so not only do you try and taint anyone who disagrees with your beliefs, you then try and imply the worst may apply to me. Throwing accusations like that around could be getting as unChristian as pedophile priests. To think you have 2IC delusions!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    RRM 12:39 pm,

    But if that’s the case, how come you seem to be holding up pedophilia as a reason to clamp down on Homosexuality? Faced with pedophilia in homosexuals, you want to ban the homosexuals. but faced with pedophilia in the church, you will not contemplate banning the church. This is what we call a double standard.

    Who’s differentiating between homosexuals (men) grooming/abusing underage boys whether they are in the church or in main street? – certainly not me!
    And currently we only have laws in place to deal with UNDERAGE homosexual (and obviously heterosexual) acts with a minor, and so legally this is the only tool we have in the tool box. If both parties are over the age of consent then that ‘tool’ is not available to us. I can only argue from a moral stance that so called ‘consenting adults’ having sex, homosexual or otherwise, outside of (biblical) marriage is morally wrong – and appeal to lawmakers, etc on the basis that this is unhealthy for society.

    Basically I suggest you are not interested in the pedophilia aspect at all. You know in your heart that homosexuality is wrong, because God told you so, and any excuse will do to ban it, be it pedophilia or a higher than average number of parking tickets.

    They are all just similar shades of the same grey. My conscience bears testimony to the unnaturalness of these sexual practices, as I believe yours does if you’re honest with yourself, and God’s word just further confirms what I already know to be wrong with these practices.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Well said, RRM. But your best comment was the one further back: “So the paranoia of marginalised god cranks on the internet is scarcely worth arguing with.”

    But it’s hard not to get drawn back in. Much like heterosexual blokes who would rather be wooing gorgeous women but just can’t quite kick the habit of being gay that they picked up from a sex-ed lesson at school.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    I’m interested to know what some of the Christians here think of this. And how they might deal with things if a son or daughter turned out to be gay.

    I am a leader/elder/preacher in a ‘mildly’ charismatic evangelical church. I am a fully trained pastor and was in full time ministry years ago. Now I am an Ambulance Paramedic and one of three who lead and preach in our church.
    Six or so years ago, I found out my eldest son was gay. He had grown up in a Christian home which was not, by deliberate design by his Mum and me, a particularly religious one. Honesty about life and God and both the difficulties and joys of faith were open subjects. He well knew the difference (which unfortunately, many do not) between going to church and knowing God.
    After he had left home, he decided, quite apart from us, to be baptised and become a recognized believer in his own right. We were very happy about that.
    Coincidentally, about the same time, I remember becoming convinced that the issue of homosexuality in the church was not as simple as many would like to believe and that it was not going to go away. I remember particularly one chapter of Philip Yancey’s ‘What’s so Amazing about Grace’ screaming at me that this was not simply an issue of ‘stop sinning’! I became convinced that the gay issue to the church today was something like that of the gentiles to the Jewish church or dark skinned people to white American Christians, or the position of divorced and remarried people in the church, in that there was a lot of hard thinking to do, and that it was difficult to separate traditional understandings with what Scripture was really saying.
    But then, why was the Bible written the way it was? In the few verses applicable, it really did seem quite clear on the issue of what God thought of homosexuality.
    And yet…..
    And yet…..!
    When our son finally told us about his being gay, it was not quite the heavy blow to me as one might have predicted.
    Perhaps this was because our relationship was very good, and it did not depend on him pleasing me. I would certainly hope so.
    Perhaps also because I’ve always tried to take the view that we ought not be shocked when a difficulty (or suffering of any kind) comes our way. That’s what the Bible is all about. If the gay issue was a ‘problem’ in the church, why should it always be ‘out there’, apart from my family?
    As we talked more about the whole issue, I tried to see the Biblical teaching from ‘their’ perspective. And not-really-so-slowly but surely, it made sense.

    http://www.freedom2b.org/topic/116

    And it continues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    Gay was once a nice word mal ~!
    ^ oh look the cut and paste queen petey gal is at it again.
    FFS!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull 12:48 pm,

    You objected to the liberty of consenting adults by proposing a hypothetical situation with the least-consenting least-adult person you could imagine.

    But I notice you still didn’t answer the question, Ryan.
    Answer the question!

    I have no doubt that adults are out there right now psychologically abusing minors. You are wrong that this is anything like “the prime mechanism by which males become homosexual”.

    Once again, why?
    Answer the question, Ryan!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    My conscience bears testimony to the unnaturalness of these sexual practices, as I believe yours does if you’re honest with yourself, and God’s word just further confirms what I already know to be wrong with these practices.

    I think you lost the argument for your superior moral insight with your insinuation that Pete engaged in animal-sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    And that link ends with a description of what I envisaged a Christian might be like:

    So what are we to do?
    We do what Scripture says of course and accept and love ALL our brothers.
    But……
    could my understanding of these ‘gay’ Scriptures be wrong?
    Of course.
    But I’m convinced that God wants people to take a ‘risk’ and do the loving thing.
    Just as Jesus wanted the Sabbath ‘transgressed’ to help the neighbour.
    Just like we do with the divorced/remarried people.
    Besides, what’s the alternative?
    Be conservative and exclude all gay people? That’s not ‘loving’ in Christ.
    Be accepting but insist they change (‘by the spirit of God’?) even though there is much evidence that this approach doesn’t work?
    No.
    I’d rather take the ‘loop hole’ that I believe is in the Scriptures. I’d rather truly accept and love someone (as Jesus taught) at the risk of transgressing the Scriptures. Because I believe that’s how Jesus approached things. By doing that, you can’t possibly transgress the Scriptures anyway, because ‘love’ is the dynamic we are to live by.

    Any real Christians care to comment? (I know there are some on Kiwiblog)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    My little girl is 5 so I won’t have to worry about this for a while.

    I would not count on that as they are indoctrinating kids early and early. In any case it would not worry you as long as she was indoctrinated in a way that you agree with.

    It appears that it is you belief that every one is either born heterosexual or homosexual. Do you believe that bisexuality is also determined? If so do you have any basis for your belief?

    So I have no problem at all with it being promoted as a “valid” thing to do.

    Would you have a problem of your daughter being told that casual sex particularly with a bisexual male puts her at a high risk of HIV infection? Would you have a problem you daughter being should pictures of foetuses and told that abortion is morally the same as murder? If the answer is yes then maybe understand how parents and feel when children are taught values that the totally disagree with.

    We have school arranging for underage girls to go on the pill and if that fails they can arrange an abortion with out their parents knowledge. Would you be happy with that? Even if you are there are many parents and not happy with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    Yes Petey into the current I go and say Jesus taught to love ALL people for we are NOT to judge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    But I notice you still didn’t answer the question, Ryan.
    Answer the question!

    Yes, I did. The situation would be wrong, because it would be abuse of a minor.

    Now, what’s your problem with two 25-year-old consenting adult men having sex with each other without being threatened by the state?

    I have no doubt that adults are out there right now psychologically abusing minors. You are wrong that this is anything like “the prime mechanism by which males become homosexual”.

    Once again, why?
    Answer the question, Ryan!

    Why? Because I have never seen any reason to believe it. I don’t know any gay men who were groomed in their early teens by insidious older gay men. Do you have anything to back up your bizarre assertion?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Gay was once a nice word mal ~!

    You shouldn’t be afraid of words D4J. Anyway how’s the Falcon ute – independent or solid rear?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Hey Pete
    why don’t you attribute the quote to the emergent church or whatever?

    Is it loving for a sincere Christian who accepts God at His word to not tell someone what he thinks the end will be for that person?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    [Chuck Bird]: Would you have a problem of your daughter being told that casual sex particularly with a bisexual male puts her at a high risk of HIV infection? [/quote]

    HIV rates being what they are, HIV will be the least of her worries. But yes to warnings re casual sex and general STD infection risks.

    ***

    [Chuck Bird]: Would you have a problem you daughter being sho[wn] pictures of foetuses and told that abortion is morally the same as murder?[/quote]

    No problem with pictures of foetuses, although uber-christian shock sites and all content therein deserve to be taken with a grain of salt at all times. Big problem with moral equivalence to murder.

    ***

    [Chuck Bird]: I would not count on that as they are indoctrinating kids early and early. [/quote]

    YES chuck, “THEY” are “EVERYWHERE”.

    ***

    [Chuck Bird]:In any case it would not worry you as long as she was indoctrinated in a way that you agree with. [/quote]

    You are welcome to raise yours according to the teachings of whatever invisible creator spirits you believe in. bad luck for them but that is your right. But you are a christian who evidently gleans his sense of right and wrong directly from an old book of dogma, so please spare me talk of indoctrination.

    Kthanxbai.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. big bruv (13,888 comments) says:

    “Yes Petey into the current I go and say Jesus taught to love ALL people for we are NOT to judge.”

    If this bloke called Jesus is to be believed then I cannot work out why so many bible bashers are anti Homosexual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Good point Chuck
    No one has been able to explain the legal transactions and responsibilities/authorities over this.
    especially when something goes wrong as it does sometimes.
    1. the legal responsibility/authority is taken away from the parents without them being informed.
    2. those responsibilities are given to another through a legal process before whom?
    3. the child is abducted without their permission.
    4. then those given legal relatioship taken from parents give permission for invasive medical procedure.
    5. legal relationship returned to parents without telling them
    6. child (under 18) is returned to parents

    We have school arranging for underage girls to go on the pill and if that fails they can arrange an abortion with out their parents knowledge. Would you be happy with that? Even if you are there are many parents and not happy with it.

    Who is responsible (a person!) if anything goes wrong?
    How do we know that the person responsible has made an informed decision?
    Where is the written record of the parents rights being taken away?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Ryan, as far as I know public schools generally do not teach Christianity. I believe they may in some cases if there is enough demand. In those cases parents are notified and are able to withdraw their children. I do not know how often this happen in public schools so I could be wrong. Private schools are a different matter and I believe that parents should have right to send their children to schools where that have religious instruction.

    The law changes that put Christian partnerships on par with marriage and proposed changes to adoption law put society’s stamp of approval on the Christian lifestyle.

    You have me confused here. A Christian partnership is a marriage. Other religions support marriage. Many studies have shown that children on average do better raised in a home with two parents married to each other. That is not to say that that many de facto parents do not do an excellent job and the same can be said of step parents.

    The loss of a parent though death of divorce can be devastating for any child. Some adjust better than others while others are affected for life. I believe that adults planning on having a child should make a commitment for life. This has nothing to do with religion but what is on average is best for a child. A de facto relationship is statistically far more likely to end that a marriage. When this happens a new partner often move in with the mother. There is a disproportionate number of children killed or seriously harmed by mother’s boyfriends.

    In short, I believe that the state should prom ore marriage as the best environment to raise a child.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    dad4justice 1:31 pm,

    Yes Petey into the current I go and say Jesus taught to love ALL people for we are NOT to judge.

    I’m with you, Dad.
    But it’s a shame idiots like Pete can’t differentiate between loving the individual and pointing out the consequences of their sins (which is of course an act of love in itself, and not of judgement).

    None so blind as those who WON’T see …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    Ryan, as far as I know public schools generally do not teach Christianity. I believe they may in some cases if there is enough demand. In those cases parents are notified and are able to withdraw their children. I do not know how often this happen in public schools so I could be wrong. Private schools are a different matter and I believe that parents should have right to send their children to schools where that have religious instruction.

    Public schools teach that Christianity is an acceptable lifestyle. They don’t have to tell people to be Christian, they’re telling people that it’s okay to be Christian.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Is this RC (religious correctness)? – “I’m speaking with love, I’m not judging”

    Blindness may be in the eye of the beholder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull 1:33 pm,

    The situation would be wrong, because it would be abuse of a minor.

    So grooming a minor is ‘wrong’, but, as a result of grooming him, having sex with him after he reaches the age of consent is ok?

    I’m going to pin this one down, Ryan; answering HALF the question is not answering the full question – hypocrit!

    Why? Because I have never seen any reason to believe it. I don’t know any gay men who were groomed in their early teens by insidious older gay men. Do you have anything to back up your bizarre assertion?

    Good grief!
    Homosexuality in NZ has gone through the roof since the Homosexual Law Reform of 1986. As has the associated youth suicide figures; youth depression; youth confusion of sexual identity; etc, etc. It is common knowledge that MANY homosexual liasons/relationships are between older and younger men/boys. The fact that the homosexual lobby gives creedence to the likes of NAMBLA is justification enough of this fact. I’m not going to be your bloody research assistant on this one, Ryan – can’t be bothered to be honest. I suggest you check it out yourself.

    Same with all you other ‘deniers’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    I did some research and posted it Kris, did you read that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    big bruv 1:48 pm

    “Yes Petey into the current I go and say Jesus taught to love ALL people for we are NOT to judge.”

    If this bloke called Jesus is to be believed then I cannot work out why so many bible bashers are anti Homosexual.

    And I might also extend biblical love to someone guilty of adultery, but I sure as hell am not going to condone their choice in this regard.

    Hate the sin, love the sinner!
    You idiots really don’t get it, do you?!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    But it’s a shame idiots like Pete can’t differentiate between loving the individual and pointing out the consequences of their sins (which is of course an act of love in itself, and not of judgement).

    Because it’s got nothing to do with love- just the warped, screwed up way evangelical Xtians have with interacting with other people.

    First you decide that the person is inherently a bad person because of some made-up person did 6000 years ago.
    Then you pretend that you like someone, when it actual fact, you only see them as a potential convert. That’s what you try to build the relationship on. Neither friendship nor respect matters, only the opportunity for conversion.
    And to exploit that opportunity, you employ fear as your tool.

    See, atheists actually think their friends are pretty cool. And we don’t try to scare the shit out of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Pete George 2:22 pm,

    I posted some research Kris, did you read that?

    Gee, Pete, I’m so ‘blind’ I must have missed it.

    I saw a whole lot of luke warm liberal piffle dressed up as a Christian view – but surely you’re not refering to that …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Yes, Kris, blind.

    You can’t even show love for other Christians who might see things differently to you.

    Judgement at a glance. I’d guess that there are a lot of piffling liberal Christians, but they are obviously not good enough for you. They must be a bit too close to Christlike.

    Blind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. LeftRightOut (622 comments) says:

    Kris K (2166) Says:

    Hate the sin, love the sinner!
    You idiots really don’t get it, do you?!

    Oh I get it Kris, I get it.

    It’s a cop out, so that xians can pretend to be loving and forgiving and caring while they just go on the merry old way of hatred.

    And you really truly love Pol Pot?

    Anytime I need reminding of the meaning of hypocrisy, I look at you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    But you are a christian

    RRM, you are wrong there as you are on most of your other points.

    Like the global warming alarmist you consider you opinion as fact.

    You are happy with other people’s children to be indoctrinated with your beliefs and even have secret abortion arranged.

    The issue is one of parent’s rights something this government does not care about. Schools should support parent’s moral values not undermine them.

    HIV rates being what they are, HIV will be the least of her worries.

    Most HIV is amongst male homosexuals. However, the women that are infected in New Zealand are nearly always infected by someone from a high risk area of the world or a bisexual. The rate of STDs is also far higher amongst bisexuals and condoms offer limited protection particularly for females.

    If you want to teach your daughter you opinions as facts that is and should be your right but when you and other liberals want to teach children things that a completely contrary to there parents beliefs that is a different matter.

    Schools that encourage children to dob in parents and tell children not to tell their parents what they are being taught is something that one would not expect in a democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Chthoniid 2:28 pm,

    But it’s a shame idiots like Pete can’t differentiate between loving the individual and pointing out the consequences of their sins (which is of course an act of love in itself, and not of judgement).

    Because it’s got nothing to do with love- just the warped, screwed up way evangelical Xtians have with interacting with other people.

    KRIS: Hey, Chthoniid, the bridge is out, and the river’s in flood; I wouldn’t proceed if I were you.

    CHTHONIID’S ATHEIST FRIENDS: (know the bridge is out but keep silent)

    CHTHONIID: What bridge? What river? (proceeds merrily on his way and dies in the swollen river)

    Question:
    Who is the more loving – the one who warned Chthoniid of the pending disaster, or his atheist ‘friends’ who kept their mouths shut? You decide, dear reader …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. LeftRightOut (622 comments) says:

    Jesusonacross, you sure come out with some odd analogies KK.

    We can ALL see the bridge is out, even Chthoniid. But NO ONE can see your invisible, fucked up god.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    So grooming a minor is ‘wrong’, but, as a result of grooming him, having sex with him after he reaches the age of consent is ok?

    I’m going to pin this one down, Ryan; answering HALF the question is not answering the full question – hypocrit!

    Yes, it is okay in the sense that I don’t think the 16-year-old should be threatened by the state for consenting.

    As for the child abuser, assuming he’s not being locked up for the child abuse, he could probably be tried for rape on the grounds that the 16-year-old was not mens rea when he consented to the sex. Tricky area to get into, though. “She said yes, but she would have said no if she was thinking straight, so you’re a rapist.”

    Do you think that a man grooming a minor to have sex with him when she hits 16, and has consentual sex with her when she is 16, is guilty of rape on top of the child abuse?

    Also, let me know when you will answer the question I asked you here. Unless you’re making some kind of joke by calling me a hypocrite for not answering a question at the same time as avoiding answering my question. In which case, well done, hilarious, now answer the question.

    Good grief!
    Homosexuality in NZ has gone through the roof since the Homosexual Law Reform of 1986. As has the associated youth suicide figures; youth depression; youth confusion of sexual identity; etc, etc. It is common knowledge that MANY homosexual liasons/relationships are between older and younger men/boys. The fact that the homosexual lobby gives creedence to the likes of NAMBLA is justification enough of this fact. I’m not going to be your bloody research assistant on this one, Ryan – can’t be bothered to be honest. I suggest you check it out yourself.

    Same with all you other ‘deniers’.

    You’ve got it around the wrong way, Kris. You made the bizarre assertion. I’m not going to be your research assistant. If you’ve got anything to back it up besides further unsupported claims, go for it. But it’s your responsibility to back up what you say.

    If I claimed that most child abusers were Christian, would you really let me get away with saying, “Prove they’re not! I’m not your research assistant!”?

    So I’m not letting you get away with it either. Provide evidence that the majority of gay men were groomed by older gay men. It may help you to know that the following things are irrelevant to your claim:

    Homosexuality in NZ has gone through the roof since the Homosexual Law Reform of 1986.

    Irrelevant.

    As has the associated youth suicide figures; youth depression;

    Irrelevant.

    youth confusion of sexual identity; etc, etc.

    Irrelevant.

    It is common knowledge that MANY homosexual liasons/relationships are between older and younger men/boys.

    Show that these younger men/boys are minors, or else irrelevant.

    The fact that the homosexual lobby gives creedence to the likes of NAMBLA is justification enough of this fact.

    Reference, please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Ryan, if you have studied the history of New Zealand it was founded on Christian principles. Are you saying it is not right to tell children it’s okay to be Christian.

    If some child feels they are definitely homosexual they should be referred to counselling and both parents informed. Whole classes should not be taught that homosexuality it right or wrong. Parents should be fully informed about what is in any sex ed syllabus before children are taught.

    There was a case a few years ago where the school got a couple of young homosexuals from the AIDS Foundation in to teach about sex. These guys were passing out cards and saying if you are queer or think you may be just give us a call. The parents were outraged and that was the last time the school involved the AIDS Foundation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    “Like the global warming alarmist you consider you opinion as fact.”
    [RRM: Yes I do consider my opinion of the non-existence of God as fact. Is this so different than your good self?]

    “You are happy with other people’s children to be indoctrinated with your beliefs and even have secret abortion arranged.”
    [RRM: Bullshit! To indoctrination and to the suggestion I want secret abortions. And STD risks and infection rates are scientifically monitored facts, they are not something ephemeral you believe in.]

    “The issue is one of parent’s rights something this government does not care about. Schools should support parent’s moral values not undermine them.”
    [RRM: I am happy that the schools support my moral values. Practical sex ed, not too much of the "God" stuff. Not my problem if they don't support your moral values.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Just checking…

    This is still going and no one has been smote… (smoted? smited?)… for blasphemy?

    Well my prayers haven’t been answered then :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    That’s a fairly inane analogy Kris. A few moments of introspection show that. Why if my atheists friends knew of an actual danger, would they not tell me? I can see with my own eyes a broken bridge & nobody has shown me hell.

    & I can’t see how that demonstrates love, anymore than the guy who puts up a crocodile warning sign next to a billabong loves me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    Oh my prayers worked fine Rex. This afterall, is National Prayer Day in the US.

    I asked Cthulhu to prevent Yaweh from fulfilling any prayers. I’m pleased to report a near 100% success rate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    Ryan, if you have studied the history of New Zealand it was founded on Christian principles. Are you saying it is not right to tell children it’s okay to be Christian.

    No, my question as and is – what would you say to someone saying this?

    What I do advocate is to stop promoting Christianity to school children as an equally valid lifestyle choice. This no doubt leads to an increase in early experimentation and makes young people more vulnerable to Christian youth groups. The law changes that put Christian partnerships on par with marriage and proposed changes to adoption law put society’s stamp of approval on the Christian lifestyle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Kris
    they don’t want to get it!
    Only when it is their position that they are talking about.
    Remember pearls before swine?
    It has never been about us and never will be.

    Hate the sin, love the sinner!
    You idiots really don’t get it, do you?!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    Love the swine?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    yes roasted (yum lovely crackling) with potatoes carrots peas and lots of gravy.
    Good cold beer or nice sav blanc.
    pref with a crumble and custard after.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    Great, now I feel unloved AND hungry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    Hmmm, pearls before swine, that sounds like a loving sort of term. Loving one’s supposed superiority.

    Hate the swine? With love of course.

    Superb Hypocrisy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. big bruv (13,888 comments) says:

    Kris K

    Up until now I have been respectful of your religion, however, if you are going to become abusive of those who do not share your views then as far as I am concerned it is now game on!

    Kris, you are stupid, despite the mountain of evidence against a ‘god’ you fuck knuckles insist on pushing this crap onto the rest of us, I have no doubt that a chap called Jesus did walk this earth but to believe he was the son of god only proves that there were as many idiots around in those days as there are now.

    Jesus was a con man, nothing more than that.

    If you wish to waste your ONE life believing in that shit then good on you, but please, keep your stupid fucking opinions to yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. LeftRightOut (622 comments) says:

    Bruv, Jesus wasn’t the conman. That was Christ.

    Have a read of Phillip Pullman’s “The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ”. A ripping yarn. its about these two brothers, you see, and ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    @MikeNZ

    they don’t want to get it!

    Sadly Mike, we do get it. It just doesn’t make any sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Chuck bird:It appears that it is you belief that every one is either born heterosexual or homosexual. Do you believe that bisexuality is also determined? If so do you have any basis for your belief?

    Yes. The scientific evidence is clear that there is a significant biological component to sexual orientation and the evidnce to date is consistent with it being 100% biological. There is no evidence for a role for choice.

    Here’s a question for you chuck. Some sheep are gay. Did they choose that? Were they perhaps groomed by other gay sheep?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Kris k:Homosexuality in NZ has gone through the roof since the Homosexual Law Reform of 1986.

    Your evidnec for this is what? It may be more visible than it used to be but that doesn’t mean its more common.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    No chiz, they were taught it at school, because their teachers didn’t believe in god.

    Research has found about 1500 species that have some homosexual tendencies. Only some of one of that species believes in various gods.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Ryan, sorry I really have trouble understanding your question or the point you are trying to make.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Not even a small plume of smoke from one of the unbeliever’s trousers, Chthoniid?

    Send me a sign, Cthulhu!

    Or am I missing something subtle? I was in the balcony of a theatre that’s been converted to one of these evangelical churches recently, looking down at the stalls (just checking the video technology we’d sold them was working, you understand).

    Cthulhu doesn’t specialise in inflicting male pattern baldness, does he? :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    Ryan, sorry I really have trouble understanding your question or the point you are trying to make.

    Fair enough. The point I’m trying to make is that when you say, “I don’t think homosexuality should be banned, I just don’t think schools should be teaching that it’s okay,” that is like saying, “I don’t think Christianity should be banned. I just don’t think schools should be teaching that it’s okay.” Schools teaching that being gay or being Christian are okay is not promoting these things, it’s simply refraining from encouraging anti-gay or anti-Christian sentiment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    Sorry Rex, Cthulhu is more the exploding-your-brains kind of deity.

    I suspect he’s been very busy today preventing outbreaks of world peace, stopping a cure for AIDS, ensuring oil spills continue and letting Celine Dion live.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    “Yes I do consider my opinion of the non-existence of God as fact. Is this so different than your good self?”

    Yes, I am agnostic.

    I am glad to see you are against secret abortions which are happening at schools now. How do you feel about your daughter being given the pill without your knowledge?

    “I am happy that the schools support my moral values. Practical sex ed, not too much of the “God” stuff. Not my problem if they don’t support your moral values.”

    So, I have got you right this time it sounds like you would not be happy if the school undercut your rights by arranging an abortion for you daughter. You probably would be unhappy if the school taught you daughter values that you did not agree with but happy as long as you parents rights are not undermined but could not care less about any other parent’s rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Chiz, do you believe in AGW as well. Where is your evidence? I produced mine with the following links
    http://www.mygenes.co.nz/

    Dr NE Whitehead, PhD (research scientist) in “My Genes Made Me Do It!”

    How does your theory account for bisexuality? Are you saying every thirteen year old who has been abused by an adult was really gay and older person was helping then find their sexual orientation? That should like something from NAMBLA or that sicko Jim Peron who the liberals thought was picked on unfairly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Chuck – I’m lukewarm on AGW. It might be happening, it might not be. There’s little doubt in mind that the pro-AGW camp are making some scientific mistakes. I also don’t see what it has to do with the debate about sexual orientation.

    My evidence for my claim is in the scientific literature not in pseudoscientific books like the one you keep linking to. I’ve read Whitehead’s book, from cover to cover, and it is crap. He doesn’t know as much genetics as he thinks, he takes things out of context, and he’s selective in what he cites.

    How does your theory account for bisexuality? Are you saying every thirteen year old who has been abused by an adult was really gay and older person was helping then find their sexual orientation?

    Bisexuality, like homosexuality and asexuality is innate imho. I don’t understand your claim about 13yr olds or what it has to do with what I have said.

    And you still haven’t answered my question. If sexual orientation isn’t innate but is a matter of choice then where do asexual, bisexual and homosexual sheep come from?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    “I am glad to see you are against secret abortions which are happening at schools now. How do you feel about your daughter being given the pill without your knowledge?”

    [RRM: I would FAR rather that than back-alley abortions or a pregnancy she couldn't cope with and tried to conceal. Far better she experiments sexually by bringing boyfriends (/girlfriends?) to the relative safety of my roof, than making sex something disapproved of, that she needs to keep hidden in dodgy lovers' lanes or round the back of the pub. You don't seem to understand I want to teach her to be a person, not a scared little parental-obedience unit.]

    “So, I have got you right this time it sounds like you would not be happy if the school undercut your rights by arranging an abortion for you daughter. You probably would be unhappy if the school taught you daughter values that you did not agree with but happy as long as you parents rights are not undermined but could not care less about any other parent’s rights.”

    [RRM: Yes, I am glad the public school stance is in general agreement with my views and not the unrealistic expectations of some other fundy christian and/or morally archaic parents. What else do you want me to say?]

    On a lighter note, here’s some food for thought / fuel for the fire:
    http://www.kontraband.com/videos/22503/Tim-Minchins-Pope-Song/#show

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    “Jesus was a con man, nothing more than that.”

    I just have to meet this big bruv ####!
    Come on coward of kiwiblog.
    Gutless wimp!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  299. Jaime Raine (43 comments) says:

    Hate the sin, love the sinner!
    You idiots really don’t get it, do you?!

    And:

    Kris
    they don’t want to get it!
    Only when it is their position that they are talking about.
    Remember pearls before swine?
    It has never been about us and never will be.

    Way to prove the point I made above:

    Why do people not believe? It is not because non-Christians weigh up the evidence, consider the balance of probabilities, and conclude that the most likely explanation for the world is not Christianity. No. That would mean God is sending rational, well-intentioned people to Hell. And God is just! So many Christians believe that the real reason non-Christians do not believe is because they don’t want to. If non-Christians really admitted to themselves that Christianity is true, they would have to change their lives! They don’t want to, so as their only act of rebellion, they deny the message. And sadly, there’s really no effective way to respond to Christians who consider that atheists hold their worldviews through willful self-deceit or brainwashing. If atheists argue against this, it just comes across as more denial, because they don’t want to believe they are avoiding faith.

    Trust me Kris, MikeNZ, etc. Nothing you say many of us atheists haven’t heard or considered before. A gay person doesn’t need you to show them God’s glory and if they’d only listen to the truth they’d see the error of their ways – chances are they’ve had fundamentalist Christians like you shove that down their necks all their lives.

    I was raised as a Christian and was one for over 20 years of my life. I am well aware of the concepts you raise, I ‘get’ what you’re saying, because I used to be just as preachy and evangelical as you, all under the guise of genuine compassion and saving someone from crossing a bridge that was about to give.

    But too many anti-social messages later, and sitting in Church one day listening to a fundamentalist pastor, I realised that what they knew wasn’t that much more awe-inspiring than what I had already considered. The God I imagined, the true one, the ‘fount of all being,’ is a wild limitless overflowing thing of life, joy, and love. A thing totally unconstrained and unpredictable. Has to be. Nothing less. As wild as Pan – god of the earth and forest and ocean as much as god of the sky and the stars. A being of sweet, terrible life. Something like the God whose back Moses is shown a glimpse of, up on that mountain.

    Unfortunately, the God in the Bible falls a short of the ideal. He comes close at times, true – and party-Jesus doing wine-tricks is a glimpse of the ultimate truth – but ultimately God is constrained by ‘rules,’ or ‘justice,’ or hand-waving about ‘the way things are.’ C.S. Lewis has Aslan speak of a ‘deep magic’ that cannot be undone or avoided; the penal substitutionists (and the satisfactionists) speak of some code or law that even God must honour – and, therefore, that we also must yield to if God is to save us. I guess God did manage to create a rock so big even He couldn’t lift?

    Even further – God gets upset at the things people do. And not just for their sake, either (which would be permissible). He gets offended! And jealous! He punishes people for doing sexual things, because they contravene his arbitrary moral code! He endorses – encourages! – mass slaughter and pillage of people outside the chosen few.

    I can imagine a God greater.

    Of course, the flaw in the ontological argument is the assumption that imagining something means it must exist. I hold no such assumption. Nonetheless.

    Any God who falls short of the best I can imagine is a God not worth worshipping.

    For the most part the standard “Christian/Biblical” God seems wrong in some manner, a little to petty. Or at least the humans that claim to have had contact with it describe it as some thing that is far too human, error prone and petty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Chiz, I have not made a study of the sexual habits of sheep. I do not know how rams would prefer another ram to a ewe. Or if a ram is if in season it will root anything available. Sheep is a little off the subject.

    Where is your scientific literature? Are you certain that bisexuality and homosexuality is 100% biological whatever that means? Are you saying that it genetic?

    The point I was making about young boys was that some young boys who are sexually abused will take up the homosexual lifestyle. Others will look back on it as abuse and only be interested in women. Would you agree with that? If so, then would you maintain that all the abused boys who carried on with the homosexual lifestyle were genetically programmed to be homosexual?

    Whitehead’s position seems much more likely that while there may be a predisposition to homosexuality environmental factors play a big part. I presume you read his study of identical twins. If it was genetic why would not both twins have the same sexual preference?

    I would like to see you scientific study that proof that environment plays no part. Surely it must be on the net.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  301. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    ^^^ Google “Homosexual Pukekos”, will keep you in reading material for hours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  302. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Chuck, you appear to have some comprehension problems. Given that homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality all occur in sheep this is clealrly relevant to the question of whether sexual orientation is innate. If it is innate in sheep then what resaon is there for thinking that it isn’t in humans. If it isn’t innate in humans and is only due to, say, as some people are claiming, then why isn’t this the case for sheep. The fact that homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality in sheep shows that these are naturally ocurring phenomena that have biological roots.

    I still don’t understand your point about abuse. If some people, born heterosexual, are abused by an older men, then they will as adults still be heterosexual. If other people, born homosexual, are abused by older men, then they will as adults still be homosexual. Abuse doesn’t change anything.

    Whithead has not published a twin study on the subject. His book talks about other people’s twin studies all of which consistently show that there definitely a biological component. The only debate is the size of this component.

    If you want some evidence for biology playing a role consider the fact, confirmed in multiple studies, that are statistical differences in finger length ratios in homosexual men compared to heterosexual men. Do people choose their finger lengths?

    I also didn’t say that there was proof that homsexuality was 100% biological and that the environment played no part, merely that this is consistent with the evidence so far. It is worth noting that, contrary to what many people believe, that identical twins can and do show genetic differences. It is also worth noting that traits can be biological in origin without being genetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  303. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Apparently I don’t have permission to edit my own comment :-(

    I meant to say:

    Chiz:If it isn’t innate in humans and is only due to, say, as some people are claiming, then why isn’t this the case for sheep.

    If it isn’t innate in humans and is only due to, say,grooming, as some people are claiming, then why isn’t this the case for sheep?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. big bruv (13,888 comments) says:

    dad4justice (6254) Says:

    May 7th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
    “Jesus was a con man, nothing more than that.”

    I just have to meet this big bruv ####!
    Come on coward of kiwiblog.
    Gutless wimp!

    D4J.

    Do you realise that you sound exactly like one of those muslim extremists?

    Only complete nutbars threaten violence against non believers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    What a twisted coward you are. Who said anything about violence you distorted creep.
    I have some questions I would like answered. You know a face to face meeting, no keyboard to hide behind you jellyfish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  306. LeftRightOut (622 comments) says:

    He IS one of those muslim extremists, except he’s a xian one. Same thing, same god, same fucked up brain, same violent tendencies.

    Reason saves, religion enslaves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  307. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    Oh look fugley gives blouse a hand.Both of you are pathetic cowards. Get a backbone and get back to me creeps.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  308. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Chthoniid:

    Cthulhu is more the exploding-your-brains kind of deity.

    I suspect he’s been very busy today preventing outbreaks of world peace, stopping a cure for AIDS, ensuring oil spills continue and letting Celine Dion live.

    That nasal Canadian gargler is one of the Four Horsemen? That explains everything I don’t understand, including the popularity of Leonardo Di Caprio. Sign me up, I’ve become a believer!

    RRM:

    Google “Homosexual Pukekos”, will keep you in reading material for hours.

    *pulls up psychiatrist’s couch* And how is it that you know this, hmmmm? :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. big bruv (13,888 comments) says:

    I also have questions that I want answered D4J.

    1. Do you still think it is perfectly fine for fathers to stop paying child maintenance if they have no contact with their kids and leave the tax payer to pick up the tab?

    2. Who is funding your ridiculous court case?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. LeftRightOut (622 comments) says:

    1. Yes.

    2. Kristy’s family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  311. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Chiz, there is nothing wrong with my comprehension. I repeat the comment I made below.

    “Chiz, I have not made a study of the sexual habits of sheep. I do not know how rams would prefer another ram to a ewe. Or if a ram is if in season it will root anything available. Sheep is a little off the subject.”

    I have no idea what percentage of sheep are homosexual or bisexual or if they choose a sheep of the same sex due to the absence of one of the opposite sex. I have no intention studying this for the purpose of this debate if that is what this is.

    I believe in free will except if someone has a genuine and serious mental disorder and is really deluded.

    Some people are not able to handle alcohol. They are born that way. If they find alcohol a problem they have a free will to stop drinking and there are plenty of people to help them. However, if there are also born to parents who are heavy drinks they have two things working against them.

    Some people are born with a short fuse but the can choose not to be violent. If they are brought up in a violent household this choice will be much more difficult.

    There may be some sort genetic cause that plays a part in determining one’s sexual preference or choice. In some individuals such as those born with incomplete sexual organs the cause may be nearly completely natures call. In others it may be much more the case of the environment they are brought up in or live in.

    I do not know how much environment or genetics plays and I doubt very much if you know near as much as you think you do. I would tend to think Dr Neil Whitehead is much closer than you or the militant homosexual lobby.

    I have a real concern when any small minority group has disproportionate say on society. This includes the minority of Maori who like to portray Maori as victims. They amount to 2 or 3% of the population judging by how many votes for the racist Maori Party gets . The lunatic environmentalists also have far more say than they should. This is a problem with the voting system. I would also have a problem with fanatical religious groups imposing their will on the majority if they somehow got in to a position of influence.

    Militant homosexuals have caused a lot of problems over the last Labour government. They have gone in to areas that have detrimentally affected the whole of society. Prostitution is one example. Prostitution was never illegal and soliciting was tolerated if it was confined to certain areas and not too blatant. We now have a much bigger problem with young people at such place as Hunter’s Corner in Auckland and brothels setting up in front of schools. This is the result of a militant homosexual activist coming to this country and being welcomed into a position of power by the homosexual branch of the Labour Party.

    I doubt if I will change your mind but I may make some liberals with children have a second thought if society is going in the right direction. I repeat this link.

    http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=2&STORY_ID=5228&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=1

    The militant homosexuals are not happy to stop with so called gay rights. Read what they say about polygamy and the age of consent laws.

    As I have said unlike some on this blog I do not think homosexuality should be made illegal again. However, I think they have far too much funding and power. The AIDS Foundation one would think would try and reduce the incidence of HIV.

    I would be interested in what other liberals think on the following.

    Should New Zealand allow in HIV+ migrants?

    The AIDS Foundation successful lobbied for this and Labour changed the law soon after coming into power. We know what happened and Labour finally changed the law back.

    Should HIV+ people who know they are HIV+ be required by law to inform there partners whether or not they use a condom? Condoms reduce the risk of HIV infection by about 80% but by no means eliminate it.

    Should a married person who infects their spouse, usually their wife be held accruable in criminal or civil court?

    Rights are a matter of balance usually one person right impacts on another person’s right.

    Should the right of someone HIV+ to privacy trump the right of someone to make an informed choice as to the risk they will take in regard HIV infection.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  312. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Do you still think it is perfectly fine for fathers to stop paying child maintenance if they have no contact with their kids and leave the tax payer to pick up the tab?

    BB, I believe this is reasonable in some circumstance. The DPB carries with it some obligations. One those obligations should be for the custodial parent to allow and ideally encourage contact with the other parent. When the State facilitates the breakdown of a marriage by offering the DPB to any woman who walks out on a marriage for any reason the State should have an obligation ensure the father has meaningful contact with the children. That is not what the DPB was designed for. As least the public were led to believe it was for women who were abused or deserted.

    The DPB can be obtained anywhere in the country unlike a job. I do not think it right that the State pay the DPB to a woman who decides to move to the other end of the country with out applying to the court. For many men having children is a conscious decision. This is particularly the case with married men. They do so for many of the reasons women do. They want to raise children with their values whatever they are.

    There are cases where the woman moves in with a man and the children are encouraged to call him Dad. Sometimes they move far away without applying to the court. In some cases this is done deliberately to alienate the children from their father.

    The default position should be shared parenting, when a private members bill was introduced this was voted down by the majority of MPs. I do not blame fathers in some circumstance for avoiding all child support payments. If you are unhappy that your taxes have to pay for the shortfall vote for a party that believes fathers have some rights.

    Both major parties do not believe parents let alone fathers have any rights. I point to the anti-smacking law, sex education, prescribing the pill and even arranging abortions. If the State wants to undermine parental authority and rights the States should pay. If you do not like your taxes go for that vote for a party that believes parents have some rights –ACT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  313. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Chuck bird:I have no idea what percentage of sheep are homosexual or bisexual or if they choose a sheep of the same sex due to the absence of one of the opposite sex. I have no intention studying this for the purpose of this debate if that is what this is.

    You don’t need to study it – other people have. It has nothing to with the absence of sheep of the opposite sex. When given a choice of gender to have sex with most sheep choose the opposite gender but a small proportion choose the same sex and do so from trial to trial. A small proportion will choose either each time and a small proportion have no interest in either. The obvious interpretation here, unless you have another one, is that these sheep are, respectively gay, bisexual and asexual. Now if sexual orientation is innate in one mammal why would it not be innate in others? There is no evidence to date that it isn’t innate in humans and the simplest interpretation of the evidence therefore is that is innate in us.

    I do not know how much environment or genetics plays and I doubt very much if you know near as much as you think you do. I would tend to think Dr Neil Whitehead is much closer than you or the militant homosexual lobby.

    I’ve said it before and I will say it again – I’ve read his book. Its obvious in places that he is not au fait with modern genetics and that his knowledge of the subject doesn’t extend beyond the basic introductory stuff that psychologists get taught about. And yes, I do know as much as I think I do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  314. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Chiz, with all due respect I am not going to accept your word – someone using a pseudonym – that their look at someone’s research on sheep’s sexual preferences is valid and that it relates to human behaviour. AGW research is more relevant to this debate. It shows how people who want to “prove” something is true will go to any lengths to do so. I have asked you more than once to supply a link. Why have you not do so? Would it be that the link is to some gay activist website like the one I supplied? These people have vested interest in “proving” that have no control over their actions.

    Most anti-social behaviour is the result of genetics and ones upbringing or environment. Not all homosexual behaviour is anti-social but a lot of it is.

    Spreading is STD’s by extremely promiscuous behaviour is anti-social. Homosexual activists promote the myth that homosexuals are just like heterosexuals except that they are attracted to someone of the same sex. In the case of male homosexuals this is rarely the case. This is why they have a rate of HIV and other serious STDs many times that of the heterosexual community.

    Sometime ago a former preacher from a mainstream church did a doco. He told how when he drove home his car would sort of go on auto pilot and take him by a public bog which was where homosexuals hung out for anonymous sex. He said how hardly a word exchanged and they would do their thing and go on their separate ways. His way was home to his wife and family. He would quite possible have sex with is wife putting her at serious risk.

    Now this poor fellow was born a bisexual. I suppose he could not lead a fulfilled life unless he married some unsuspecting woman and had children by her. You may accept that I do not. This guy more of less said he was attracted to men from an early age. He might have been like the man this thread is about and tried to change. I believe we all have free will except the severely mentally disabled. I presume you do not put homosexuals in that category. When this guy found he could not control his compulsion he had the option of telling his wife straight away. He chose not to.

    The vast majority of have sexual urges – heterosexual and homosexual. In a civilised society most of us suppress them at times when it is inappropriate to act on them like dogs or sheep. Many animals would happily have sex with their siblings. I do not think humans should follow their example. An example where sex would be inappropriate is when one is married. Another would be not to have sex with a good friend partner or ex-partner.

    I do not accept your theories about sheep’s sexual behaviour or the length of one’s fingers as an excuse for denying personal responsibility and free will.

    I ask you would society be better off if we had triple the rate of homosexuals in the population? I say it would be a lot worse. There would be a lot more STDs including HIV. There would also be a lot more adolescents sexually abuse and confused.

    If any harmful activity is promoted it stands to reason that it will be more common. This can apply to prostitution, wife swapping, B & D or homosexuality. This should be self evident to most people.

    I find it hard to understand how these liberals think is it reprehensible for a man to drive drunk with his wife in the car but it is no ones business if some guy gets fucked up the arse by half a dozen guys at gay sauna and then goes home and has sex with his wife. I do know what I am talking about. This thing does happen I can assure you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..if some guy gets fucked up the arse by half a dozen guys at gay sauna and then goes home and has sex with his wife. I do know what I am talking about…”

    heh..!

    chucky -the-homophobe…outs’ himself….

    ..and he is so specific..eh…?

    experience..?..or an unrequited desire…?

    those ‘half a dozen guys at gay sauna’..

    eh..?..whoar..!

    he does talk about it an awful lot…eh..?

    ..that gay sex..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  316. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    do ya check under ya bed at night chucky..?

    y’know..!..for homosexuals..?

    phil9whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  317. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    chucky -the-homophobe…outs’ himself….

    Phil, you having outed yourself as someone incapable of discussing issues without name calling.

    When I said I know what I am talking about I know a woman years ago whose husband of many years was closet homosexual who ended up HIV+. She was very lucky she found out about him before she ended up HIV+ as well.

    These things do happen as also the group sex I described.

    I quote below from a review of AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Man by Gabriel Rotello below.

    There was a time, before AIDS, when gay male culture was often synonymous with multiple partners, bathhouses, and an emphasis on youth and physical beauty. Monogamy was identified with “straight” culture and therefore something to be resisted. Even when the AIDS epidemic was at its height, the gay community promoted condom use but did little to discourage risky behavior. In his groundbreaking book Sexual Ecology, author Gabriel Rotello views the epidemic in a new way: as part of an ecological system. Rotello’s approach, while unique in the study of AIDS, is one familiar to the environmental movement. He sees the disease not as a discrete element, but as part of a system of “behaviors, thoughts and feelings that made gay culture so susceptible to AIDS.”

    Although Rotello aims his book primarily at a gay audience, Sexual Ecology has a wider appeal. His chronicle follows the growth of promiscuity among homosexual men through its promotion by bathhouse owners and the gay media. Equally fascinating is the current trend toward more mainstream values among many gay men. Finally, his suggestions for making gay culture sustainable (in the words of environmental science) instead of self-destructive provide serious food for thought and for debate.

    The book gives very graphic scenes. Do you want to read them?

    Most so called rights affect other people and society as a whole.

    Do you think a bi-sexual’s right to live a fulfilled life trumps his wife’s right to safety?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  318. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..The book gives very graphic scenes. Do you want to read them?..”

    that seems to be more your ‘go’…dosen’t it…?

    (‘well-thumbed’..?..are they…?..)

    ..that is what you choose to ‘seek out’…eh..?

    ..do you find them ‘shocking’..?..yet ..somehow..’stimulating’..?..in any way…?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  319. LeftRightOut (622 comments) says:

    Do you think a bi-sexual’s right to live a fulfilled life trumps his wife’s right to safety?

    That is not a question for you to answer, it is up to the wife, no one else.

    What is it with god botherers that you have to interfere in everyone else’s lives? Sad little miserable fucks wihout a life, is my guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    I might add I was relatively liberal in regards homosexuals before then. I had some involvement with Chris Carter on an issue about an Auckland water shortage around the same time. I mentioned to him about domestic violence and how it was used against men. He took a militant feminists stance. He said all research showed men committed nearly all domestic violence. He has never produced the research he promised. The guy is a liar. It became clear that the militant man hating feminist and the militant homosexuals were supporting each other.

    Around that time I and many fathers thought we would get more support from Labour over family law issues. That would have been over 15 years ago. Carter helped change my view of Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  321. Jaime Raine (43 comments) says:

    The solution would then to be to educate and provide more support for homosexuals. The ‘sins’ you list there Chuck are not limited to gay people – straight people engage in orgies too, straight, married couples have affairs and get STIs as well – that doesn’t mean you outlaw heterosexual relations too. Your anecdotes show that the culture surrounding the community is bad – not the act itself. Learn to separate the elements – like I said above, if this sort of approach of making correlation equal causation is taken then of course there will always be room for homophobes to say being gay means you’re likely to want wild sex. Actually there are heterosexuals who have the exact same tendencies. It’s the equivalent of racists saying it’s the colour of someone’s skin that makes them a criminal rather than looking at the factors such as welfare and education. You get Pakeha criminals just as you get Maori criminals. It’s got nothing to do with the colour of their skin – but rather the culture surrounding their upbringing or environment.

    The fact that you came across Chris Carter is hardly a justification for disagreeing with a whole concept. It would be the equivalent of me saying people like you and the other Christian posters in this thread etc. Helped change my view of Christianity. Actually I disagree with Christianity on a fundamental level irregardless of its practitioners – the fact that Christians like you hold views such as homosexuality being inherently damaging to society rather than the culture surrounding homosexuality only proves your incapacity to think critically about the issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  322. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    chucky said:…

    “..I might add I was relatively liberal in regards homosexuals before then. I had some involvement with Chris Carter..”

    raine said:..’,,The fact that you came across Chris Carter..”

    whoar…!

    who knew..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  323. scottbmackay (2 comments) says:

    Jaime Raine,

    I came across this thread by via the link to my blog – I think I am the Scott you referred to above.

    I have never commented on this site before, and have never participated in online discussion with you here or on Ian Wisharts blog as you imply elsewhere. I would appreciate if you removed the link to my blog. Please don’t assume someones identity simply from their first name.

    Thank you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  324. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Jaime, it would good if you tried reading and making some attempt to comprehend what I say before jumping to erroneous conclusions. Did I say that I was a Christian? I said on this thread that I was an agnostic. Just because some Christians strongly object to the demands of the militant homosexual lobby it does not follow that anyone who also objects to many of their outrageous demands is a Christian.

    I suggest you learn some basic logic before you try to give others lessons.

    I am of course aware that married couple have affairs etcetera. It is a matter of frequency. That is one of the reasons a small minority of people – under 5% – are responsible for well over 50% of the HIV case in New Zealand. Women who get infected by a bisexual partner are classed being infected heterosexually. If it was not for immigration that the homosexual lobby successfully lobbied for, HIV through a homosexual connection would be much higher – probably over 80%.

    One reason for the high rate of HIV amongst homosexuals is that the virus is transmitted more easily by anal intercourse. The second reason is that homosexuals on average have far more partners than heterosexuals. NOTE I said on average.

    Kindly answer the following

    Do you accept that homosexuals are disproportionate infected with HIV?

    If so, have you an alternative explanation to mine?

    It is of course possible for a married person to become infected with HIV because their partner has a heterosexual affair. With the exception of migrants I do not know if this has ever happened. If it has it would be an isolated case. The same thing does not apply to homosexuals in a relationship. That is how many of them get infected – from their regular partner.

    “The solution would then to be to educate and provide more support for homosexuals.”

    I am all for that if the education is correct and not the garbage put out by the AIDS Foundation about so called safe sex. Condoms offer limited protection against HIV and a lot less to other STDs. Exaggerating the effectiveness of condoms puts people at risks.

    No doubt this National Socialist government will continue to fund the AIDS Foundation. They will do anything for votes.

    Sorry but you logic is faulty. How far do you think a drunk driver would get if he told the judge sober drivers have accidents too.

    I repeat I am not advocating re-criminalising homosexual behaviour. I just object to their outrageous demands. Some of these nutters are demanding the “right” to donate blood and put the public at risk to prove some point.

    Others thing they should have the right to have sex at public toilets. Their demands are endless and stupid just the militant Maori in the racist Maori Party. Note I am referring a minority of Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  325. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    aahh..!..a little daub of racism…..just to finish on…

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  326. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    now..have i got this right..?

    you want prevention of aids..?..yes..!..all good..all good..!

    the aids foundation has as a key-component of its’ brief/mission-statement…

    ..to help prevent aids..thru education..etc…

    ..and you want the gummint to stop funding the aids foundation..

    ..fuck..!..you really are as thick as pigshit..!..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  327. Jaime Raine (43 comments) says:

    Do you accept that homosexuals are disproportionate infected with HIV?

    If so, have you an alternative explanation to mine?

    Do you accept that Maori are disproportionately represented in criminal figures? If so, have you an alternative explanation to mine?

    As I said – it’s about personal responsibility and education. If there is widespread HIV amongst the homosexual community – then the solution is an ethical one for them to be monogamous to prevent the spread of the disease. What’s your alternative solution – to ban homosexuality? If you were a homosexual attracted to another homosexual who consents, how would you feel about the state dictating who you can have sexual relations with?

    Scott Mackay – been Googling yourself aye? If I am incorrect in my assumption then I withdraw and apologise (which I had already done anyway). However, it is my recollection that you used to post here, as I used to click through to your blog. It could be possible that another user called ScottyM used to post here and link to your blog, for what reason I have no idea. And I don’t know where you get the Ian Wishart part from as my only reference to him in this thread is in reference to his book Eve’s Bite. But anyway, your blog is in the public domain – why should I remove your link? Why don’t you set your blog to private if you’re so concerned about it being linked to in public?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  328. Jaime Raine (43 comments) says:

    Sorry Chuck – was in a rush before so didn’t read your post correctly. I note that you have written you would support accurate education and do not advocate criminalisation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  329. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Do you accept that Maori are disproportionately represented in criminal figures? If so, have you an alternative explanation to mine?

    Of course I accept that Maori are disproportionately represented in criminal figures? My alternative explanation is that a lot of left wing agitators created a grievance industry. That is not to say there were not some legitimate grievances – there were. However, from what I seen in the late 60’s and early 70’s was that Maori were happy to work but the problem came with thing like Britain joining the Common Market and not buying our farm produce. Unemployment affected Maori that others as a higher percentage were unskilled. Being unemployed or poor is not an excuse for crime. However, when left wing academics feed Maori expectation many felt a sense of entitlement.

    This is getting off the original topic. I wish you would read what I posted.

    As I said – it’s about personal responsibility and education. If there is widespread HIV amongst the homosexual community – then the solution is an ethical one for them to be monogamous to prevent the spread of the disease. What’s your alternative solution – to ban homosexuality? If you were a homosexual attracted to another homosexual who consents, how would you feel about the state dictating who you can have sexual relations with?

    I agree with your suggestion. Where did you get the idea that my alternative solution was to ban homosexuality? I have repeatedly stated that is not my view?

    Do you think a bi-sexual’s right to live a fulfilled life trumps his wife’s right to safety?

    That is not a question for you to answer, it is up to the wife, no one else.

    What is it with god botherers that you have to interfere in everyone else’s lives? Sad little miserable fucks wihout a life, is my guess.

    Leftrightout, Using your logic or lack of then if someone thinks their right to drive drunk trumps a motorist right to not get killed by a drunk driver then it is then business of the victim and not anyone else.

    You are entitled to your opinion but I think if someone seriously injuries of kills someone though gross negligence it everyone’s business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  330. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Do you accept that Maori are disproportionately represented in criminal figures? If so, have you an alternative explanation to mine?

    Of course I accept that Maori are disproportionately represented in criminal figures? My alternative explanation is that a lot of left wing agitators created a grievance industry. That is not to say there were not some legitimate grievances – there were. However, from what I seen in the late 60’s and early 70’s was that Maori were happy to work but the problem came with thing like Britain joining the Common Market and not buying our farm produce. Unemployment affected Maori that others as a higher percentage were unskilled. Being unemployed or poor is not an excuse for crime. However, when left wing academics feed Maori expectation many felt a sense of entitlement.

    This is getting off the original topic. I wish you would read what I posted.

    As I said – it’s about personal responsibility and education. If there is widespread HIV amongst the homosexual community – then the solution is an ethical one for them to be monogamous to prevent the spread of the disease. What’s your alternative solution – to ban homosexuality? If you were a homosexual attracted to another homosexual who consents, how would you feel about the state dictating who you can have sexual relations with?

    I agree with your suggestion. Where did you get the idea that my alternative solution was to ban homosexuality? I have repeatedly stated that is not my view?

    Do you think a bi-sexual’s right to live a fulfilled life trumps his wife’s right to safety?

    That is not a question for you to answer, it is up to the wife, no one else.

    What is it with god botherers that you have to interfere in everyone else’s lives? Sad little miserable fucks without a life, is my guess.

    Leftrightout, Using your logic or lack of then if someone thinks their right to drive drunk trumps a motorist right to not get killed by a drunk driver then it is then business of the victim and not anyone else.

    You are entitled to your opinion but I think if someone seriously injuries of kills someone though gross negligence it everyone’s business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  331. scottbmackay (2 comments) says:

    Jaime,

    I’m fairly certain I’ve never posted here before. I searched for evidence, which led me to your comment where you suggest we previously conversed at Ian Wisharts blog:
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/03/the_atheist_bus_campaign.html#comment-667745
    It seems you’ve made the same mistake more than once, and frankly it’s unnerving.

    I got here because people were arriving at my site via the link. I’m not generally concerned about people linking to me – it’s more due to the context being a particularly offensive post.

    Thanks

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  332. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Sorry Chuck – was in a rush before so didn’t read your post correctly. I note that you have written you would support accurate education and do not advocate criminalisation.

    Jamie, thanks for your post. It appears our posts crossed. Not only do I not advocate the criminalisation of homosexuality but think if someone is strongly attracted to people of the same sex they should think very carefully before using a woman to try and sort themselves out.

    I think people like the married preacher I mentioned earlier who had anonymous sex on the way home to his wife was deplorable and his excuse he could not control himself was worse. He chose to carry on with his deception.

    While adultery occurs most people go into marriage with the best intentions. I think some who has homosexual desires has an obligation to sort themselves out before they get married. Being honest with ones partner would also help.

    For the above reason I think pressuring homosexuals to convert can be counter productive and hurt innocent people. If homosexuals want to change that is a different matter.

    I am not sure if you are homosexual or just a confused liberal but I wish you all the best. It looks like this thread will some be archived.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  333. Jaime Raine (43 comments) says:

    I am not sure if you are homosexual or just a confused liberal but I wish you all the best. It looks like this thread will some be archived.

    I don’t need to be a homosexual to support someone’s right to choose the gender of their partner, and I’m certainly not a confused liberal as I am certain that I am a liberal as opposed to a conservative. I am just against Christians like Kris K, MikeNZ, Scott and Fletch who seem to think homosexuality is a sin that needs to be outlawed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  334. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    I don’t need to be a homosexual to support someone’s right to choose the gender of their partner

    I realise that and was not saying you were.

    “I’m certainly not a confused liberal”

    Did not mean to offend. Unfortunately there are many on blog who are and it does not just pertain to homosexuality but drugs and many other issues. I believe that many libertarians are very confused. They are like communists in a lot of ways. They think if everyone one listened to them we would have some sort of utopia.

    As I have said while I do not think homosexuality should be encouraged neither should it be made illegal. I believe one can waste their life if they do no accept political reality. Abortion will never be made illegal any more than homosexuality.

    It is better to put ones energies into trying to changes things that can be changed like the ETS.

    It was good to have a debate or discussion with someone who is happy to debate in a civil manner rather than throw names about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  335. rentboys (2 comments) says:

    I don’t need to be a homosexual to support someone’s right to choose the gender of their partner, i totaly agree with you on that point!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote