Chris Carter valedictory

September 6th, 2011 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

does his speech at 5.45 pm today. I hear the entire National caucus will be there, with popcorn.

While I have been as harsh a critic as anyone, over Chris’ sense of entitlement to overseas travel, I think it is fair to note that his parliamentary career should be remembered for more than just the overseas travel controversy.

Chris was the first MP to be openly gay. That may not mean a lot to most of us, but if you are a member of a minority group, it is a big thing to see someone like you able to serve in the House of Representatives. Since Chris came out in the 1990s, he has been joined by Tim Barnett, Georgina Beyer, Charles Chauvel, Chris Finlayson, Kevin Hague, Grant Robertson, Maryan Street and Louisa Wall. That list shows how today being gay and an MP is no big thing, but even 15 years ago it was quite significant.

During my time in Parliament, I got to know Chris reasonably well as we had some mutual friends in common. I always found him very funny and likeable, and he performed well as a whip for labour. Good whips needs to be able to work with their counterparts from other parties.

While I don’t think he shone as Minister of Education, he only held the portfolio for a year. He spent five years as Minister of Conservation and I think most people would acknowledge he was a very committed and effective Minister in that role.

As I said, I think Chris lost the plot in recent years. His political radar failed him, and he didn’t realise that his level of overseas travel was excessive, even if approved. Also his attempts to undermine Goff were clumsy and amateurish.

Being expelled from the Labour Party would have been a terrible blow for Chris. He is tribal Labour to his soul. But I suspect he has been told that he will be allowed back in, once there is a new Leader. So he may not have much longer to wait.

Tags: ,

140 Responses to “Chris Carter valedictory”

  1. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    He spent five years as Minister of Conservation and I think most people would acknowledge he was a very committed and effective Minister in that role.

    Umm, not sure of that. Got far too distracted on the whaling issue amongst other issues.

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

    To my mind an person whose sense of entitlement, unwillingness to admit to mistakes and his tendancy to play the “being picked on because I am gay” will outstrip any good he did while in parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. CraigM (541 comments) says:

    “He is tribal Labour to his soul.”

    It begs the question, how could he become so cavalier with the use of taxpayer money? If your description is accurate (and I have no reason to doubt it as you know him, I don’t) is it not a description of a man who forgot why he entered politics and who he went to parliament to represent?

    A man who so lost his way that he became the very antithesis of the type of person that probably caused him to join Labour in the first place.

    I detest the type of politician that Carter became. He is walking talking reason to limit the number of terms people should be able to SERVE in parliament.

    He is another sad example of Clarks true destructive legacy to NZ society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Grant Michael McKenna (1,110 comments) says:

    Slightly off tangent, but wasn’t Marilyn Waring re-elected after being outed as a Lesbian?

    [DPF: Yes, she was outed in 1976 and re-elected in 1978 and 1981. However she never confirmed that she was a lesbian, while an MP so was not “out” in the usual sense]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. coventry (322 comments) says:

    I see on this AM’s Breakfast show, Phil In stated “I’m too busy to attend, have other things on”

    Probably trying on some body armour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Lee C (2,720 comments) says:

    “a farewell oration delivered by the most outstanding member
    of a graduating class [syn: valediction, valedictory
    address]”

    http://dictionary.die.net/valedictory

    Personally I think he signally fails to meet the definition.

    He was not outstanding.
    he was no longer even a member of the class.
    He has not ‘graduated’. This suggests an upward move.

    He has merely moved sideways along the same trough that Aunty Helen laid out before him all those years ago…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    HE still lurks among us:

    David Farrar is known for his obsessive fawning over homosexuals, and the salute to the odious and corrupt Chris Carter on his blog today is one of the most nauseating examples of this I’ve seen.

    Farrar needs to get over his sickening subservience to the politically correct dictates of his National and Labour Party friends and judge people by what they do and say, and not by whether they’re queer or not.

    http://truebluenz.com/2011/09/06/chris-carter-quits-farrar-fawns/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. MT_Tinman (3,317 comments) says:

    “Chris was the first MP to be openly gay.”

    Not overly sure about that although he may have been the first overtly gay male.

    His speech should consist of three simple words.

    “Thank you taxpayer.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. dime (10,213 comments) says:

    in the words of Jay (from Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back)

    “see you in hell cocksmoker!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. gump (1,683 comments) says:

    DPF said:

    “But I suspect he has been told that he will be allowed back in, once there is a new Leader. So he may not have much longer to wait.”

    ——

    I find it hard to believe that Labour would readmit Mr Carter as an MP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    When one adds up those out of the closet to those likely to be in the closet they are greatly overrepresented which is harmful to society. The more people who experiment with homosexuality the more HIV for a start.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. East Wellington Superhero (1,139 comments) says:

    Perhaps Chris Carter is important for the gay community (whatever that is), but he is very very far from being a role model. He is disloyal, borders on a liar, self-focused, greedy, and prideful. I’m hardly going to suggest my kids learn anything from his career apart from observing how ‘not’ to serve your community.

    Kabul eh? I bet he hopes the SAS are still in town when he arrives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. lofty (1,317 comments) says:

    I bet the SAS cannot wait….not!

    Good riddance, even if we are still paying for his bludging indirectly.

    This is the last minute of time I will waste even thinking about this coozer, until the rainbow faction under a new leader welcomes the ferret back into the fold, when it will dominate the MSM. Until then, bye waster. Whangamata will miss you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Lance (2,715 comments) says:

    We once had a departing academic in a certain dept at the Uni of Auckland whose parting shot was to invite the HOD to ‘attempt the physically impossible’ (and he meant it!).

    Friggin ripper

    I imagine that’s why Phil-in will be away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    RRM – lol.

    “He worked hard in the faithful service of his Marxist leader Helen Klark to take NZ as far as possible down the road to the one party state collectivist nightmare we find ourselves in today.” – Redbaiter

    Oh yes we are living in Stalinist Russia. Can’t you tell?

    Clearly he’s a lunatic and his blog is a magnet for bigots.

    “Angus says:
    September 6, 2011 at 13:51

    I gotta say, I’m automatically distrustful of homosexual politicians. Primarily because all of them to one degree or another have a lofty disdain for some of the societal mores and institutions I believe are fundamentally important. Traditional family, marriage only between man & woman etc.”

    “Scott says:
    September 6, 2011 at 14:40

    Agree with much of the above. DPF is excellent on many topics but on social issues is often pretty much a libertarian/libertine/anything goes kind of guy. I actually think he is a bit of a Peter Pan figure. Just hasn’t really grown up in a lot of ways.

    Regarding Tim Barnett his legacy has been pushing through the homosexual agenda. I think that was why he came to New Zealand. I think Helen Clark was obviously also a key figure in pushing through gay rights. Unfortunately the gay rights view has captured the mainstream media which is generally liberal anyway.

    I would like to see a pushback at some stage, hopefully in my lifetime. We need to return to marriage, we need to return to much more family friendly moral behaviour and we need to start looking after our children properly.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. MBaker.27 (1 comment) says:

    Here is some leaked details of the speech via The New Tasman (parody). Got a chuckle out of me.
    http://www.thenewtasman.com/2011/09/exclusive-chris-carter-to-announce-first-ever-junkets/

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

    WEIHANA……Yeah I agree with most of your comments above………CARTER did help the Conservation Department become the out of control monster it is today. His biggest achievement was to oversee the removal of snails (at $20,000 each snail ) from the Pike River Mine Site to a safer locality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pete George (23,806 comments) says:

    We need to return to marriage, we need to return to much more family friendly moral behaviour and we need to start looking after our children properly.

    How do you make that happen? By legislation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. nasska (12,101 comments) says:

    Weihana

    I wouldn’t get overly worried about the ravings of Redbaiter. His entire blog is a testimony to his lifetime commitment to public onanism. Kiwiblog is an unbelievably better place since RB & his queer mates threw their toys out of the cot & went off to develop their own shrine to the soggy biscuit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Pete George – repeal the civil union bill. outlaw sodomy. outlaw homosexual relationships. Social conservatives love small government… except when it comes to government sticking its nose into the lifestyles of consenting adults.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Pete George (23,806 comments) says:

    Weihana, I don’t see how any of those changes would “return to marriage”, “return to much more family friendly moral behaviour”, nor make people start looking after our children properly.

    You can’t legislate and force everyone to adhere to one group’s ideals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    “I think Chris lost the plot in recent years.” – DPF

    He must have if he’s going to Afghanistan. What kind of openly gay man says he wants to go to the place where they kill you for being a homosexual? Complete lunacy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Pete George – Indeed.

    Moreover, I don’t see in what way a gay couple are not “family friendly” nor do I see how gay people can’t look after children properly or why their relationships would cause others to not look after children properly.

    But then unlike Redbaiter, Angus and Scott, I’m not a bigot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Inventory2 (9,380 comments) says:

    I’m guessing that at least seventeen Labour MP’s will be there to support Chris Carter…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. BlairM (2,340 comments) says:

    Folks, if you don’t like teh gays, don’t have sex with them. And leave them alone. God will judge them, not you. That’s all I really have to say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. jaba (2,146 comments) says:

    snug in my chair .. 5 mins to go

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Pete,

    “You can’t legislate and force everyone to adhere to one group’s ideals.”

    Then why have laws against murder or any other act? Is that not legislating morality and forcing everbody to adhere to “one groups” ideals?

    Also, secular liberals ARE forcing everyone to adhere to one groups ideals, the ideals of secular liberals.

    What you and others here are really saying, and DPF has said many times in one way or another, is that everyone gets to play in the democratic sandbox, EXCEPT social conservatives (such as Christians) who, unlike everybody else, have to leave their ideals at home when they vote or propose legislation.

    This is of course profoundly UNdemocratic.

    “Weihana, I don’t see how any of those changes would “return to marriage”, “return to much more family friendly moral behaviour”

    Because your understanding of marriage and morality is informed by the moral anarchy of liberalism. IF you believe, as true conservatives and traditionalists do, in a transcendent moral order that is not formed by opinion or social/political fashion, then legislation to enforce that transcendent order makes sense. For traditionalists marriage is one man and one women for life, and we have moved far away from that definition. Now we are all free to debate whether traditionalists are right or wrong about this, but it makes no sense to say that such legislation would not do what traditionalists intend it to.

    Weihana,

    “But then unlike Redbaiter, Angus and Scott, I’m not a bigot.”

    Of course you are. EVERYONE is bigoted about something. But opposing the normalisation of homosexuality is not bigotry, its opinion.

    Otherwise you would, in order to be consistent with your argument, have to also say that people opposed to child abuse or spousal abuse are bigots against child abusers and wife beaters. Or that people opposed to drug addiction or alcohol abuse are bigots against drug addicts and alcoholics. Being opposed to a particular behavour is not bigotry, it is opinion.

    You cannot have it both ways. Either social conservatives are simply expressing an opinion on this issue, or EVERY critique of ANY human action is bigotry.

    Trying to say that one is valid and the other is bigotry is nothing more than dishonest debate framing to suit yourself. It is also a very good example of how dishonestand hypocritical liberals are in these debates.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Lee01 –

    “Also, secular liberals ARE forcing everyone to adhere to one groups ideals, the ideals of secular liberals.”

    Indeed. It’s the ideal of “mind your own business”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    “What you and others here are really saying, and DPF has said many times in one way or another, is that everyone gets to play in the democratic sandbox, EXCEPT social conservatives (such as Christians) who, unlike everybody else, have to leave their ideals at home when they vote or propose legislation.

    This is of course profoundly UNdemocratic.”

    What we’re “really” saying? Which, roughly translated, means something we didn’t actually say but it would be easier to argue against if we had said it.

    Social conservatives can play in the democratic sandbox and part of that game is to be ridiculed and mocked for the stupid ideas they put forth. No one is suggesting social conservatives can’t run for political office, but when they do liberals are justified in pointing out the danger if and when they try to shove their religion down everyone else’s throats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    “Indeed. It’s the ideal of “mind your own business”.

    No, its really not. Thats is what liberals claim, but the claim is false. For IF it was really “mind your own business” then why have we needed so much state enforced legislation to impose liberalism? Everything from “human rights” legislation and “hate speech” codes have and are being used, especially by the homosexual lobby. In much of Europe now, a person can be arrested and imprisoned for simply stating that they are opposed to homosexual behaviour.

    In NZ I cannot start or maintain a Christian school which only hires practicing Christians who are not homosexuals because the “human rights” act forbids it. How is that “minding your own business”???

    In Sweden a Lutheran pastor was jailed for three months for preaching during a church sermon that homosexuality was wrong. Exactly how is that “minding your own business”?????

    In Britian street preachers have been arrested for the same reason. Exactly how is that “minding your own business”?????

    In Britian recently, a Christian foster care couple who were apparently very good foster parents, had their children forcibly removed from them and were banned from every fostering again. Why? Because they were Christians and refused to teach the children in their care (who were no older than nine) that homosexuality was right. And it was not the Foster agency which had a problem with them, it was a homosexual judge. Exactly how is that “minding your own business”?????

    Puhleeease!!! Try another argument.

    “Let our meaning be quite clear; we have no intention of blaming practical tolerance as applied to individuals, but only theoretic tolerance, which claims to be applied to ideas as well and to recognise the same rights for them all, which if taken logically can only imply a rooted scepticism. Moreover we cannot help noticing that, like all propagandists, the apostles of tolerance, truth to tell, are very often the most intolerant of men. This is what has in fact happened, and it is strangely ironical : those who wished to overthrow all dogma have created for their own use, we will not say a new dogma, but a caricature of dogma, which they have succeeded in imposing on the western world in general; in this way there have been established, under the pretext of “freedom of thought,” the most chimerical beliefs that have ever been seen at any time. ” – Rene Guenon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “, but when they do liberals are justified in pointing out the danger if and when they try to shove their religion down everyone else’s throats.”

    And you shoving your liberal religion down my throat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. nighthawk006 (4 comments) says:

    I’m looking forward to seeing the progress Chris makes in reigning in the corruption within the Kharzi Government. Al Qaeda will be the least of his worries – he’ll be the target of every corrupt official and their hired guns (there really must be a God, LOL).
    Don’t forget to duck, Chris!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    “For traditionalists marriage is one man and one women for life, and we have moved far away from that definition. Now we are all free to debate whether traditionalists are right or wrong about this, but it makes no sense to say that such legislation would not do what traditionalists intend it to.”

    Not sure what purpose debate would serve in this instance as anyone who waffles on about marriage being between a man and a women is obviously a moron. Marriage is a human invention so using a made up definition to justify that definition is ridiculously stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Lee01 – exactly what am I shoving down your throat? If you are a social conservative I am merely criticizing your beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    “No, its really not. Thats is what liberals claim, but the claim is false. For IF it was really “mind your own business” then why have we needed so much state enforced legislation to impose liberalism?”

    Because when people violate the rights of other people it is the duty of the state to protect them. Same reason we have “state enforced legislation” against theft or murder.

    Note I do not support “hate speech” laws and I don’t think they have anything intrinsically to do with “liberalism”.

    From Wikipedia:

    “Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, “of freedom”)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] “

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    In NZ I cannot start or maintain a Christian school which only hires practicing Christians who are not homosexuals because the “human rights” act forbids it. How is that “minding your own business”???

    ———————–

    In principle I agree with you here. But then you have to ask yourself are you okay with someone else starting up a retail shop and hanging a “No Coloureds” sign outside his shop?

    Personally I think anti-discrimination laws should be limited to government activity and individuals should be free to discriminate. But if we’re going to have anti-discrimination laws on the basis of race and religion then why not sexuality?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    In Britian recently, a Christian foster care couple who were apparently very good foster parents, had their children forcibly removed from them and were banned from every fostering again. Why? Because they were Christians and refused to teach the children in their care (who were no older than nine) that homosexuality was right. And it was not the Foster agency which had a problem with them, it was a homosexual judge. Exactly how is that “minding your own business”?????

    ———————–

    They were not “their children”.

    But let me ask you: what if the parents were neo-Nazi’s and wanted to teach their children that the Jews should be thrown in the oven? If you think that’s okay then you get marks for consistency but if not then you must accept that there is a line. When it comes to foster care I believe the government has a greater right to enforce standards of child care to protect children from harm.

    Children are born homosexual. I have seen it with my own eyes and any parent who condemns them for who they are and forces them to repress their natural feelings is harming that child and that child’s development.

    I’m reluctant to have the state dictate to all parents what beliefs they can teach their child, but when it comes to fostering children, why not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Lee01 – with regards the word “bigotry” I think the essential elements are intolerance based on prejudice. Yes, opposing homosexuality is an opinion, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t also bigoted. It also doesn’t mean that any opinion is necessarily bigoted.

    Opposing child abuse, for instance, is not bigoted because it isn’t prejudiced. Opposition to child abuse is based on aspects which are intrinsic to what child abuse is: i.e. the harm of a child.

    Opposition to homosexuality on the other hand is prejudiced because it is (usually) based on aspects of homosexuals which may or may not be true (and usually aren’t). e.g. they have AIDS, they sleep around alot, they don’t have any morality, they are marxists etc. etc.

    As you can see from the comments I quoted earlier there clearly is a lot of that sort of prejudice going on. In principle I suppose you could oppose homosexuality without any prejudiced views of what homosexuals are, but I don’t think that’s particularly common.

    On the other hand I do acknowledge that “bigot” is one of those slippery words that’s more of an insult than anything else and I suppose that’s how I used it. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. smttc (767 comments) says:

    Probably the most boring validictory speech I have ever heard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. David in Chch (523 comments) says:

    Does anyone else find a delicious (?) irony in the fact that Chris Carter, who made very full use of taxpayer funded travel, will be the UN anti-corruption envoy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. burt (7,426 comments) says:

    smttc

    If he hadn’t been made to edit out all the digressions into stories of what went on while he was traveling it would have been a blinder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. burt (7,426 comments) says:

    David in Chch

    After seeing Clark put in charge of ‘development’ nothing surprises me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. tvb (4,556 comments) says:

    Carter is going on a dangerous assignment in Afghanistan. And I do not see Carter as someone who exhibits physical courage. I do not know how this is going to end up but even I would not have given Cater this assignment. It must be something to do with Helen Clark’s black sense of humor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Rodders (1,756 comments) says:

    The speech can be watched at http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/10488

    Nothing to set the Waitemata on fire. One viewing will be more than enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. dime (10,213 comments) says:

    saw the last 5 mins. me and the 12 MP’s who stayed on to listen.

    he mentioned helen clarke about 15 times in those few mins.

    reckon he made mummy proud? maybe he will get to work in new york now

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. smttc (767 comments) says:

    Completely boring.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. big bruv (14,218 comments) says:

    That speech highlights all that is wrong with Chris Carter and demonstrates why he (and all pinko’s in general) feel they have a right to help themselves to as much of our money as they see fit.

    I am glad he is gone, despite what he seems to think he will not be missed and the NZ political scene is slightly better for his departure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Tauhei Notts (1,687 comments) says:

    Just run this past me again, as I am unsure whether I have heard it correctly.
    Chris Carter, one of the least credible members of New Zealand’s Labour Party, has been appointed by the United Nations to seek out and stop corruption in Afghanistan.
    Have I got that right?
    This is an exceedingly queer appointment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Pete George (23,806 comments) says:

    Lee – having a law against murder is quite different to somehow having a law to enforce marriage. Or do you suggest having a law making it unlawful to be unmarried?

    Murder is also different in that it is a serious crime against another person, but a marriage is a union of free will, whether the couple are hetero or homosexual. And an unmarried couple exercise their free will too, and nothing due to their partnership arrangement harms anyone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Positan (396 comments) says:

    Carter declared, “Loyalty is a two-way process,” as a swipe at Phil Goff.

    That’s the trouble with every single Labour-mongrel MP! Just like those in the union “brotherhood,” they see their loyalty ALWAYS as attributable to themselves, to their party or to their leader – or variations of those closed themes.

    NEVER to the country they’re supposed to serve – and NEVER to the taxpayer who meets the costs of maintaining them in all the spendthrift ways to which they become so readily accustomed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    big bruv (9,282) Says:
    September 6th, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    “That speech highlights all that is wrong with Chris Carter and demonstrates why he (and all pinko’s in general) feel they have a right to help themselves to as much of our money as they see fit.”

    ——————————————

    Chris Carter’s expenditure was small compared to the money the pollies steal off the taxpayer to fund their election campaigns. I suppose we can conclude that National and Act are pinkos as well. :)

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5085439/Election-broadcasting-funding-announced

    “Labour and National will get the biggest cut of broadcasting funding ahead of the general election later this year.

    The Electoral Commission has released its decision on the amount of time and money allocated to political parties for the broadcasting of election programmes.

    National and Labour will get $1.15m and 36 minutes of air time each. The Greens will get $300,000 and 15 minutes. ACT and the Maori Party both get $160,000 and nine minutes while NZ First and United Future get $100,000 and five and a half minutes.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. reid (16,702 comments) says:

    Carter is and was always a useful, loyal sycophant. He was never a politician, never a leader, always a second perhaps third tier lieutenant. His most valuable trait, to Hulun, was his loyalty, which is the only repeat only reason he ever went anywhere at all, in politics and I suspect, whatever else he did previously and also in whatever he does in future.

    He is a low IQ, low capability, non-dynamic, lost without a leader, vain, fawning man.

    He hasn’t earned a single dollar of the multi-millions you and I have paid him for his lickspittle subservience to a creature like Hulun, who in reality deserved nothing but challenge whenever any of her utterly poisonous vapour was emitted.

    So no, I’m not happy paying Carter’s Parliamentary Pension for the rest of his life. Sometimes I am, but with Chris, I’m not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (717 comments) says:

    Interesting weihana, so liberalism means leaving you alone does it? I guess unless you smoke, eat fatty food, want your fire to burn overnight, want a decent shower, dare to smack your kids, want to live with someone without fear they can claim half your assets, eat bread without chemicals in it, eat cheese that isn’t pasteurized, build a shed on your land, cut down a tree, read a book that isn’t expunged of sexist or racist language, keep the income you earn without forcibly funding deadbeat losers to breed, not pay carbon indulgences etc but other than that liberals really just want to leave us all in peace.

    Hmmm, you are just a troll aren’t you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. mickrodge (27 comments) says:

    reid (8,290) Says:

    September 6th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
    Carter is and was always a useful, loyal sycophant. He was never a politician, never a leader, always a second perhaps third tier lieutenant. His most valuable trait, to Hulun, was his loyalty, which is the only repeat only reason he ever went anywhere at all, in politics and I suspect, whatever else he did previously and also in whatever he does in future.

    He is a low IQ, low capability, non-dynamic, lost without a leader, vain, fawning man.

    He hasn’t earned a single dollar of the multi-millions you and I have paid him for his lickspittle subservience to a creature like Hulun, who in reality deserved nothing but challenge whenever any of her utterly poisonous vapour was emitted.

    So no, I’m not happy paying Carter’s Parliamentary Pension for the rest of his life. Sometimes I am, but with Chris, I’m not.

    +1

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    “Not sure what purpose debate would serve in this instance as anyone who waffles on about marriage being between a man and a women is obviously a moron. Marriage is a human invention so using a made up definition to justify that definition is ridiculously stupid.”

    And that is the depth of liberal argument in a nutshell. “Your stupid”. Brilliant. But wrong. I have not used a “made up definition”. You have. You have merely pulled one out of thin air, out of liberal ideology. Mine has the legitimacy of two thousand years of tradition and practice in the West. Yours has……what exactly? No, it is stupid and moronic to pull entirely new definitions of marriage out of thin air and then claim that they alone have legitimacy. THATS a moronic argument.

    The point is that your claim that marriage is an invention is YOUR religious view. Your view has no more democratic legitimacy than mine. You still trying to frame the debate to suit yourself.

    “Lee01 – exactly what am I shoving down your throat? If you are a social conservative I am merely criticizing your beliefs.”

    You haveent criticized them at all. You have in fact offered no argument against them other than “your stupid”. You have not offered anything other than kindergarten level name calling.

    And by arguing for and supporting the secular liberal state you ARE shoving your religion down my throat.

    “But let me ask you: what if the parents were neo-Nazi’s and wanted to teach their children that the Jews should be thrown in the oven?”

    Which is a rediculous comparison. But typical of liberal argumentation. Find the most extreme example and say “look bad things will happen unless liberalism is enforced by the state!”.

    The point is these foster parents were NOT neo-Nazis. They were Christians teaching the children in their care what Christian have always believed. And Western civilisation, the civilisation WE live in, is Christian at its core and in its foundations. People like you have no right to come along, envent entitrely new moralities that are alien to our culture, and have the state enforce them. Once again your shoving YOUR religion, one that has no traditonal legitimacy, down other peoples throats and happily destroying other peoples lives to do it.

    “Children are born homosexual.

    There is NO evidence to support this. The scientific community has not been able either to prove it, or to come to any consensus about it. Again, thats just your “faith”.

    “Opposition to homosexuality on the other hand is prejudiced because it is (usually) based on aspects of homosexuals which may or may not be true”

    Support for the normalisation and enforcement of homosexuality is prejudiced because it is (usually) based on a view of homosexuality which may or may not be true.

    As to the protecion of peoples “rights”, again, WHO’S opinion as to what are “rights” should be enforced?

    This is the problem with your whole line of argument above. You dishonestly pretend that your views are reason based, rather than the faith opinions they are, and then attack others for THIER faith views.

    Again, you have not made your argument, but only proved that you think your faith-view should be supported by the state. Fair anough. But be honest about that and stop applying hypocritical double standards to social conservatives.

    Finally, I will make one claim. Two thousand years of Western Traditon has more legitimacy than the the very recent invention of liberalism. Western civlisation IS Christian civilisation. Your secular liberalism is a very recent abberation that has no legitimacy, and so must be imposed and enforced by the most totalitarian state in human history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    “And that is the depth of liberal argument in a nutshell. “Your stupid”. Brilliant. But wrong.

    ————————–

    I think you mean “You ARE stupid”. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    I have not used a “made up definition” [of marriage]. You have. You have merely pulled one out of thin air, out of liberal ideology. Mine has the legitimacy of two thousand years of tradition and practice in the West. Yours has……what exactly?

    ————————————-

    Two thousand years of use, or two million years of use for that matter, does not change the fact that marriage is a human invention and any definition is inherently “made up”.

    Further, that a practice continues for a long time does not mean it is justified. Slavery has been practised for thousands of years. Is that justified on the basis of tradition? Tradition is a stupid argument for why something is justified.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    “You haveent criticized [my social conservatism] at all. You have in fact offered no argument against them other than “your stupid”. You have not offered anything other than kindergarten level name calling.

    And by arguing for and supporting the secular liberal state you ARE shoving your religion down my throat.”

    —————————————-

    Well that’s rather dishonest Lee01. Clearly you raised several examples of things you didn’t like and I responded to them. Some points I agreed with and others I didn’t and for those I didn’t agree with I offered you reasons why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    “But let me ask you: what if the parents were neo-Nazi’s and wanted to teach their children that the Jews should be thrown in the oven?”

    Which is a rediculous comparison. But typical of liberal argumentation. Find the most extreme example and say “look bad things will happen unless liberalism is enforced by the state!”.

    The point is these foster parents were NOT neo-Nazis. They were Christians teaching the children in their care what Christian have always believed. And Western civilisation, the civilisation WE live in, is Christian at its core and in its foundations. People like you have no right to come along, envent entitrely new moralities that are alien to our culture, and have the state enforce them. Once again your shoving YOUR religion, one that has no traditonal legitimacy, down other peoples throats and happily destroying other peoples lives to do it.

    ————————————–

    I didn’t say the parents were neo-Nazis. I used neo-Nazi’s as an example to demonstrate that there is a line of acceptability. Obviously you think anti-homosexual bigotry is within the bounds of acceptability whereas I do not.

    Moreover, it’s laughable how you claim I am forcing something down your throat while you label our civilization “Christian” despite the fact that large portions of the population are not in fact Christian. It is a classic example of how Christian’s believe they have an inherent right to push their religion on others because it’s “our” culture and “our” values. No it isn’t. It’s YOUR culture and YOUR values. Keep them to yourself.

    The state should have no religion. This does not mean it endorses atheism. The state should have no opinion on the matter. But again, this doesn’t mean it cannot regulate against some religious (or non-religious) practices. Religion is not an excuse for unacceptable behaviour. Teaching children anti-homosexual bigotry is harmful and Christianity is no excuse for it, at least as far as foster children are concerned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    “Children are born homosexual.

    There is NO evidence to support this. The scientific community has not been able either to prove it, or to come to any consensus about it. Again, thats just your “faith”.

    ——————————————————

    It is not faith Lee01, I know this from experience. Unlike you I live in the real world and have grown up alongside people who are homosexual and indeed I know a considerable number of people who are gay. These people probably don’t associate with you because you are prejudiced and hateful and not very understanding.

    Moreover your assertions about the science are false. The science cannot conclusively demonstrate any single cause, but that does not imply that sexual orientation is a choice. It simply means that several factors influence a person’s development.

    “Human sexual orientation most likely exists as a continuum from solely heterosexual to solely homosexual. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association reclassified homosexuality as a sexual orientation or expression and not a mental disorder.12 The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.8,11″

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/1827.full?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=%2522Sexual+orientation+and+adolescents%2522&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

    “The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation (Bell, Weinberg & Hammersmith, 1981; Bullough, 1976; Ford & Beach 1951 ; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953 ). Homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder (APA, 1975). Since 1974, the American Psychological Association (APA) has opposed stigma, prejudice, discrimination, and violence on the basis of sexual orientation and has taken a leadership role in supporting the equal rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals (APA, 2005).”

    http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    As to the protecion of peoples “rights”, again, WHO’S opinion as to what are “rights” should be enforced?

    ——————————————

    That’s why we live in a democracy Lee01. No one has said you, as a social conservative, can’t participate in this process. That’s just your paranoia talking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    Finally, I will make one claim. Two thousand years of Western Traditon has more legitimacy than the the very recent invention of liberalism. Western civlisation IS Christian civilisation. Your secular liberalism is a very recent abberation that has no legitimacy, and so must be imposed and enforced by the most totalitarian state in human history.

    ————————————————

    For most of that 2000 years humans lived in conditions that are almost unimaginable for westerners today. Our modern prosperous technologically advanced society exists not because of Christianity, but IN SPITE OF Christianity. It exists because of people like Gallileo and Darwin. Moreover, people like John Locke, often cited as the father of liberalism, have been hugely influential in shaping politics especially the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence.

    Progress has been made where we have thrown off the chains of superstitious religion and embraced reason and tolerance. Your world view would have us sent back to the dark ages.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. KiwiGreg (3,278 comments) says:

    I admire you for trying Weihana even though you dont have a prayer of opening a closed mind.

    There is actually good scientific at least indications that homosexuality is indeed something you are born with (for example statistical predictability when one has a lot of older brothers). But anyone who has spent any time with gay folk couldn’t be under any illusion that this is something they simply chose to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Well that’s rather dishonest Lee01. Clearly you raised several examples of things you didn’t like and I responded to them. Some points I agreed with and others I didn’t and for those I didn’t agree with I offered you reasons why.”

    Not really. You did not offer any real reasons at all.

    “Moreover, it’s laughable how you claim I am forcing something down your throat while you label our civilization “Christian” despite the fact that large portions of the population are not in fact Christian.”

    Large portions of the population are, and despite 60 years or so of secular liberalism (a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the previous era) conservative and traditonal Christianity is growing fast. More importantly, the assumptions and foundations of that civilisation are certainly Christian. Hell even Phil Goff recognises this.

    “The state should have no religion.”

    ALL states are religious. The myth if nuetrality is exactly that, a myth. Our current state is based on the religion of secular humanism. You cannot have a non-religous state because EVERY single human philosophy that you base any state on is essentially a religous view.

    “Religion is not an excuse for unacceptable behaviour.”

    Secular fundamentalism and sexual perversion are not an excuses for unacceptable behaviour.

    “Teaching children anti-homosexual bigotry is harmful ”

    No, teaching children pro-homosexual propaganda is harmful.

    “It is not faith Lee01, I know this from experience.”

    Experiance cannot prove your claim. It can only suggest that some people MAY have tendency towards certain kinds of attachment disorder or behaviour. Thats far away from proving that “children are born homosexual”. The interpretation of your experiance is where your faith comes into it.

    “Unlike you I live in the real world”

    We both live in the same world. I have known many people who either struggled with homosexual feelings or considered themselves such, some of whom were and are personal friends. And I know from their experiance that the claim of a fixed, unalterable homosexual identity is false.

    “Obviously you think anti-homosexual bigotry is within the bounds of acceptability whereas I do not.”

    No, I think opposition to the normalisation of homosexuality is acceptable and anti-Christian bigotry is wrong.

    “The science cannot conclusively demonstrate any single cause”

    EXACTLY.

    “but that does not imply that sexual orientation is a choice. It simply means that several factors influence a person’s development.”

    But in truth people are still free to act or not to act on their feelings. Some children are at a very early stage of development affected by sociopathic tendencies. That does not mean being a serial killer is therefore ok. There is strong evidence that pedophilia has roots in childhood too, and even some genetic factors.

    Your faith assumption here is that these factors make the normlisation and enforcement of homosexuality by the state right. They don’t. Thats opinion, not reason.

    :”Our modern prosperous technologically advanced society exists not because of Christianity, but IN SPITE OF Christianity.”

    Historically incorrect. Our technological society has its roots in Christianities affirmation that the world is a created order that reveals God and can therefore be studied and understood. Modern Western technology and economic success is in part the result of a combination of the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation.

    “It exists because of people like Gallileo and Darwin.”

    No, it exists because of Jesus Christ, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, the Benidictines, the Celtic monks and scribes who preseved ancient and classical literature, the Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, and literally millions of other Christians who made the West what it was at its best and what it still can be.

    “Progress has been made where we have thrown off the chains of superstitious religion and embraced reason and tolerance. Your world view would have us sent back to the dark ages.”

    Historical ignorance at its best. There were no “dark ages”. Christianity preserved Classical civilisation after the pagan barbarian invasions, and calling historical periods such as the High Middle Ages, the Rennasiance, the Reformation “dark” is ignorant secular fundamentalism. Progress has been made only due to Christianity. Liberalism has only given us the totalitarian state, massive crime rates and social violence, family breakdowns at an all time high, the industrial mass murder of children in the womb, loneliness and despair and teenage suicide as social cohesion is rent assunder, and vast numbers of our supposedly “progressive” society addicted to alcohol, drugs and anti-depressents

    Secular liberalism has failed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Refuting Weihana’s historical ignorance.

    Science’s Debt to Christianity:

    “Until the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was the leading sponsor of scientific research. Starting in the Middle Ages, it paid for priests, monks and friars to study at the universities. The church even insisted that science and mathematics should be a compulsory part of the syllabus. And after some debate, it accepted that Greek and Arabic natural philosophy were essential tools for defending the faith. By the seventeenth century, the Jesuit order had become the leading scientific organization in Europe, publishing thousands of papers and spreading new discoveries around the world. The cathedrals themselves were designed to double up as astronomical observatories to allow ever more accurate determination of the calendar. And of course, modern genetics was founded by a future abbot growing peas in the monastic garden.

    But religious support for science took deeper forms as well. It was only during the nineteenth century that science began to have any practical applications. Technology had ploughed its own furrow up until the 1830s when the German chemical industry started to employ their first PhDs. Before then, the only reason to study science was curiosity or religious piety. Christians believed that God created the universe and ordained the laws of nature. To study the natural world was to admire the work of God. This could be a religious duty and inspire science when there were few other reasons to bother with it.”

    http://jackhudson.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/science%E2%80%99s-debt-to-christianity/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    “There is actually good scientific at least indications that homosexuality is indeed something you are born with”

    Like the science is settled on the AGW scam. If the was good evidence that someone was born homosexual or bisexual why is there no agreement. There is some evidence that there may be some predisposition to homosexuality but that is a lot different than repeating the mantra everyone is born gay if that happens to be their sexual preference.

    You are trying to claim that everyone who disagrees with you has a closed mind and/or is a bigot and a homophobe to boot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “you dont have a prayer of opening a closed mind.”

    he should certainly pray for his own closed mind to be opened. Secualr liberal fundamnetalists like Weihana are the most intolerant and historically ignorant people I have ever met.

    Chuck,

    “You are trying to claim that everyone who disagrees with you has a closed mind and/or is a bigot and a homophobe to boot.”

    Exactly. As I was trying to point out to Weihana, he was indulging in dishonest liberal debate framing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    Thank the FSM that the heathens in the east had nothing to do with the progress of civilisation…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Thank the FSM that the heathens in the east had nothing to do with the progress of civilisation”

    We were talking specifically about the West, or perhaps more accurately, European civilisation. Oh and the “heathens” in the East are adopting Christianity at an astonoshing rate. There are more Presbyterians in South Korea than in Scotland.

    Hope for the world yet :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    There’s approximately 10 fold more people in Sth Korea than in Scotland, so yes, I fully believe there’d be more presbyterians , including those that revere his noodly appendage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. David in Chch (523 comments) says:

    Lee01:
    One article providing one view does not refute the argument. So long as those “universities” taught the accepted view, it was fine. But the official view was still that the Sun orbited the Earth, and those calculations for the calendar were to refine that view. Unofficially, some could try to argue based on the observational evidence, but officially Galileo was still required to officially accept the Earth-centred universe.

    Try reading Passionate Minds, about Voltaire and his lover in 18th century France. You might find there is a different view of France and the Catholic Church, and far from supportive of science, it was only if it followed an accepted centralised line.

    And science was advanced by Chinese civilisation, then the Islamic empires, then … and so on and so forth. Each in turn until for their own purposes or own needs, the powers in charge suppressed new findings because their powers would be undermined. Science has rarely been supported by religion, because science, when carried out properly and dispassionately, undermined the more extreme and outrageous of the claims made by many religious leaders. For example, that the Sun orbited the Earth.

    And I would suggest that our current civilisation owes more to the Romans and the Greeks, as rediscovered in the Enlightenment, than it does to the Church. However, that is a discussion that could be had with someone if they had less of a clear and obvious commitment to the Church view. So I am not expecting much.
    ;) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    “The state should have no religion.”

    ALL states are religious. The myth if nuetrality is exactly that, a myth. Our current state is based on the religion of secular humanism. You cannot have a non-religous state because EVERY single human philosophy that you base any state on is essentially a religous view.

    ———————————————-

    Philosophy and religion are not the same thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    “Teaching children anti-homosexual bigotry is harmful ”

    No, teaching children pro-homosexual propaganda is harmful.

    ———————–

    “There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. However, the experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others, such as employers, means that some LGB people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health and substance misuse problems. Although there have been claims by conservative political groups in the USA that this higher prevalence of mental health difficulties is confirmation that homosexuality is itself a mental disorder, there is no evidence whatever to substantiate such a claim.”

    – The Royal College of Psychiatrists

    http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    But in truth people are still free to act or not to act on their feelings. Some children are at a very early stage of development affected by sociopathic tendencies. That does not mean being a serial killer is therefore ok. There is strong evidence that pedophilia has roots in childhood too, and even some genetic factors.

    ————————————————

    This is a very good point you make Lee01. I actually agree that paedophilia is likely to have biological and genetic roots. Similarly I believe sociopathic tendencies have biological and genetic roots.

    You are absolutely correct that being born a certain way doesn’t mean the behaviour one is predisposed to is justified. Hence why I’ve never understood why it was such a big deal whether homosexuals were born gay or not because that, to me, doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not the behaviour is acceptable.

    What distinguishes homosexuality from paedophilia, however, is that one is consensual activity between adults. The other is the exploitation of a minor. It is on that basis that one type of behaviour is acceptable while the other isn’t.

    Of course there is no reason for you to be against homosexuality other than your desire to ram your religion down the throats of people who just want to get on with their lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    David in Chch,

    “One article providing one view does not refute the argument”

    No, but it does begin the process.

    “Try reading Passionate Minds, about Voltaire and his lover in 18th century France. You might find there is a different view of France and the Catholic Church, and far from supportive of science, it was only if it followed an accepted centralised line.”

    Then nothing has changed. Science is currently bound to a rigid naturalism that persecutes those who disagree. Science ois not free, it is still bound to dictates of the age and the powers that be.

    “outrageous of the claims made by many religious leaders. For example, that the Sun orbited the Earth.”

    Contrary to popular myth this was not a universally held view, and it had little to do with Christianity (also contrary to popular myth it is not a Biblical teaching) and a great deal more to do the the Roman Church’s insistence on an Aristotelian philosophical frame work.

    “And I would suggest that our current civilisation owes more to the Romans and the Greeks”

    The same Roman who became Christians and the same Greek philosphy that was foundational to the theology of the Church Father’s? Remember the New Testament was written in Greek.

    The fact is that the West was created from many threads, but bound together by Christianity. take away that binding, and the rest unravels, as we are seeing.

    Weihana,

    “Philosophy and religion are not the same thing.”

    They are closely tied together. But a worldview is a worldview and all worldviews are essentially religious. They are faith commitments, and that includes seculay-humanist liberalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Of course there is no reason for you to be against homosexuality other than your desire to ram your religion down the throats of people who just want to get on with their lives.”

    Incorrect. I am against it because I believe to be wrong. There is no reason for you to promote it other than your desire to ram secular liberal notions of right and wrong down the throats of Christians who simply want to practice their faith without fear of the liberal state criminilising them.

    “The Royal College of Psychiatrists”

    And how many members of the College just happen to be secular liberals I wonder?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    David in Chch (390) Says:
    September 7th, 2011 at 4:16 pm

    “And science was advanced by Chinese civilisation, then the Islamic empires, then … and so on and so forth. Each in turn until for their own purposes or own needs, the powers in charge suppressed new findings because their powers would be undermined. ”

    Well said.

    It is clear that Lee01 has absolutely no idea what science is. According to his view science is the process of confirming what the Bible tells us. Moronic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    “The Royal College of Psychiatrists”

    And how many members of the College just happen to be secular liberals I wonder?

    —————

    They’re psychiatrists you ninny. Note how you reject anything that conflicts with your prejudice. This is exactly why religion hinders the progress of science because you’re not interested in finding the truth you’re interested in confirming what you already believe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. KiwiGreg (3,278 comments) says:

    “Incorrect. I am against it [homosexuality] because I believe to be wrong. ”

    And yet homosexuals and homosexuality (both of which have been around as long as people as far as I can see) do you absolutely no harm at all. You’re against something you dont have to participate it, agree with, or do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “It is clear that Lee01 has absolutely no idea what science is.”

    Evidence? It IS clear you are ignorant of Western history.

    “According to his view science is the process of confirming what the Bible tells us.”

    So me where I have said that. Source please.

    “Moronic.”

    So you admit that you have lost the argument and are reduced to name calling again. Pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Chuckbird,

    Like the science is settled on the AGW scam. If the was good evidence that someone was born homosexual or bisexual why is there no agreement. There is some evidence that there may be some predisposition to homosexuality but that is a lot different than repeating the mantra everyone is born gay if that happens to be their sexual preference.

    You are trying to claim that everyone who disagrees with you has a closed mind and/or is a bigot and a homophobe to boot.

    ———————–

    The truth of a proposition does not depend on whether or not people agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    KwiwGreg,

    “And yet homosexuals and homosexuality (both of which have been around as long as people as far as I can see) do you absolutely no harm at all.”

    If you look further above I made a post showing that the gay rights movement DOES do harm to Christian freedom.

    Weihana,

    “They’re psychiatrists you ninny.”

    They are also human beings prone to prejudice and preconcieved assumptions based on their worldview.

    “Note how you reject anything that conflicts with your prejudice.”

    No, I reject anything that is clearly from a liberal biased source.

    “This is exactly why religion hinders the progress of science because you’re not interested in finding the truth you’re interested in confirming what you already believe.”

    Incorrect. I became a Christian because I AM interested in finding the truth. I used to be an atheist. I, unlike you, was willing to challenge my preconceptions and my worldview. You should try that sometime.

    In this argument, you are the mindless fundamentalist.

    “The truth of a proposition does not depend on whether or not people agree.”

    It does not depend on secular liberal political fashions either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    “According to his view science is the process of confirming what the Bible tells us.”

    So me where I have said that. Source please.

    ————————————-

    “Christians believed that God created the universe and ordained the laws of nature. To study the natural world was to admire the work of God”

    A rational scientist would say they do not know what created the universe, or if indeed it was “created”. You have clearly constrained science by presupposing what the truth is (i.e. that God created the universe). This is why religion persecuted people like Gallileo who argued that the Earth revolved around the Sun, or people like Darwin who argued that man evolved from other animals. These views, which have been confirmed by science, conflict with traditional views about our origins and that is why religion is a hinderance to science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    “No, I reject anything that is clearly from a liberal biased source.”

    —————————

    And anything that conflicts with your prejudice MUST be from a “liberal biased source”. You’re nuts. It’s impossible to reason with you. You’re like a conspiracy nut who believes 9/11 was an inside job, or the moon landing was a hoax. You see only that which supports your view and reject anything that contradicts your view.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    From Wiki

    “The Royal College of Psychiatrists is the main professional organisation of psychiatrists in the United Kingdom responsible for representing psychiatrists, psychiatric research and providing public information about mental health problems. The college provides advice to those responsible for training and certifying psychiatrists in the UK.”

    Liberal bias indeed. Those damn liberals!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    Your source is does not say what you claim. Nowhere did I say that science is there to confirm what the Bible says. The quote you repeat merely says that science exists in part because of a Christian worldview. Epic fail. Try again

    So far you have been reduced to misquoting and name-calling. Are you sure your not out of your depth here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    From Wikipedia

    “The Royal College of Psychiatrists is the main professional organisation of psychiatrists in the United Kingdom responsible for representing psychiatrists, psychiatric research and providing public information about mental health problems. The college provides advice to those responsible for training and certifying psychiatrists in the UK.”

    Liberal bias indeed. Those damn liberals!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “And anything that conflicts with your prejudice MUST be from a “liberal biased source”.”

    And anything that conflicts with yours?

    I never said it MUST be, I said that often they are.

    “You’re nuts.”

    Then why am I currently running rings around you?

    “It’s impossible to reason with you.”

    I have been the one reasoning in this argument. So far much, not all, but much of your argument has been little more than anti-Christian bigotry, historical ignorance, and name calling.

    “You see only that which supports your view and reject anything that contradicts your view.”

    If you exercised some self-honesty and a little integrity, you would admit that that is exactly what you have done throughout this debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    What the quote shows is that you put constraints on science by presupposing what the outcome will be. That you fail to appreciate this does not show an “epic fail” on my part, but merely your inability to understand what science is. As soon as you presume what the outcome has to be you are not engaging in science and you are constraining scientific advances in understanding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. big bruv (14,218 comments) says:

    Oh good…another bible basher trying to force his way of life upon the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    “Then why am I currently running rings around you?”

    That’s about as self-congratulatory as Carter’s valedictory speech. lol

    Try and let others provide the praise. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “What the quote shows is that you put constraints on science by presupposing what the outcome will be”

    No it doesnt. The quote says that Western science, in large part, is a result of a Christian worldview.

    On the other hand, secular fundamentalists like yourself hinder science by insisting that its methodology and and outcomes are constrained by naturalistic and secular pressupositions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    If you exercised some self-honesty and a little integrity, you would admit that that is exactly what you have done throughout this debate.

    —————-

    No I have provided reasons supported by evidence. You have simply asserted things to be the case in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and the opinion of the scientific community.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    But Weihana, clearly I AM running rings around you. I am not praising myself, just stating the fact that you have repeatedly proven my original point that you are basing your notion of “rights” and your notion of right and wrong on a secular-humanist liberal religious view and shoving that view down other peoples throats. At every turn in this debate you have confirmed that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    On the other hand, secular fundamentalists like yourself hinder science by insisting that its methodology and and outcomes are constrained by naturalistic and secular pressupositions.

    ————————

    What you propose instead? Prayer as a means to scientific inquiry? lmao.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “No I have provided reasons supported by evidence.”

    No, you havent. You have provided propaganda. All the evidence you cite simply says that some people MAY be pre-disposed to homosexual attrctions. Thats it. That does not prove the rest of your argument.

    “You have simply asserted things to be the case in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and the opinion of the scientific community.”

    Nowhere does the scietific community provide evidence that

    A: People are born gay

    B: Gay rights trump the rights of Christians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “What you propose instead? Prayer as a means to scientific inquiry”

    No. I propose science be truly and fully open to any possibility, including those that do not fit a narrow secular agenda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. big bruv (14,218 comments) says:

    “No, you havent (sic). You have provided propaganda.”

    Ha ha, not that Religion is entirely based on superstition and propaganda though aye Lee.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    It is these two claims that you made that I am responding to.

    A: People are born gay

    B: Gay rights trump the rights of Christians.

    Nowhere have you provided anything other than “I’m right and your stupid” arguments. EPIC, EPIC FAIL.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “not that Religion is entirely based on superstition and propaganda though aye Lee”

    Which religion are you talking about? Christianity? Taoism? Islam? Secular Humanism? Liberalism? Gay Rights?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Human Rights As They Are. Sun, 02/15/2004 – 5:29pm — Jim Kalb

    “At present there are practical limits to the effects of human rights theory. However, it is in principle an absolutist ideology that enjoys the support of elites worldwide. In order to safeguard its beneficial aspects, principled limitations are necessary to make it consistent with tradition and subsidiarity.

    What is to be done about human rights? Do the dangers of bigotry, racism and political oppression make necessary a worldwide liberal regime backed by economic sanctions, bombs, and the kidnapping of malefactors? Or does the difficulty of limiting such a regime and making it answerable to anyone mean it would be better not to talk of human rights at all?

    Some conception of universal human rights seems unavoidable today. Modern developments have shortened distances and enhanced human power, forcing peoples together and making possible acts of extreme inhumanity on an unprecedented scale. Such a situation motivates moral agreement but also limits its possible scope. A natural response would be acceptance of a few clear principles that foreclose serious large-scale abuses and can be affirmed from as many moral, cultural and religious perspectives as possible. The human rights movement claims to stand for such a response, and many of the things it proclaims as universal rights, such as proscription of torture, extra-judicial killings and slavery, fit the bill.

    In the most proper sense, therefore, universal human rights are straightforward principles that protect the weak against gross abuses. When Amnesty International talks of human rights violations they usually have such things in mind. However, what are now called human rights go far beyond any universal consensus on minimum standards. As institutionalized, “human rights” are the standards and procedures promoted by the human rights movement and set forth in treaties, proclamations, national legal enactments and so on. They include a variety of demands regarding the goals government should pursue, and often the detailed manner of pursuing them. Such things have have become increasingly removed from popular understandings and often involve comprehensive government control of social relations and economic life.

    “Rights inflation” has expanded the concept of rights so far beyond its proper place that it has become destructive. Properly speaking, human rights are fundamental principles all governments must follow to which we are entitled simply as human beings. As such, they are peremptory and categorical. To call a claim a right means it should supersede considerations of law, policy, custom, and choice. Such claims are normally determined by jurists and other experts and legally enforceable at the instance of injured parties. They stop discussion and demand immediate action by an elite entitled to command. Institutionalized human rights thus put uncontrollable power in very few hands. To broaden and universalize them extends and centralizes that power.

    Current standards of human rights propose far-reaching changes in the practices and the religious and moral standards of all societies. Some of the changes are quite damaging. The experience of socialist societies demonstrates that many things proposed as economic, social and cultural rights defeat their own purposes when serious attempts are made to enforce them. Many claimed rights relating to sex and gender are at odds with all traditional understandings of the family, and in the end with the stable and orderly private life upon which concrete human dignity and freedom depend. The demand for religious tolerance and equality has ended by driving religion out of public life and establishing an intolerant secularism as the effective state religion. And the crusade against discrimination, which has become the moral centerpiece of the human rights movement, leads to pervasive attempts to control attitudes that soon become tyrannical and end by breaking down all social authorities not based on money or formal state power.

    The increasing reach of human rights doctrine destroys self-government. Rights proposed at international conferences, adopted by diplomats and ratified by lawmakers overly impressed by “international standards” become enforceable by a judiciary with broad powers of interpretation, by donor countries who threaten withdrawal of aid and other sanctions, and at times by direct use of force. The destruction of self-government is especially severe if human rights are taken to include general social aspirations. Aspirations require flexibility, since they conflict and it is impossible to settle once and for all how they are to be pursued and reconciled. Treating them as rights forecloses that flexibility and transfers political discretion to bureaucrats and judges. Those entitled to determine what “human rights” require become the rulers.

    What makes “human rights” imperialistic is the attempt to establish a single all-embracing set of moral principles for the whole world. A community of nations will inevitably develop common habits and expectations relating to government and social life. However, in a worldwide community differences in outlook make comprehensive common principles impossible. Rather than accepting that moral differences limit the degree of community that is possible, and finding practical ways—such as mutual noninterference—to deal with differences, the human rights movement has attempted to make up for the absence of common moral commitments through expansive interpretations of the few principles that are available. “One world” notions have led to attempts to draw a complete system of public morality out of the abstract rights of human beings as such.

    Current understandings of human rights are in fact based on contemporary liberalism, a narrow and dogmatic outlook that attempts to derive all social morality from a specific—and in the end self-destructive—conception of freedom and equality. Liberal human rights claim to represent a consensus among existing moral views while in fact subverting them and substituting a single rigid ideology. While they claim to be based on a few neutral principles that are consistent with a broad range of moral and social systems, the effect of their “neutrality” is to treat distinctions of value as a matter of personal taste and thus not moral at all. The consequence is that their “tolerance” ends by suppressing as intolerant all moral views other than liberalism itself. The liberal principle of non-discrimination expands until it only permits public expression of liberalism, because all other outlooks make distinctions liberalism does not recognize and therefore forbids as discriminatory.

    Liberal human rights strive for universality by basing public morality—and therefore all morality, since all morality has public implications—on the dignity of man simply as an abstract being with desires and the capacity to form plans for the future. They conceive of freedom as the right to pursue and attain one’s preferences, whatever they may be, and equality as the equal claim of all preferences to fulfillment. Such a conception cannot be made the sole basis of a moral system. Man is never simply an abstract agent with preferences, but always a particular individual and member of a particular society with a relationship to goals that go beyond his private desires. He is defined in part by the universal human qualities and personal goals that liberalism recognizes, but also by membership in specific social groupings and by understandings of good and evil that transcend human purposes.

    To ignore both man’s concrete particularity and his orientation to what transcends him is to falsify him. The result of doing so is a Procrustean system that ignores the nature of those to whom it applies. The requirement that we be treated simply as abstract agents pursuing essentially private goals leads to the peremptory demand that aspects of social identity—religion, ethnicity, class and gender—that put us in a definite place and connect us to concerns that transcend us be deprived of significance. Such an attack on particularistic aspects of social identity is an attack on the form in which human life has always existed. It is destructive, because the connections and loyalties to be destroyed are basic to human life, and because it calls for a degree of centralized control that soon becomes tyrannical.

    Human rights violations are far more likely to result from attempts to transform human nature than willingness to accept it. To insist on radical equality with regard to traditional distinctions such as religion, ethnicity, class and sex deprives man of the particular qualities that give him a concrete place in the world, a specific viewpoint, and a set of alliances and interests that go beyond purely individual concerns. It abolishes the significance of traditional institutions like family and local community that give enduring moral substance to a man’s life and thereby give meaning to whatever autonomy he has. It eliminates the stable network of personal connections needed for enduring loyalties and even culture to exist, and so leads to cynicism, self-centeredness and brutishness. It isolates man and make him powerless, with his liberty and dignity wholly dependent on bureaucratic and financial institutions and so more at risk than ever.

    Morality depends on what man is. Since he is not only an abstract desiring agent, liberal human rights have no automatic superiority to other moral considerations. They acquire legitimate influence only as other moral considerations do, though gradual and unforced accretions to settled habits and understandings. They can not be treated as ultimate standards. Radical egalitarianism can only substitute one form of inequality for another, because he who defines and enforces equality is never equal to his fellows. And freedom must exist within limitations that protect both it and things worth choosing.

    The present human rights movement rejects such a limited understanding of itself and demands a logical perfection that would radically transform human existence. In its uncompromising attitude it resembles its arch-enemies Nazism and Communism. Like them, it attempts to construct a world on a single narrow foundation and destroy everything that reflects a different spirit. Where Communism attempted to destroy material self-interest, and Nazism ethnic disunity, the human rights movement proposes to eradicate the aspects of human life that give it particularity and concreteness.

    That project has not yet led to catastrophe on the same scale as the other two. Nonetheless, oppression in the name of equality and tolerance is no less a danger than hatred in the name of love or tyranny in the name of justice. As now institutionalized, “human rights” are religiously and culturally intolerant in a peculiarly radical way. By their rejection of particularism and unbalanced assertion of the sole authority of individual desire and formal procedures they have become intolerant of religion and culture as such, and thus of human nature itself. Their claim to protect diversity masks a dangerous demand for absolute uniformity in all things that matter. In the past century the demand for unity and attempt to reconstruct human nature gave rise to unprecedented tyranny. The human rights movement repeats that mistake.

    At present the worldwide effects of human rights theory are mitigated by difficulties of enforcement, but that is changing. In the long run fundamental principles are important, especially when they correspond to strong institutional forces. Modern political institutions, as centers of power not subject to any standards but their own, tend toward despotism. Human rights ideology promotes that tendency by promoting the abstract universal rationalism such institutions embody and weakening all local, particular, and traditional authorities that might resist and limit them.

    Contemporary human rights thought has deep affinities to the forms power takes today. Both deny moral order to the universe while insisting on their own universal validity. Both justify the superior position they give themselves by appeal to the supposed need to rely on formal institutions and procedures because of the weakness of existing moral agreement. Both combine formal freedom and equality with comprehensive central control, and both enable careerist elites to indulge themselves personally while imposing their rule in the name of universal principles that no-one is allowed to question. Those who might be expected to point out the dangers of the present situation—writers, scholars and journalists—fail to do so because they themselves belong to the class that created and benefits by it.

    Ordinary common sense cannot act as a corrective within current human rights thought because common sense cannot be disentangled from the inarticulate social expectations—the “stereotypes”—it decisively rejects. Nor does human rights thought accept popular rule as a limitation. Since popular views cannot be relied on to be ideologically correct, the human rights movement, like Nazism and Communism, has an innate bias toward rule by a small elite answerable only to itself. It is characteristic that those who favor “human rights” favor transfer of power to unelected officials, and that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights repeatedly exempts implementation of its goals from its own strictures.

    To minimize the dangers they pose, human rights principles must be subjected to restraints. First, their international enforceability must be limited. Centrally defined and enforced human rights are self-defeating. A world government could commit atrocities like any other, and there are good reasons to think it more likely to do so than parochial jurisdictions. After all, as a global regime it would be subject to no external controls, and its size and the extreme diversity of its people would make public answerability out of the question.

    Secondly, human rights principles must be limited by human moral experience in general. They must be made consistent with the ways of life men have found enduringly good. Since it is not possible to create a tolerable way of life out of whole cloth, standards of human rights must be capable of affirmation from within the variety of religious, moral and cultural perspectives that are the primary objects of allegiance for those asked to support them. Only such broad support can enable human rights standards to avoid intolerant dogmatism and find support in moral experience as a whole.

    Standards of human rights must therefore give freer play to traditional particularities. Man is neither the rational self-interested individual of liberal theory nor the collective economic being of socialism. He is a social animal who finds his good in human society, and participates in that good through cultural practices and symbols that foster loyalty and connect everyday affairs with the order of the world. When such things lose authority, those who rely on them in social relations and in understanding the meaning of their lives are plunged into confusion and misery. Since cultures differ, human rights theory must accept the differing understandings and practices that give them public validity. And since culture acquires its force by defining for us who we are, human rights must accept that cultural status—ethnicity, class, gender and the like—can legitimately affect position in the world.

    The human rights movement must therefore abandon any notion of creating a new universal moral order of radical freedom and equality. And since the world comprises more than a single public moral order, it must recognize that boundaries between differing societies with differing histories and moral understandings are necessary, and that insistence on “inclusiveness”—comprehensive enforced unity—must be abandoned.

    The flaws of the current understanding of human rights are most obvious in its recent manifestations, but they go back to the beginnings of the movement for universal human rights in the years immediately following the Second World War. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, while accepting some limitations, pointed the way toward subsequent overreaching. It was drafted with the participation of the Soviet Union, mainly by recent allies of that regime, and it shows signs of its origin. There is nothing holy about it, and the fundamentalism that applies international documents with a lawyer’s mentality to basic issues of social relations must be rejected.

    Without a return to basic principles “human rights” as an institution is likely to become more and more a vehicle for overreaching by well-placed ideological and imperial elites and thus defeat its proper purposes. Those purposes are too important to give up, so the tradition of human rights requires radical reinterpretation to save what is valuable in it. There have been many who have explained how various cultures and world religions can be reinterpreted to support human rights. It is far more important to explain how human rights, properly interpreted, can become consistent with cultures and world religions. That is the task that now lies before us.”

    http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/39

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    Nowhere have I advocated that gay rights “trump” Christian rights. There is no conflict between gays and Christians who simply mind their own business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    Also science is open to any possibility. But theories have to be TESTABLE.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    Also from Wiki,

    “Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.”

    So no, not all worldviews are religious and they aren’t all faith based.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    I only strongly disagree with Lee on one thing. That is that this is a religious issue. It clearly is not at least not totally. There are many Christians who support so called gay rights. There are also agnostics like me who see the harm done by the promotion of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle.

    I have a couple of questions for the champions of the homosexual lifestyle.

    Firstly, would the number HIV cases go up if there were twice as many homosexuals and bisexuals in the populations?

    Secondly, would the number HIV cases go down if there were half as many homosexuals and bisexuals in the populations?

    There are of course other issues related to homosexuality than HIV and other STDs but this issues is pretty straight forward.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird,

    Perhaps you could ask the question “Would crime go up if there were twice as many Maori in the population?”

    What you clearly fail to appreciate is that statistics on STDs do not justify anti-homosexual bigotry any more than crime statistics justify racist bigotry. This is largely a cultural phenomenon that has nothing intrinsically to do with homosexual intercourse. Indeed in many countries HIV infection is primarily a heterosexual phenomenon.

    The homosexual community is well aware that unsafe sexual practices are harmful and contributing to the over-representation of homosexuals in statistics on HIV infection. Your bigotry and intolerance is not helpful at addressing this problem. Indeed to quote the Royal College of Psychiatrists:

    “…the experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others, such as employers, means that some LGB people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health and substance misuse problems.”

    As you can probably imagine mental health issues and substance abuse increases the likelihood that such people will engage in unsafe sexual practices so instead of criticizing what you term the “homosexual lifestyle” perhaps you might consider how your attitudes help contribute to this cultural phenomenon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    Weihana, are you able to debate an issue without name calling. You think I am a homophobe and I think you are a homonazi. You think you can repeat an opinion as a fact often enough and it will be believed. Sadly it works quite often but I do not accept it.

    Race and sexual preference are two different things just as religion is.

    This is largely a cultural phenomenon that has nothing intrinsically to do with homosexual intercourse.

    Where is your reference for such nonsense?

    The homosexual community is well aware that unsafe sexual practices are harmful and contributing to the over-representation of homosexuals in statistics on HIV infection.

    If that is the case why do homosexuals not alter their behaviour and reduce their overrepresention in HIV statistics?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    Weihana – “This is largely a cultural phenomenon that has nothing intrinsically to do with homosexual intercourse.”

    Logic would suggest that male homosexuals who practice anal sex are more likely to contract the HIV virus, given that they are also more likely to be promiscuous and less cautious than other demographic sectors.

    Still, I agree that this isn’t grounds to try in vain to change their sexual orientation, and a more sensible approach would be to promote safe sex and monogamy.

    An accepted member of the wider community is also more likely to follow its ideals, rather than revert to a nefarious sub-culture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    Scott, the militant liberals pushing homosexual propaganda try falsely to attribute nonexistent motives for those who dare disagree with viewpoints that they insist are facts.

    The risk of HIV infection is more likely with anal intercourse because the virus can pass through the lining of the anus more easily than the vagina. This is a fact not an opinion. The government funded homosexual lobby group otherwise known as the NZ AIDS Foundation refuses to acknowledge that the high number of partners many homosexuals have is the main reason why they have such a high rate of HIV.

    If militant homosexual lobbyist stopped telling lies I would stop attacking these government funded propagandist. If homosexuals want to sodomise each that should be their right. Where I part company is the likes of Carter who has had a lot to do with having their lifestyle promoted to school children and with a lot of misinformation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    “Nowhere have I advocated that gay rights “trump” Christian rights. There is no conflict between gays and Christians who simply mind their own business.”

    Yes you have in your posts above. And as I pointed out it is “gays” who are not minding their own business, but seeking to impose their views through “human rights” legislation and hate speech laws. Conservative Christians are at least honest about their intentions, while homosexual advocates hide behind are facade of freedom while happily using the state to enforce ideological obediance. Moreover, you do not yourself believe in the principle of “mind your own business”, except when its suits you. You argued on another thread that the state should monitor every child in the nation. Exactly how is that “minding your own business”?

    “So no, not all worldviews are religious and they aren’t all faith based.”

    yes, they are. Philosophy is simply how you get to a worldview. The worldview itself is always a mixture of reason and faith.

    Chuck,

    “Weihana, are you able to debate an issue without name calling.”

    Apparently not. He also lies about what other people believe, trotting laughable cliches and bigoted prejudices about Christians. He thinks this is “ridiculing”, but its really just intellectual laziness and an inability to formulate a coherent and rational argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. mikenmild (12,390 comments) says:

    I think Weihana might be referring to HIV worldwide, in which case it has become a heterosexual problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    The Truth about the Gay “rights” lobby. This is what Weihana considers to be “minding your own business”

    Regerences to homosexuality to be inserted into school maths, geography, history and science:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1349951/Gayness-mandatory-schools-Gay-victims-prejudice-new-McCarthyites.html

    Swedish pastor sentenced to jail for blasting homosexuality.

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/augustweb-only/8-9-12.0.html

    Lessons about gays will be compulsory from age of 11

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1173919/Lessons-gays-compulsory-age-11.html

    California: Teaching Homosexual History Required by Law

    http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=8466.7172.0.0

    Christian beliefs DO lose out to gay rights: Judges’ ruling against devout foster couple

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361469/Christian-beliefs-DO-lose-gay-rights-Judges-ruling-devout-foster-couple-lose-case.html#ixzz1XKPmRxBj

    These cases are just the tip of the iceberg for anyone wantint to do the reasearch. People like Weihana who claim the gay rights movement is about freedom and tolerance are either lying or monumentally stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird – “Where I part company is the likes of Carter who has had a lot to do with having their lifestyle promoted to school children and with a lot of misinformation.”

    I agree that children should be protected from misinformation, but because there is so much of it out there, a simpler skill to teach them would be apolitical critical thought, so that pseudo-sciences such as astrology or homeopathy, for instance, could be analysed and debunked.

    But at the same time, it’s hard to promote the idea of acceptance of others’ cultures without appearing to condone or promote their alternative outlook, as is the case with homosexuality. As far as I know, you have to be born gay, not converted to it, so surely what they’re trying to promote in school isn’t homosexuality, but tolerance?

    Also, if homosexuality were more mainstream, perhaps their advocates would appear less radical.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. mikenmild (12,390 comments) says:

    Yeah Scott, but some people confuse tolerance of a belief or trait with promotion of that belief or trait.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    Mike – well I suppose the crux of the argument is whether or not gays are born that way or driven to it. If we could resolve that once and for all by discovering the gay gene, then we could put the argument to bed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird,

    I call things as I see it. You appear to show intolerance and prejudice towards homosexuals. I consider that bigotry.

    It is true that race and sexual preference are different things. But they are similar enough for the purposes of the analogy I made. Most homosexuals do not suck the dicks of random guys in the toilets of some nightclub just as most Maori’s are not patched members of criminal gangs. Yet you prejudice an entire group of people for the behaviour of a small minority.

    I do not require a reference for the assertion that unsafe sexual practices are a cultural phenomenon and not intrinsically related to homosexual intercourse. Simple logic suffices. The desire to put your dick in the anus of another man does not imply an aversion to condoms or an inability to limit the number of sexual partners you have. Such behaviour represents the attitudes of the person doing it and is not a consequence of their sexual orientation. The majority of homosexual couples, in my experience, practice safe sex in exclusive relationships, especially so where the relationship is between two women. Moreover, the fact that HIV infection is not over-represented in homosexuals in many third world nations proves that the two are not intrinsically related and depend on other factors such as culture.

    Furthermore, the homosexual community is not a homogenous group of people who all think and act the same. The fact that there is awareness about unsafe sexual practices does not mean that those who are aware can simply flick a light switch and command everyone else to behave in a certain way just as Pita Sharples can’t flick a light switch and banish child abuse from Maori communities.

    But what we can do is to stop being intolerant towards people simply for their sexual orientation. When our family members admit who they are we can be understanding rather than ostracizing them from their family and making them more likely to succumb to substance abuse and other unsafe activities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “But what we can do is to stop being intolerant towards people simply for their sexual orientation.”

    It’s not an “orientation”, its a behaviour.

    “When our family members admit who they are we can be understanding rather than ostracizing them from their family and making them more likely to succumb to substance abuse and other unsafe activities.”

    We can also be understanding and compassionate without having to accept that certain behaviours are legitimate. I have great compassion for drug addicts. That does not mean I have to accept drug addiction as a valid lifestyle choice.

    Real compassion and uncritical acceptance not only are not the same thing, they are often antithetical to each other. There is nothing compassionate about telling a heroin addict that his vice is perfectly normal and acceptable.

    And it certainly does not mean we have to accept the dictates of the gay rights lobby, which has all the tolerance of the Spanish inquisition.

    Thats all from me on this thread. I have an assignment due Monday.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Scott Chris,

    “Logic would suggest that male homosexuals who practice anal sex are more likely to contract the HIV virus, given that they are also more likely to be promiscuous and less cautious than other demographic sectors. ”

    Absolutely, but that is not something that is intrinsic to being a male homosexual. If anything it is related more to the fact that they are male rather than the fact that they are homosexual. But nevertheless it’s not an intrinsic aspect of being a homosexual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    # Scott Chris (827) Says:
    September 8th, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    Mike – well I suppose the crux of the argument is whether or not gays are born that way or driven to it. If we could resolve that once and for all by discovering the gay gene, then we could put the argument to bed.

    —————————–

    We already know that they are born that way. Failing to isolate a single cause does not mean we lack evidence to show that it has biological and genetic roots. The scientific consensus is that people do not choose to be gay and I have provided references on this already.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    I think Weihana might be referring to HIV worldwide, in which case it has become a heterosexual problem.

    The vast majority of HIV infections in NZ occur either through a homosexual or bisexual link or from overseas.

    To the beat of my knowledge not one married man became infected from his wife if she was born in NZ.

    I do not see how worldwide HIV statistic have any bearing on what measures should be taken in NZ to reduce the spread of HIV aside from screening immigrants including refugees.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    Weihana – “We already know that they are born that way.”

    Assumption? Fact? Liberal dogma? I suspect gays are born gay, but I don’t know for sure. Finding the gene would be the clincher for me. Unless you can enlighten me with some conclusive evidence you know of?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Lee01 – being sexually attracted to the same sex is not a vice. Just because it doesn’t conform with your book of superstitions does not make the activity immoral. It is consensual activity between two adults and homosexuals can live happy and fulfilled lives. Making them repress their natural desires will not help them, it will simply drive them to things like depression and drug use.

    Real compassion is helping people do what’s in their best interests. Helping a drug addict kick the addiction is being compassionate. Trying to convert homosexuals is not helping them, it’s helping you feel good about your religious dogma.

    Anyway, thanks Lee01 for your contribution. I don’t respect your ideas but I appreciate that you give them nonetheless. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Scott Chris –

    There is no gay gene as such. There are a variety of factors and sexual orientation is not a simple matter of one or the other. It is most likely a spectrum with completely heterosexual at one end and completely homosexual at the other. There is no conclusive evidence which explains the mechanisms for how one can attain a certain orientation. There is evidence of various factors that can contribute but no single explanation and I doubt there ever will be. But not fully understanding the biological mechanism does not mean that we do not know that it isn’t a choice.

    “Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.”

    – Royal College of Psychiatrists

    http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Scott Chris –

    Or how about you ask yourself – did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? I didn’t. But why aren’t we attracted to animals? or trees or random inanimate objects? Well, some people are ;). But why are we attracted to anything at all? It defies common sense that anyone chooses their fundamental sexual orientation.

    If sexual preference was truly a choice then statistically a person would have just as much chance as choosing the opposite sex as they would the same sex. Is this what the bigots are afraid of? That if we tolerate homosexuality then people are going to start choosing same sex relationships? How stupid can people be? I don’t care how much homosexuality is tolerated, I ain’t gonna start fantasizing about penis. Yuck!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    As far as I know, you have to be born gay, not converted to it, so surely what they’re trying to promote in school isn’t homosexuality, but tolerance?

    It does not matter how many times repeat their mantra it does not make it true. They are like the AGW alarmist. The science in not settled. Repeating a lie 1000 times does not make it true. If that was true how is it explained that some homosexuals decide to successfully change their sexual preference?

    It would appear that some people have a predisposition to homosexuality and their can be more of a environmental factor in a persons sexual preference. If you want to look a what a scientist has to say i would recommend “Mty Genes Made Me do it” by Neil and Briar Whitehead.

    http://www.mygenes.co.nz/MGMMDIInfo.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird,

    “I do not see how worldwide HIV statistic have any bearing on what measures should be taken in NZ to reduce the spread of HIV aside from screening immigrants including refugees.”

    Agreed. But what do you propose? Intolerance and prejudice does not help and all it achieves is to turn vulnerable people away from their families and pushes them towards unhealthy lifestyles such as drug use and prostitution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird,

    “If that was true how is it explained that some homosexuals decide to successfully change their sexual preference?”

    Because sexual behaviour and sexual preference are not the same thing.

    “This evidence shows that LGB people are open to seeking help for mental health problems. However, they may be misunderstood by therapists who regard their homosexuality as the root cause of any presenting problem such as depression or anxiety. Unfortunately, therapists who behave in this way are likely to cause considerable distress. A small minority of therapists will even go so far as to attempt to change their client’s sexual orientation. This can be deeply damaging. Although there is now a number of therapists and organisation in the USA and in the UK that claim that therapy can help homosexuals to become heterosexual, there is no evidence that such change is possible. The best evidence for efficacy of any treatment comes from randomised clinical trials and no such trial has been carried out in this field. There are however at least two studies that have followed up LGB people who have undergone therapy with the aim of becoming heterosexual. Neither attempted to assess the patients before receiving therapy and both relied on the subjective accounts of people, who were asked to volunteer by the therapy organisations themselves or who were recruited via the Internet. The first study claimed that change was possible for a small minority (13%) of LGB people, most of whom could be regarded as bisexual at the outset of therapy. The second showed little effect as well as considerable harm. Meanwhile, we know from historical evidence that treatments to change sexual orientation that were common in the 1960s and 1970s were very damaging to those patients who underwent them and affected no change in their sexual orientation.”

    – Royal College of Psychiatrists

    http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird,

    Interesting title for a book “My Genes Made Me Do It” which is obviously a variation on a common phrase used to excuse bad behaviour. Therefore, as we can already see the authors of this book believe the behaviour to be bad and thus requiring an excuse. I’m sure they’ll be very impartial (yeah right).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Mick Mac (1,091 comments) says:

    Is Homosexual sex as harmful as drug abuse, prostitution or smoking?

    http://narth.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Mick Mac (1,091 comments) says:

    http://narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html

    * Dr. Steve Simon (in an email correspondence) noted quite appropriately that heritability is a measure of the ratio of two variances and is not a simple proportion. A heritability index and a proportion are calculated on different scales. In this case, however, both the data from the heritability index and the proportion support the conclusion that homosexuality is not hardwired (or simply biologically fated). Though Dr. Collins offered a 20% concordance for monozygotic twins, it should be noted that this figure is the proband concordance. This is mathematically correct. However, Dr. Neil Whitehead offered a correct pairwise concordance of 11%. For the lay audience, it should be understood that different answers will emerge with different models. However, the conclusion is the same: current data provides little evidence to support the conclusion that homosexuality is hardwired.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Mick Mac (1,091 comments) says:

    Lee01 (396) Says:
    September 8th, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    I go with lying :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Mick Mac –

    The views of NARTH are not supported by any major mental health organization.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    Weihana – “There is no conclusive evidence which explains the mechanisms for how one can attain a certain orientation”

    I’m simply exploring the different possible explanations. If ones’ sexual orientation is triggered by environmental factors such as imprinting and role models, then there would be some validity to the arguments of those people who believe that homosexuality is a corruption of what is a normal biological process.

    If that is the case, then one could ask, “how should we design our children’s environment to achieve the best possible outcome for their overall happiness?”. Is being gay disadvantageous? I’d prefer my children to be heterosexual, because I believe that would be to their advantage in a bigoted world, not because of any latent bigotry in me, so if I were given a choice, I’d choose heterosexuality for them, just as I’d prefer them to do a science degree rather than fine arts. But if they are born artists, then I would encourage them to be the best artist they could be.

    “There is no gay gene as such”

    Perhaps you’ll review that assumption having watched Richard Dawkins expounding the theory of the gay gene:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    Weihana – “It defies common sense that anyone chooses their fundamental sexual orientation.”

    Quite right. To once again plagiarize Bill Shakespeare:

    “Some may be born gay, some may achieve gaiety and some may have gaiety thrust upon them”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Scott Chris,

    If that were the case then there could be an argument. But there is no evidence that that is the case and plenty of evidence that factors such as genetics and the early uterine environment are influential. Moreover there is no evidence to show that efforts to change sexual orientation are successful and there are indications that it can be harmful.

    Also I don’t dispute that genetics are influential in determining sexual orientation but I think it’s an oversimplification to talk about a “gay gene”. Thanks for the youtube link though I’ll watch later. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    Weihana – “Or how about you ask yourself – did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex?”

    I don’t know. I have little or no attraction to males, but as a baby, I wasn’t scared of shit either, because I smeared it all over my cot. Apparently this isn’t rare amongst babies, but you wouldn’t catch me doing that now, because I’m scared of poo and think it’s smelly and yucky.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Actually I do recall hearing about a study last year that suggested childhood abuse could contribute to homosexuality. I know the suggestion annoyed plenty of gay people who haven’t been abused but I don’t think it’s an outrageous suggestion that traumatic sexual abuse as a child could cause that child to grow up with an aversion to the sex of their abuser. But I don’t know how reliable that study was. Will have to look it up.

    In any case it’s the exception to the rule in my view as most homosexuals, at least in my experience, have not been abused as children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    Weihana – “but I think it’s an oversimplification to talk about a “gay gene”.

    Watching Dawkins will bear your theory out. He explains it as a complex manifestation of a gene trait that evolved for a different reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    Scott, I watched Dawkins. He was being question by a homosexual activist who did not seen to know very much. Dawkins or him did not have any idea of the percentage of male homosexuals and bisexuals in the population. Dawkins was just giving off the cuff answers to questions not considered opinions bases on research. He was just saying that may be possible. Compare that to the opinions of Dr Whitehead, a biochemist.

    I just heard on the news this morning that homosexual lobbyists in the UK have succeeded in forcing blood services in that country to accept blood from homosexuals – sheer madness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. KiwiGreg (3,278 comments) says:

    “If that is the case, then one could ask, “how should we design our children’s environment to achieve the best possible outcome for their overall happiness?”. Is being gay disadvantageous? I’d prefer my children to be heterosexual, because I believe that would be to their advantage in a bigoted world, not because of any latent bigotry in me, so if I were given a choice, I’d choose heterosexuality for them, just as I’d prefer them to do a science degree rather than fine arts. But if they are born artists, then I would encourage them to be the best artist they could be.”

    QFT. Couldn’t have said it better. Although I’d prefer they did law or accounting….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote