Labour’s Rainbow Policy

October 13th, 2011 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

’s just released policy states:

Many GLBTI New Zealanders continue to be subject to insult, verbal and physical abuse, and to be made to feel inferior, most damagingly in schools.

This comes from the party whose MPs (Mallard and Cosgrove) yell out “Tinkerbell” when a National Minister is speaking in the House.

ACT Wellington Central candidate referred to this in the Rainbow Candidates meeting last night. And do you know what and said? Did they apologise for their colleagues? Did they say they had asked them to stop? No, they lied and denied that any Labour MP had ever said that. They actually accused Whittington of making a personal attack on them.

In case anyone actually thinks Robertson and Chauvel told the truth, look at this video here of Trevor Mallard (start at 2.30). Also note this interview with Green MP Kevin Hague who said:

Hague said he had never been the target of taunting over his sexual orientation since entering the halls of parliament in 2008.

The same, he said, couldn’t be said for other gay MPs, citing “prejudice” directed at Attorney-General and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Finlayson.

“Trevor Mallard, and also Clayton Cosgrove, refer to Chris Finlayson as `tinkerbell’. And I f—ing hate it,” Hague said. “That sort of overt taunting as a `fairy’, it is nothing other than prejudice. I don’t like that culture of abuse.”

Now in case you think the video is doctored and that Kevin Hague is the liar, instead of Robertson and Chauvel, you can also look at Hansard here and here.

Discrimination against GLBTI people worldwide continues. The worst manifestation of this is the criminalisation of consensual adult same-sex activity, and its punishment as a capital offence.

This comes from the party which has a List MP who said (from Wikipedia):

In July 2005 Choudhary came to the public’s attention again when he refused to condemn outright the practice of stoning people for homosexual and extramarital sexual behaviour. In TV3′s 60 Minutes show on July 4, 2005, Dr. Choudhary was asked: “Are you saying the Qur’an is wrong to recommend that gays in certain circumstances be stoned to death?” He replied: ” No, no. Certainly what the Qur’an says is correct.” He then qualified his statement, “In those societies, not here in New Zealand”.

When Whittington raised this at the Rainbow debate last night, again Labour again accused him of lying.

So how does Labour reconcile its rainbow policy with having an MP who said it is fine to stone homosexuals and adulters to death, so long as it is not here in New Zealand?

National is far from progressive on gay issues, but I can’t recall a National MP ever saying that it is fine to kill homosexuals, if it is done in other countries.

Then we look at their detailed policy.

Modernise the law relating to the care of children to ensure that the widest pool of suitable adults is lawfully available to provide care to children in need

My God, why can’t they just say they will allow gay couples to adopt? Are they so scared of having the words gay and adoption in the same sentence? There are thousands of children being raised by gay parents and gay couples already. The law should focus on what is best for the child, and if that is a gay couple, then they should be allowed to adopt. What is so hard about saying that explicitly?

Tags: , , , , ,

156 Responses to “Labour’s Rainbow Policy”

  1. ben (2,386 comments) says:

    Agree, David.

    In the second Hansard quote, Finlayson has just finished saying he considers it the government’s responsibility to support the arts.

    Stone him for that! Art worth having needs no subsidy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Oh my gosh! Labour is full of liars and gay supporters! I’m stunned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Hmmm,
    Assuming that Labour is doing polling/focus groups etc (which is a big assumption based on their current performance!), can we presume their reluctance to mention ‘gay adoption’ is because in fact a signifcant part of society isn’t supportive of such an enterprise?

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

    This policy can’t be right – it won’t involve spending money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    GLBTI…….?
    Time to redraw the government forms.
    Have to put people in a little box.
    Have to be able to ‘positively’ discriminate.
    Can’t leave anybody out.
    Inclusive ubder alles.

    Ethnic Group:
    NZ European
    European
    Mäori
    Pacific Island
    Asian
    African
    Other – please specify:

    Gender:
    Male
    Female
    Transgender
    Intersex
    Other – please specify:

    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay,
    Lesbian,
    Bisexual
    Asexual
    Other – please specify:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Bob R (1,250 comments) says:

    Charles Chauvel must really dislike this blog, he’s been caught out repeatedly through careful research. Disapointing from Grant Robertson too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Inventory2 (9,788 comments) says:

    There’s a link to Mallard’s homophobia here, recorded for posterity in Hansard

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2010/06/over-at-red-alert.html

    I challenged him about this when he did a Twitter chat a while ago, and he said that Chris Carter told him to say it; cue Tui billboard

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. graham (2,211 comments) says:

    @ Other_Andy:

    This is already happening. I recently had to fill out a form for one particular Government organisation here in New Zealand. One of the questions is “Gender”.

    The choices are: Male / Female / Indeterminate

    True story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Bob R (1,250 comments) says:

    ***So how does Labour reconcile its rainbow policy with having an MP who said it is fine to stone homosexuals and adulters to death, so long as it is now here in New Zealand?***

    Of course this is the difficulty that left wing parties have to grapple with. Accomodating the progressive rainbow coalition while also accomodating members from non-western cultures which sometimes happen to treat females and gays as second class citizens. I think that whoever has the greater group victim status has the greater rights and standing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Lucia Maria (1,988 comments) says:

    What’s best for a child is having a mother and a father, not two people of the same sex who are involved in an unnatural sexual relationship. That is not healthy modelling for a child. But then, neither is it healthy modelling for children who live with single mothers and their never-ending stream of live-in boyfriends, either. Nor is it healthy for children when their parents divorce. All these situations do not give a child an optimal chance of growing up to be a person who can live a normal, productive life.

    Here is a story of a girl who grew up with her homosexual father (link):

    The many personal, professional and social experiences with my father did not teach me respect for morality, authority, marriage, and paternal love. I felt fearfully silenced as I was not allowed to talk about my dad, his male housemates, his lifestyle and encounters within the subcultures without being browbeaten and threatened by my father. While I lived at home, I had to live by his rules. Yes, I loved my dad. However, I felt abandoned and neglected as my needs were not met since my father would often leave suddenly to be with his partners for days. His partners were not really interested in me. I was outraged at the incidences of same-sex domestic abuse, sexual advances toward minors, and loss of sexual partners as if people were only commodities. I sought comfort looking for my father’s love from boyfriends starting at 12 years old.

    From a young age, I was exposed to explicit sexual speech, self-indulgent lifestyles, varied GLBT subcultures and gay vacation spots. Sex looked gratuitous to me as a child. I was exposed to all-inclusive manifestations of sexuality including bathhouse sex, cross-dressing, sodomy, pornography, gay nudity, lesbianism, bisexuality, minor recruitment, voyeurism and exhibitionism. Sado-masochism was alluded to and aspects demonstrated. Alcohol and drugs were often contributing factors to lower inhibitions in my father’s relationships.

    My father prized unisex dressing, gender-neutral aspects and a famous cross-dressing icon when I was eight years old. I did not see the value of biological complementing differences of male and female or think about marriage. I made vows to never have children since I had not grown up in a safe, sacrificial, child-centered home environment. Due to my life experience, I ask, “Can children really perform their best academically, financially, psychologically, socially and behaviorally in experimental situations?” I can tell you that I suffered long term in this situation, and this has been professionally documented.

    Over two decades of direct exposure to these stressful experiences caused me insecurity, depression, suicidal thoughts, dread, anxiousness, low self-esteem, sleeplessness and sexuality confusion. My conscience and innocence were seriously damaged. I witnessed that every other family member suffered severely as well.

    She didn’t come out with her story until her Dad was dead, because she didn’t want to hurt him, yet needed to tell her story.

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

    Well, that’s the proof right there Lucia Maria.

    Or could it be the exception that prooves the rule?

    My own view on the matter is that children shouldn’t be raised by heterosexual parents either, as evidenced by convictions of fathers for sexual abuse of their children.

    No, I’m afraid its back to the Romulus and Remus scenario for me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. big bruv (12,348 comments) says:

    “Over two decades of direct exposure to these stressful experiences caused me insecurity, depression, suicidal thoughts, dread, anxiousness, low self-esteem, sleeplessness and sexuality confusion. My conscience and innocence were seriously damaged.”

    If what this young lady said is true then I do feel for her. I hope she is getting the help that she needs and that she is staying as far away from religion as possible.

    She has been used and abused once in her life, she does not need it to happen again by joining a religious cult.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Leverett (6 comments) says:

    Ask yourself by Ahmed Zoui – an out-and-out Islamist – was so celebrated by the Green Party. The true ideology of the modern left, including the Labour party, is identity politics and multiculturalism. The trouble is that this ideology is beset by internal contradictions. It is all very well to be pro-gay, pro-islamism, pro-traditional Maori culture, pro-feminist when those are minority causes. When those causes become mainstream – and even dominant culturally – is that they are going to run up against each other. A party that claims to promote the rights of women cannot indefinately defend a culture that cuts women’s heads off because they are accused of having an affair. Something is bound to give.

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

    @ Lucia,

    The story is merely one of many that I have heard or read by children forced by Liberals into homosexual “families” and it is without a doubt a vile and evil crime.

    Many, many children have reported the same experiences, especially the early age sexualisation, as well as the psychological harm.

    But none of that will make no difference to Liberals who post on this forum.

    Sadly the mindless politically correct Liberal fundamentalists who post here are not remotely concerned with the facts, or with the suffering of the children they perpetrate their crimes against.

    They do not care. Blind Liberal ideology trumps reality every time, and no amount of evidence will make any difference to them.

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

    She has been used and abused once in her life, she does not need it to happen again by joining a religious cult.

    Liberalism IS a religous cult.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Lucia Maria (1,988 comments) says:

    Lee,

    It may make a difference. I do believe that people are able to reform, even those that seem the most unreformable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Fundamentalist Christian (1 comment) says:

    I agree with Lee01 100%. Liberalism IS a religious cult, because Lee01 said so. Where can a true God-loving, Jesus-worshipping Christian like myself find white sanctuary in this liberally-tolerant progressive world today?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. big bruv (12,348 comments) says:

    Lee

    Just because you keep repeating that lie does not make it true.

    I know you have your own internal struggles with your ‘god’, I know you often wonder why you slavishly follow something that is evil and I know that you often doubt the existence of an almighty power.

    My advice would be to deal with those issues in a mature and rational way, once you have done so come and join the vast majority of us who do not believe, who do not belong to a cult, who just go about their lives in a normal and decent manner without feeling we have to worry about what some vengeful, hate filled despot is thinking about us.

    You will really enjoy the feeling of relief.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    @graham

    “This is already happening. I recently had to fill out a form for one particular Government organisation here in New Zealand. One of the questions is “Gender”.
    The choices are: Male / Female / Indeterminate
    True story.”

    The Australians go one further…

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/travel/news-and-trends/travel-news/australians-have-third-option-for-gender-on-passports/article2167802/

    (Waiting for the Transgender and Intersex groups to complain….)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. scanner (340 comments) says:

    Why do we actually need a policy on this, some people in Labour need to stand in front of a mirror and take a long hard look at themselves.

    If the rug munchers and nutmen want a policy to protect themselves from all the nasty people out there calling them hurtful names why don’t they form their own political party instead of hijacking someone else s for their own gain, this sort of shit is what is turning voters off Labour in the thousands, perhaps these people should take advice from Chopper Read and “Harden the Fuck UP” instead of pulling the wounded animal routine everytime someone says something they don’t like, these same fairies are all fairly quick to play the gay card when it suits their cause.

    Wakey fucking wakey you dropkicks tell the fags to get back in the closet and get on with the business of trying to be an opposition party FFS.

    Yet another reason for dumping MMP, why give 10% the control of the remaining 90%

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. scanner (340 comments) says:

    Two blokes sitting on a wall, the first one says “My mother made me a poofter” the second one responds “That’s nice, do you think if I got her the wool she could make me one too?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. graham (2,211 comments) says:

    Hmmm … sort of along similar lines, Britain is being taken over by Muslims. I don’t mean just more Muslims moving there, or demanding equal rights. I mean Muslims who have decided that they’re going to impose their laws on Britain. I remember this story being run in the papers while I was over there in July.

    ———————————–

    “HARDCORE Islamists have vowed to ban booze and mixing between the sexes in new Sharia law enforcement zones across the UK.

    The move will see specific areas flooded with thousands of stickers saying “no gambling”, “no music or concerts”, “no porn or prostitution” and “no drugs or smoking”.

    The posters declare: “You are entering a Sharia controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced.”

    The radicals will kick off their controlled zones in the London borough of Waltham Forest later this month.

    They also claim their hardline rules will be policed by thousands of “Sharia cops” on the streets.

    ———————————–

    And here’s the scary bit in the story: “We want to run the area as a Sharia controlled zone and really to put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term.”

    ———————————–

    Read the full story here: http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/immigration/96781-sharia-law-hits-uk-daily-star-sunday.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Longknives (4,044 comments) says:

    “no gambling”, “no music or concerts”, “no porn or prostitution” and “no drugs or smoking”.

    What the hell do they do for fun???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Auberon (816 comments) says:

    This makes my blood boil. Shame on Robertson and Chauvel for not having the guts to recognise their party’s record on this. I used to hate it when Michael Cullen constantly casted aspersions on Lockwood Smith with the most appalling 1950s innuendo, like it mattered a jot what his sexuality was. Anyone from any party who does this is a disgrace – and sadly for Labour, they’re the worst culprits of recent years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. La Grand Fromage (145 comments) says:

    I see that National has also realeased its “Rainbow” policy;

    1. It should be on tele at least 5 afternoons a week
    2. Zippy and George will get more camera time
    3. Bungle and Geoffrey will stop acting so gay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Mike S (231 comments) says:

    It is a biological fact that some people are born with an indeterminate gender – not every human being carries only XX or XY chromosomes, not every human being is born male or female. I can’t see any problem with allowing this to be recognised in official documents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    What does the “I” in GLBTI stand for?

    And what do all these ongoing earnest attempts to lump them all into a “group” whose “needs” need to be “catered for” actually accomplish?

    RRM knows a middle-aged gay couple who are pretty damn conservative in most things, and those lads wouldn’t appreciate being lumped in together with the tranny hookers down on Marion St as being all equally worthy basket-case recipients of some benevolent Labour Party policy initiative…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. KiwiGreg (3,129 comments) says:

    @ RRM one could make the same observation about “Maori” who also seem to get refered to as one undifferentiated bloc of opinion and thought. FWIW I agree with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    “What does the “I” in GLBTI stand for?”

    Intersex

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. graham (2,211 comments) says:

    @Longknives :

    Reminds me of a Christian comedian I heard once, taking the mickey out of Christians (which we sometimes need). He pretended to be a street preacher:

    “I’m just so righteous and good. I don’t smoke, and I don’t drink, and I don’t eat fatty foods, and I don’t have sex, and I don’t gamble, and I don’t go to parties, and I don’t watch TV, and guess what? YOU can become a Christian and have as much fun as I’m having!!!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. awb (298 comments) says:

    I’m not entirely sure Labour has the LGBT vote locked up any more, they used to thanks to being the drivers of the homosexual law reform, but times have changed and with LGBT people becoming so normal in society, it is less of a politicised issue. I wouldn’t be suprised if a big chunk of that vote went Green, given they have a better record on human rights in general than Labour, and that they actually outright support gay adoption rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. slightlyrighty (2,448 comments) says:

    Being Gay, Lesbian, Maori, European or any other label does not, in itself, make one any better or worse as a parent. It is how that person acts, rather than who that person is, that determines his or her suitability as a parent. Lucia Maria’s example is one that could be trotted out to prove that all gays should not be parents in the same way that the the story of Nia Glassie could be quoted to prove that Maori should not be parents either, and both examples are just as nonsensical.

    These are both tragic at a personal level, but do not reflect all realities. Luica’s example of being raised in an overtly sexual environment by a selfish solo parent does not need to be put into a gay context to highlight the tragedy of the situation.

    That being said, I see no reason why a gay couple cannot raise a child, providing for that childs physical and emotional needs, in the same way as the more traditional (for want of a better word) nuclear family.

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

    @Lucia

    “unnatural sexual relationship” So says you.

    The example you post is clearly an example of terrrible parenting and that alone.

    I was raised by two Lesbian women and I was not subject to any of the awful parenting in your example. Infact my mother and her partner are both very conservative.

    “normal, productive life” Again not sure this exist anywhere but in your head, productivity can be measured I suppose, any hard evidence that the children of gay couples are less productive? I doubt it but feel free to link me something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    It is how that person acts, rather than who that person is, that determines his or her suitability as a parent.

    But isn’t it true that it is who a person is that determines how they act? You can’t separate the two.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Chuck Bird (4,403 comments) says:

    “any hard evidence that the children of gay couples are less productive? I doubt it but feel free to link me something.”

    http://www.gayconspiracy.info/gayparentsproblem.html

    http://www.gayconspiracy.info/samesexparent.html

    http://www.gayconspiracy.info/gayparetnreview.html

    Concentrate, I am pleased you are a normal well adjusted heterosexual. I must say I have more serious concerns for the welfare of a child raised by two homosexual men.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. David Garrett (5,120 comments) says:

    Excellent….the workers at the Waiuku steel mill and chippies and sparkies on building sites all over the country will be overjoyed and relieved that “their” Labour Party has finally released its GLBT policy…hurrah!

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

    @ Big Bruv

    Lee

    Just because you keep repeating that lie does not make it true.

    Just because you keep denying that it is true does not make it a lie.

    I know you have your own internal struggles with your ‘god’

    Not at all. I struggle with the false idols you slavishly and blindly follow. The demonic power and principalities that have blinded and enslaved you.

    once you have done so come and join the vast majority of us who do not believe

    Most of the world is religious. Christians number in the hundreds of millions. Your living in a fantasy world. Atheists are a tiny cult of the deluded and the sad.

    Repent. You will enjoy the feeling of relief when you free yourself from this mindless little cult you follow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. slightlyrighty (2,448 comments) says:

    Fletch.

    I have Gay and lesbian friends. They do not act in an overtly sexual manner in situations where that is not warranted. It is a fallacy that all gay men are flaming mincers. Nor are all lesbians Butch Dykes.

    If we are to look past the stereotypical portrayal of Gays and Lesbians in the media, you might find that there are some rather conservative types who might be better suited to raising a child than some hetero sex maniac.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    Just had another read.

    “Many GLBTI New Zealanders continue to be subject to insult, verbal and physical abuse, and to be made to feel inferior, most damagingly in schools.”

    No question, children can be cruel. They act like ‘herd animals’ and often take it out on those who are ‘different’ or ‘weak’.
    However, there already are programs in place to protect children from that kind of bullying.

    Why do we need to single out one group unless there is a political agenda.
    And of course there is….
    As ‘awb’ has pointed out, the ‘GLBTI group’ is just another group (Maori, Women, Pacific) being targeted by both Labour and the Greens as a potentional voter group to play off against another group, to bribe and to ‘lock in’.

    Many fat New Zealanders and New Zealanders with glasses, red hair and freckles continue to be subject to insult, verbal and physical abuse, and to be made to feel inferior, most damagingly in schools.

    Not enough potential voters in any of those groups?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. jack185 (1 comment) says:

    I just watched that video and it’s sad to see such terrible behaviour directed at such a hard working minister.

    But you can’t escape the hard facts. National has done nothing in the past but try and stop progression in this area.

    Some examples:
    -Homosexual Law Reform: 34 National MPs against (out of 37) v. 9 Labour against (out of 51)

    -Civil Unions: 24 National MPs against – including Key – (out of 27) v. 6 Labour MPs against (out of 51)

    Enough said.

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

    can we presume their reluctance to mention ‘gay adoption’ is because in fact a signifcant part of society isn’t supportive of such an enterprise?

    Now there’s the truth if ever I read it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. UpandComer (496 comments) says:

    @ Concentrate
    I think that the script published here even if it is a specific instance broadly exemplifies why I don’t believe that gay men should be adopting children. Lesbian couples? No problem.
    @ slightlyrighty: I think what Lucia is highlighting is the fact that such overt sexuality is a lot more likely in that particular gay and male environment, and even as a generalisation with the corrollary dangers, purely from my experience it seems a fair one.
    I know this seems biased on my part. I won’t use the old scores of my mates are gay mantra, even if it is true. I don’t know/understand where kids fit or can fit into a purely masculine purely homosexual life-style and motivations.
    But of course there are a plethora of very dysfuncational hetero families/couples too, and the above isn’t universally true, so of course gay male couples should be allowed to adopt on a case by case basis. But I would expect a very rigorous screening process for gay, male couples, and I firmly believe that that is justifiable, again purely based on my experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. davidp (3,319 comments) says:

    Lee01>The demonic power and principalities that have blinded and enslaved you.

    I would like to be enslaved by demonic powers. Is there an application form I can download?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Homosexuality has been recorded in over 1500 species yet religious belief has been found in only one…. what standard of “natural” are we using again…?

    Kids are much more likely to be messed up and abused by the religious than gays any day of the week…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. davidp (3,319 comments) says:

    Many Ginger New Zealanders continue to be subject to insult, verbal and physical abuse, and to be made to feel inferior, most damagingly in schools and on Kiwiblog. But Labour haven’t released a policy to combat this class of insult and abuse. Is that because they are in favour of Ginger Kid abuse? Would Labour be in favour of stoning Ginger Kids to death as long as it is done overseas? I think the public deserve an explanation.

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

    I see DPF is banging his GLBT social liberal drum again.

    On lesbian adoption – from Crusader Rabbit a couple of weeks ago:

    ‘..A boy who started the process of changing sex at age eight has told how he always knew he was meant to be a girl.
    Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy.
    His two lesbian mothers, who adopted him aged two, say that they have been criticised by friends and family, but insist they have not forced their son to become a girl.source

    And Leftards wonder why Conservative right-minded people are totally AGAINST sodomites and lesbians having the ‘right’ to raise/adopt/foster children.

    This poor confused boy had less than zero chance of either being normal or knowing what constitutes normal.
    Hanging would be too good for these sexual deviant perversions masquerading as ‘parents’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. big bruv (12,348 comments) says:

    “And Leftards wonder why Conservative religious nutbars are totally AGAINST sodomites and lesbians”

    Fixed it for you KrisK.

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

    ‘..A boy who started the process of changing sex at age eight has told how he always knew he was meant to be a girl. Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy. His two lesbian mothers, who adopted him aged two, say that they have been criticised by friends and family, but insist they have not forced their son to become a girl.’

    Yup, that pretty much says it all. Love to see the Liberal cultists defend this. Sickening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Too young to make that decision. Insane.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. GPT1 (2,042 comments) says:

    Kris K says:
    On lesbian adoption – from Crusader Rabbit a couple of weeks ago:

    ‘..A boy who started the process of changing sex at age eight has told how he always knew he was meant to be a girl.
    Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy.
    His two lesbian mothers, who adopted him aged two, say that they have been criticised by friends and family, but insist they have not forced their son to become a girl.’ source

    And Leftards wonder why Conservative right-minded people are totally AGAINST sodomites and lesbians having the ‘right’ to raise/adopt/foster children.

    That is not an argument, that is finding an example and saying it applies to all situations. That is as logical as me saying that I know a child being brought up by lesbian parents who is loved, cared for, educated and happy therefore only lesbians should bring up children.

    I can give you examples every single day of heterosexual parents who make a pig’s ear of bringing up their children.

    You are entitled to your opinion and to express it as I am to mine: you are a bigot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Chuck Bird (4,403 comments) says:

    Does anyone think such legislation should be decided democratic by a binding referendum rather than having political parties pandering to militant pressure groups. I am glad to see ACT has sorted out its policy on homosexual adoption. That is they do not have one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    The Scorned Says:

    “Homosexuality has been recorded in over 1500 species [Correction - 450 species "The Scorned"!] yet religious belief has been found in only one…. what standard of “natural” are we using again…?”

    Argumentum Ad Populum

    And anyway, your point is?

    Cannibalism is found in over 1500 species (Yep, that’s the 1500) yet Canibalphobia has been found in only one…. what standard of “natural” are we using again…?

    Coprophagy is found in most species yet coprophaphobia has been found in only one…. what standard of “natural” are we using again…?

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

    “you are a bigot.”

    Rather a bigot than someone who denies the nose on their own face, not to mention reality.

    Leftards & Social Liberals: Defending the indefensible since Karl Marx first messed his diapers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    The only true form of sexual deviancy is abstinence !

    Abstinent people should not be allowed to raise children – anyone else … what has their sexual orientation got to do with their ability to be a good parent ?

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

    More compelling evidence; this time from Kris K (on temporary absence from the m’baiters underpants) who demonstrates once again the intellectual/reasoning capacity of a small dehydrated pea.

    Why don’t you take time out from your wing-nutted and red-necked god-bothering and look at the underlying issue here which is the quality of parenting. You seem to think that homosexuals have a mortgage on poor behaviour and poor role modelling for children, but your tiny little pea brain can’t grasp the fact that all kinds make bad parents. At the head of the list, given the tangible outcome, one could put your parents and those of your little bum chum ‘baiter, closely following by those who engage in family violence, crime, excessive drink and drugs, the bludge, drunk driving, drunk driving with the kid, and those who don’t actually care enough to ensure the health and education of their kids.

    Instead, you leap to your default position of bigoted little moron simply because you can produce a story about a couple of poorly behaved homos. Some might describe you as a tiny-minded bigioted little fuckwit, but of course, I would never to that. Why don’t you run away again before ‘baiter notices you’re missing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    Why don’t you take time out from your wing-nutted and red-necked god-bothering

    If you’re going to call people bigots, perhaps you should think a little about not acting like one yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    s always, the xtians come out to play and prove how loving their god has made them by spewing their bile and hate all over a thread,

    Yes, Kris Klux Klan and Lee Liar for Jesus 01, I DO mean you.

    Liars. Charaltans. Hypocrites. It takes religion to make people dumb.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    “A boy who started the process of changing sex at age eight has told how he always knew he was meant to be a girl.”

    Sexual orientation is determined quite early on in human development. We can observe it at very young ages where boys and girls engage in behaviour that is very typical of their gender. E.g. Boys like trucks, girls like dolls. Similarly we are able to observe when a child does not behave according to what is normal. I have witnessed this directly on at least two occassions. In one instance I grew up with this kid for several years and as an adult, to nobody’s surprise, he’s gay. No one made him this way that is simply who he is and who he has always been. When Christmas came around he didn’t want the Transformer he wanted the Barbie Doll house.

    That’s not to say I think it’s okay for a young kid to undergo hormone therapy or have a sex change. That is obviously a decision that should be delayed until the child is of an age that they can make an informed decision (i.e. 18).

    And by the same token religious crazy people shouldn’t be able to start cutting away at a boy’s penis without informed consent. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Lucia Maria (1,988 comments) says:

    Hi Concentrate,

    Like Chuck, I am happy for you that you turned out normal and that your mother and her partner did the best they could to shelter you from the homosexual lifestyle (which I’m guessing is what you are saying).

    By normal and productive, I mean that you have had no problems relating to men, that you have gone on to get married (to a man) and have children and are currently still in that married relationship. If you are too young for that, I hope you have that on your horizon. Actually, I’m presuming you are a woman. If you are a man, then just turn that around to being married to a woman, etc, etc.

    But when it comes down to it, children raised by persons of the same sex are mostly going to be raised by women, who on the whole will be less promiscuous than men. It’s men that need to be able to adopt children in order to join in with the whole parenting thing, and men without the civilising influence of a women, are far less suited to raising children alone – especially if they are defined by warped sexual practices.

    If you want to know more, please have a look at my blog. I’ve linked a couple of books in from Amazon that will be most instructive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Babylon And On (6 comments) says:

    Gay surrogacy has been around along time. A pair of lesbians can easily conceive a child simply by getting a friend to fill up a turkey baster full of warm cum for one of the couple to squirt inside her, but in this case there is a bonafide biological attachment between one of the (newspeak alert) “caregivers” and the child. (Matthew Ridge & his mother for example). Male homosexual adoption is a completely different kettle of fish. Most pseudo-liberals make the politically correct mistake that the relationships of homosexual men mirror that of their heterosexual counterparts and that male homosexuals are merely women trapped in men’s bodies. Male homosexual relationships tend to be emotionally charged and highly unstable, and such relationships only achieve any degree of longevity when tacit approval is given by both (newspeak alert) “partners” that sexual liaisons outside of the core relationship are to be expected and accepted.

    The vast majority of homosexual male couples wouldn’t be interested in being full time parents – it wouldn’t suit the lifestyle – one which most often involves levels of sexual promiscuity which would even make billy-goats and buck-rabbits blush. Further to that, the promiscuous behaviour arises due to what male homosexuality actually is – a manifestation of pernicious sexual hedonism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Homosexuality has been recorded in over 1500 species yet religious belief has been found in only one…. what standard of “natural” are we using again…?

    This really is a very poor argument for gauging human behaviour. Due to intelligence, Humans are fundamentally different creatures to all other animals on this planet, and simply pointing at animals and saying “they do it too” unfortunately lets rapists, necrophiliacs, male chauvinists, cannibals and any number of other “undesirables” off the hook. It is also very hard to determine if animals are ‘gay’ in the sense that humans are, screwing everything that moves does not necessarily indicate a specific gender identity!!.

    Kids are much more likely to be messed up and abused by the religious than gays any day of the week…

    Yep, certain religious parents will screw their kids up for sure (I’ve seen it), but no more than gay parents will. There are always extremist people and there will always be extremist parents, regardless of religion or gender.

    Personally, I think any parent that enables a child to entertain the idea that they are “a girl born in a boys body” (or vice versa) is sick beyond belief. Calling mental illness or confusion anything other than what it really is is cruel and evil in my opinion, there are medical instances of people with male and female body parts (hermaphrodites) but this nonsense that you can change your gender by will alone should be diagnosed as mental illness.

    What if someone believes they are a dolphin born in a humans body? you can’t say they’re not, can you?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    When ever you see a rainbow god is having butt sex

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Babylok And On,

    “Male homosexual relationships tend to be emotionally charged and highly unstable, and such relationships only achieve any degree of longevity when tacit approval is given by both (newspeak alert) “partners” that sexual liaisons outside of the core relationship are to be expected and accepted.”

    This is what we call prejudice. It’s actually true for many gay couples. I’ve witnessed a couple. But it’s not true in general which is the mistake.

    The same argument could be put forth for Maori. They tend to be dole bludging criminals and abusers and in fact statistics can be used to show that a disproporationate number of Maori are unemployed, convicted criminals or abusers.

    But this does not justify presuming these facts about every individual Maori person and anyone who did so would be rightly condemned as a racist and a bigot. But unfortunately the same standards do not apply to homosexuals and the same brain dead arguments that would be given by a racist are instead given by anti-homosexual bigots as if they are somehow intelligent and respectable ideas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    shunda burunda,

    “Personally, I think any parent that enables a child to entertain the idea that they are “a girl born in a boys body” (or vice versa) is sick beyond belief. Calling mental illness or confusion anything other than what it really is is cruel and evil in my opinion, there are medical instances of people with male and female body parts (hermaphrodites) but this nonsense that you can change your gender by will alone should be diagnosed as mental illness.”

    That is your mistake, the parent doesn’t “enable” the child to entertain the idea. The child has the idea because the child, unlike you, knows what is going on in their head. They know they like barbie dolls and make-up and high-heels and they don’t like guns and fighting and other boy stuff. They know other boys like this stuff and they wonder why they don’t.

    What is cruel, in my opinion, are people, like yourself perhaps, who are not interested in trying to understand what’s going on in the child’s head but wish to impose their own preconceived notions and expectations onto the child. The reality is that when children display tendencies not normal for their gender they are doing so because there is something innately different about them. These are not choices, they are hard-wired into us and we need to learn how to deal with the way we were made.

    Telling an obviously gay child to repress his desires and play with tonker trucks even though he has no interest in doing so is not helpful to that child’s development. It will only lead to confusion and possibly resentment, depression and ultimately suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Sexual orientation is determined quite early on in human development..

    Well that is complete bollocks, care to link to neutral research on that? Please explain the test they give to children (yet to become sexually active or even sexually mature) to determine “sexual orientation”.

    We can observe it at very young ages where boys and girls engage in behaviour that is very typical of their gender. E.g. Boys like trucks, girls like dolls.

    Bollocks again.
    This is not a test of sexual orientation, most girls will play with dinky cars and trucks, and most boys will like soft toys and cuddly blankets.
    It is society that interprets behaviour through the popular lens at the time, at present we are inundated with nonsensical studies on “gay animals” and the like, which is simply an attempt to reinterpret reality in a more favourable light to a pre-existing (and predetermined) social agenda.

    Similarly we are able to observe when a child does not behave according to what is normal. I have witnessed this directly on at least two occassions.

    Define normal??

    I know effeminate men that are not gay, and I know tom boy women that aren’t lesbian, but today, there is this drive to tell people you must be one or the other. Nonsense I say, the interesting casualty of homosexual activism is diversity of human gender expression, it is not just the Christians with a poor understanding of human sexuality, that’s for damned sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Shunda – how well would you cope if a member of your family wasn’t heterosexual?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    That is your mistake, the parent doesn’t “enable” the child to entertain the idea. The child has the idea because the child, unlike you, knows what is going on in their head. They know they like barbie dolls and make-up and high-heels and they don’t like guns and fighting and other boy stuff. They know other boys like this stuff and they wonder why they don’t.

    Wow, how very stereotypical of you, “fighting and guns”?? perhaps if liberals desperate for agenda justification actually learnt a bit about diversity, their narrow “gender rules” would be exposed as such.

    What is cruel, in my opinion, are people, like yourself perhaps, who are not interested in trying to understand what’s going on in the child’s head but wish to impose their own preconceived notions and expectations onto the child. The reality is that when children display tendencies not normal for their gender they are doing so because there is something innately different about them. These are not choices, they are hard-wired into us and we need to learn how to deal with the way we were made.

    And to you I would say: What is cruel in my opinion, are people, like yourself perhaps, who are not interested in trying to understand what’s going on in the child’s head but wish to impose their own preconceived notions and expectations onto the child. The reality is when children display a range of behaviours normal for their age, they are doing so because there is nothing innately different about them. These are not behaviours to be exploited by politically active social progressives, they are normal developmental behaviours that need to be seen for what they are and steered where necessary by a loving parent.

    Telling an obviously gay child to repress his desires and play with tonker trucks even though he has no interest in doing so is not helpful to that child’s development.

    What if the “gay” child actually likes Tonka trucks?? Do gays have something against Tonka??

    It will only lead to confusion and possibly resentment, depression and ultimately suicide.

    As will the political exploitation of youth by busy body “progressives” keen to push theoretical gender issues and theoretical social “oughts” that are based no more in real evidence than dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Shunda – how well would you cope if a member of your family wasn’t heterosexual?

    Oh look children, a message written in code!
    I shall now interpret:

    Ahem.

    “Shunda, I can’t argue with the points you raised so now I am going to shift the focus onto nonsensical theoretical situations in the hope that in said theoretical situation I may be able to get you to say something that will enable me to quickly dismiss you as a bigot followed by quick disengagement”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    No, it was a serious question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Oh,

    “Just fine”

    Would be my answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Clint Heine (1,560 comments) says:

    Wow, talk about rolling out all the pathetically insecure anti gay lynchmob disguised as god loving Christians.

    Please leave the discussion on how we treat our fellow countrymen to the adults. Substitute the word gay with Jew and try that again, no? Why so obsessed with what goes on in other peoples private bedrooms? FFS, we have enough examples of fucking awful hetro parents that it’s a miracle to find two loving parents, why discriminate?

    I visited a mosque last week in Dubai and when they were asked about their views on homosexuality they were more moderate than most of you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Shunda – ok, thanks

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Michael (880 comments) says:

    A more fundamental question – why does the state require you to register your marriage with them? Surely it’s a religious/personal ceremony and should be registered by the celebrant?

    Anyway, another thought: God I have no problem with – it’s his fan club I can’t stand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Rick Rowling (776 comments) says:

    Well done god-botherers and god-botherer-botherers, this was about hypocrisy in one of our political parties, but now it’s again about your mutually exclusive and unprovable world views.

    Who’s going to be the first to turn the other cheek?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (1,997) Says:
    October 13th, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    Sexual orientation is determined quite early on in human development..

    Well that is complete bollocks, care to link to neutral research on that? Please explain the test they give to children (yet to become sexually active or even sexually mature) to determine “sexual orientation”.

    ————————————-

    I will cite the American Academy of Pediatrics. If you do not consider them “neutral” because you are loony tunes, well I can’t help that.

    “A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed.5 Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.2 In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. The high concordance of homosexuality among monozygotic twins and the clustering of homosexuality in family pedigrees support biological models. There is some evidence that prenatal androgen exposure influences development of sexual orientation, but postnatal sex steroid concentrations do not vary with sexual orientation. The reported association in males between homosexual orientation and loci on the X chromosome remains to be replicated. Some research has shown neuroanatomic differences between homosexual and heterosexual persons in sexually dimorphic regions of the brain.5 Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.4,5 Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.1,2,4,5″

    http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;113/6/1827.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Homosexuality has been recorded in over 1500 species

    I just don’t buy it, sorry…
    Sounds like bunkum to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Shunda burunda,

    Weihana – “Similarly we are able to observe when a child does not behave according to what is normal. I have witnessed this directly on at least two occassions.”

    “Define normal??

    I know effeminate men that are not gay, and I know tom boy women that aren’t lesbian, but today, there is this drive to tell people you must be one or the other. Nonsense I say, the interesting casualty of homosexual activism is diversity of human gender expression, it is not just the Christians with a poor understanding of human sexuality, that’s for damned sure.”

    ———————————

    The dictionary definition will suffice for “normal”.

    Indeed there are effeminate men who are not gay and there are also very masculine men who are gay. Nowhere have I denied that there is a diversity of human behaviour but it is foolish and ignorant to pretend as if there are not tendencies amongst different groups which have a relationship to biological differences between such groups.

    Men and women’s brains are not the same and the extent to which a person’s brain functions in a way that is closer to that of the opposite sex is the extent to which they will not likely display the stereotypical behaviour expected of their gender.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    “Sounds like bunkum”

    Good argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    Amazing that Labour are going feral in the lead up to an election NEVER seen that before.

    I’ve also been astounded that Radio New Zealand seems to be running an anti-govt media strategy that oscillates between blatant bias and sleazy attempts to link every negative news item with National.

    How do the unions and Labour get such a direct line to Radio New Zealand to run this kind of campaign?

    Guaranteed way to deep six the Labour party because only beltway geeks and Labour union hacks listen to RNZ, keep up the good work.

    Aye Trevor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. slightlyrighty (2,448 comments) says:

    How many gays and lesbians have been raised in households with a mother and father?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    “…this was about hypocrisy in one of our political parties, but now it’s again about your mutually exclusive and unprovable world views.”

    lol, fair call. And David Farrar’s criticism of Labour is spot on. I wouldn’t mind seeing Labour go the way of the history books or at least seeing a significant overhaul of its current membership. What we need is a real liberal party in this country that isn’t afraid to say “gay adoption” and which would not under any circumstances tolerate a man like Choudhary who gives tacit approval to the execution of homosexuals in Islamic countries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    What we need is a real liberal party in this country that isn’t afraid to say “gay adoption”

    Ha! I would support that, at least it would be more honest than the current lot, a party like that wouldn’t poll well though, because despite the delusions of the social progressives, these issues are just not that important in the grand scheme of things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Chuck Bird (4,403 comments) says:

    “Choudhary who gives tacit approval to the execution of homosexuals in Islamic countries”

    Someone should ask Choudhary what would his view be if it happen to his mate Carter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Chuck Bird (4,403 comments) says:

    No one has commented on my suggestion that this issue should be decided by a binding referendum than by the supposed conscience of MPs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    No single issue is important in the grand scheme of things. Even “the economy” is really just a collection of various smaller agendas. If you broke it down into smaller issues you probably wouldn’t have as many people saying any particular issue is that important.

    But “liberalism” is a collection of ideas which reflects a broad philosophy, including a belief in markets, equality and human rights. Liberal is essentially what this country is and so I think it would have broad appeal if properly sold.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Watching Ashraf Choudhary’s valedictory speech is probably a fate worse than death.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Chuck bird,

    I presume you are talking about gay adoption. What makes it so special that it be put to referendum rather than say medicinal marijuana?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Chuck Bird (4,403 comments) says:

    Weihana, nothing I would support both.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    But “liberalism” is a collection of ideas which reflects a broad philosophy, including a belief in markets, equality and human rights.

    Yeah, and a lot of those “ideas” are actually nothing other than the “opinions” of the liberal elite and are no more rational than the opinions of the worst of the religious.

    Liberal is essentially what this country is and so I think it would have broad appeal if properly sold.

    Your presumption on this is astounding, a. that your form if “liberalism” is the right form, and b. that others would support it.

    To me it seems that what is most often referred to as “liberalism” could be interchanged with “selfishness”, especially regarding the markets and the ‘whims’ of the liberal elite regarding social issues.

    From my experience with church (and particularly negative experience) I can see very little difference between the worst aspects of Christianity (and the resultant world view of “we are right, you are wrong) and those that claim to be ‘social progressives’.

    Both groups have a soap box they didn’t earn, and both see little reason in proving why we should really listen to them and both condemn anyone that doesn’t listen

    The reason they hate each other so much is because they are so much alike.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    How many gays and lesbians have been raised in households with a mother and father?

    True, but how many have had bad relationships with one or other parent?
    Elton John claims he had a bad relationship with his father.

    Here in NZ, Dr Elizabeth Wells from Otago University (who is not biased one way or the other) did a study in which she said the results showed that children who had been abused (not just sexually) tended more to identify as being homosexual or other –

    New Zealanders who identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual, or who have had a same-sex encounter or relationship, tend to come from more disturbed backgrounds, a University of Otago researcher has found.
    Information extracted from 13,000 face-to-face interviews clearly showed those with same-sexual or bisexual orientation were more likely to have experienced negative events in childhood, Associate Prof Elisabeth Wells said yesterday.

    People who had experienced sexual abuse as children were three times more likely to identity themselves as homosexual or bisexual than those who had not experienced abuse, she said. Also, the more adverse events someone experienced in childhood, the more likely they were to belong to one of the “non-exclusively heterosexual” groups.

    Associations between adverse events and sexuality group were found for sexual assault, rape, violence to the child and for witnessing violence in the home.

    Other adverse events, such as the sudden death of a loved one, serious childhood illness or accident, were only slightly associated with non-heterosexual identity or behaviour.

    Prof Wells, a consultant statistician based in the department of public health and general practice at the university’s Christchurch campus, further analysed answers to a series of questions about sexual orientation and home life asked as part of a major New Zealand mental health survey carried out in 2003 and 2004.

    She said there was no way of knowing from her study why there was a link between negative events in childhood and same-sex sexual orientation.

    “We took a life-course approach, looking at where people had come from and where they have got to. But there was no opportunity to ask people why they [identified as homosexual or bisexual] and whether they thought that was linked to their childhood experiences.”

    She said she would support further research being carried out.

    Debate has long raged over whether same-sex orientation is primarily influenced by nature – genetics – or nurture – environment.

    Prof Wells said she expected her findings would add fuel to the debate.

    It might also anger the gay and lesbian community and inflame the “Christian right wing”, she said.

    “I suspect there might be some gay and lesbian people who will be indignant, but it is not my intention to anger them. You could say that if someone was sexually abused as a child, chooses to live as a homosexual and lives life well, then that is not a bad thing. But if they are living a homosexual life and regretting it, that is another matter.”

    Indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Ps, I am sick of the gay community stealing the rainbow for some sort of symbol to identify with. I think it’s time to take it back. it has nothing whatsoever to so with being homosexual. It was a sign from God that the world would never be flooded again.

    And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

    Sorry gays guys, but the rainbow isn’t yours to use.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Cool….Marriage isn’t yours either. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    No, but marriage is what it is, just like gravity is what it is.
    It’s just obvious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Courage Wolf (559 comments) says:

    Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.

    How convenient that He specifies not using water, as later on He finds using fire more appropriate for murdering people. Obviously He didn’t mean ALL though – homosexuals and nostalgic wives are excluded in this definition of ‘all’:

    Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah – from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus He overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities – and also the vegetation in the land. But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Clint Heine (1,560 comments) says:

    Courage Wolf – is that before or after Lot’s daughters got him drunk and then had sex with him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Clint Heine (1,560 comments) says:

    Fletch, Gays have as much right to claim the rainbow as you do claiming it for your sky father.

    You said you don’t believe that over 1500 species on the planet exhibit or have homosexual characteristics but the onus is on you to prove this wrong. A simple Google search makes you look pretty stupid. Maybe you and your co-bloggers over at NZ Bigoted can find another way to preach your stone-age people hating beliefs.

    If you hate your fellow Kiwis that much based upon something they do in the privacy of their own bedroom then that says more about the state of your mind and nobody else.

    The only thing that is obvious is that you have provided no facts apart from some verse from a book. Fuck, I’ll quote the Edmonds cook book for you for all that matters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. tvb (3,938 comments) says:

    The covert racism of the Labour Party against Maori is the one that annoys me the most. They always give Maori “beads and blanket” portfolios such as Maori affairs but never something real like a major portfolio such as justice. But they go subtly further and tend to select candidates who are satisfied with these “beads and blanket” portfolios. This has been going on for 70 years of Labour Governments . I look at someone like Trevor Mallard and Goff and think nothing has changed here. Even that dreadful old harridan Clare Curran gives off the same vibes. Darian Fenton – shudder bet she thinks Maori should just shut the f up and stop making all these demands. All this for people who have given Labour a solid 30% of the total vote for Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Clint, actually it is you who is making the claim about gay animals, and therefore it is you the onus is on to prove same. I don’t have to prove anything. I’ve lived on farms all my life and have yet to see gay animals. Yes, cows may “ride” each other when mating season comes around, but that doesn’t mean they are gay. This animal thing is more a liberal idea of ascribing liberal desires or actions to animals that frankly aren’t there. I guess if it makes gays feel better though. Personally, the excuse that we’re just acting like animals (rather than humans) doesn’t seem like much of an excuse to me. As I said, the onus is on the one who is making the (frankly laughable) claim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Bogusnews (425 comments) says:

    Labour has always had a preoccupation with gays (at least when Clarke had significant influence). Even when the export sector went into recession back in 2004 and began to drag the rest of the country with it, they were still focused on gay rights. This policy indicates to me they have learned nothing and the current lot should never be let near the treasury benches again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. slightlyrighty (2,448 comments) says:

    Having given Labour’s relationship with the Gay community some thought, it seems to me that there is an element of tokenism from Labour. Gays are present in the party to obviously promote the party as being gay friendly, at least as a facade.

    I do not believe that is true of all of the rainbow caucus in Labour, but why is there a need to identify and seperately lable the “Rainbow Caucus” as such?

    There are Gay National party members, but the difference is that their sexuality does not seem to be the issue that Labour members make theirs out to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    Fletch

    No, but marriage is what it is, just like gravity is what it is.
    It’s just obvious.

    What rubbish… But hey if you are correct, how do I divorce myself from gravity ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. KiwiGreg (3,129 comments) says:

    “I’ve lived on farms all my life and have yet to see gay animals. Yes, cows may “ride” each other when mating season comes around”

    That would be bulls. I’ve never seen cows do it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    Rams mount each other as well and so do dogs. See the difference is dog brain says : feels good do it…. human brain says : feels good but if I do it I’ll burn in hell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Courage Wolf (559 comments) says:

    How sad and pathetic. That given the level of poverty in this world, Christians treat homosexuality as if it’s the biggest threat to mankind and battle it with all their spiritual might. If one day I’m at my deathbed considering some of the things Christians told me about the afterlife, instead of thinking: “Man, those Christians were such kind and generous people who helped the poor, maybe they were right about Heaven and how Jesus saves,” I’ll probably be thinking: “Jesus fucking Christ, all I remember was a bunch of people who spent all their energy into attacking homosexuals and thinking that this was in anyway furthering God’s Kingdom, not to mention that ‘repent now or else’ (to quote Lee01) was in anyway an effective mode of evangelism.”

    A recent conversation on FB…

    Zac: I’m sorry to seem rude but that’s just avoiding our responsibility. God created the world good and innocent, free of sorrow and war. It was man who caused things to be this way, not God. Sure maybe God did know what was going to happen, and He in fact does let things happen, even the bad things sometimes. Sometimes so that we can learn from it and sometimes so that we can see that our ways often suck. However, that’s only because He allows us to make decisions out of free will. Sure, He could just come down and solve everything, start over, prevent us from doing every bad thing in the world and keep order, but then we wouldn’t have free will. The ability to make our own cohices. And then we would now be writing about why God doesn’t let man do what he wants. Do you see the backwardness of that? God tried to make the world right and if you put philosophy and religion aside and follow the morals and lifestyle in the Bible there would be a blissful and peaceful world. But instead we refuse to not live in such ways but rather live our own lives our ways and find out that our ways hurt us a lot of times. Do you see what I’m saying? This isn’t a religious view, it’s an obvious one. Man screwed it all up, man caused the mess, man should rightfully clean it up because man refused to live in a way that would have prevented all of this. It’s arrogant to blame God, Who has only tried to help, for our mistakes that we refuse to address.

    Anthony: Can any god be a God worth following if He or She is comfortable with allowing such profound and undeserving misery to show the world that they need to get their things together and fix it? That seems both cruel but even more so lazy. If God gives us this responsibility, where is His? Does that conveniently allow this invisible figure to also remain incompetent? It seems like a just God would not allow such a corrupt and unjust system to arise in the first place. Then again, the God of the Bible isn’t the best parent anyway. He was such a bad parent, He had to drown most of His children to start anew. “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then where does evil come from? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” If man was made in the image of God, but man is imperfect as you suggest, then are you telling me God is imperfect for creating man (an imperfect creation)? Most Christians believe God cleaned the Earth with a Great Flood thousands of years ago for things far less atrocious than some of the things that happen around the world today – why does He not have the same powers today? If things really are our responsibility, as you suggest, then why wasn’t it our responsibility then and what was the need for the flood – or is this a new provision that God has laid upon us and how do you know this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. david (2,482 comments) says:

    KiwiGreg, you need to spend some time down on the farm. When cows “ride” it is commonly known as “bulling” and is an easy indicator of which cows are on heat. AI timing is based also exclusively on this and is the cause of some 7 million cows in NZ each year getting in calf to the technician with a syringe.

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

    Well pretty much what I thought. An eight year old boy is made to dress like a girl, given hormone treatment and otherwise screwed for life by two Lesbian sickos, and the Liberals have nothing to say. Weihana excuses it with his usual selective and ideologicially driven bullshit, but then Weihana excuses the torture of babies, so no surprise there.

    Liberalism is a disease, and its apologists are seriously sick in the head.

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

    KiwiG

    Cows too. All God’s creatures are at it I’m afraid.

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

    Lee01

    “An eight year old boy is made to dress like a girl, given hormone treatment and otherwise screwed for life by two Lesbian sickos, and the Liberals have nothing to say.”

    And a baby girl is put in a washing machine and hung on the clothesline, routinely brutalised and ultimately dies.

    So what is your point exactly? Or is this just a heaven sent opportunity for you to reinforce xtian bigotry?

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

    So what is your point exactly?

    That liberalism is an evil disease that, like cancer, has infected the West.

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

    An eight year old boy is made to dress like a girl, given hormone treatment and otherwise screwed for life by two Lesbian sickos, and the Liberals have nothing to say.”

    And a baby girl is put in a washing machine and hung on the clothesline, routinely brutalised and ultimately dies.

    Both are examples of Libreralism. One, an example of Liberal notions of “human rights”, the other an example of Liberal welfare policies.

    Liberalism is the cause in both cases. It is a disease, and it’s apologists are diseased in the mind.

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

    Gee, Lee

    And here’s me thinking that they were examples of appalling child abuse.

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

    They are, apalling child abuse in societies run by Liberals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Courage Wolf (559 comments) says:

    At first it was ‘communists’. Then it was ‘the world’. Then it was ‘moral relativists’. I see the mainstream Church has now once again updated its terminology to ‘liberals’.

    You sound like a poster who used to post here called Dad4Justice when he used to obsessively blame everything on the ‘feminists’.

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

    Feminism, Marxism and moral relatives are all just manifestations of the same disease.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Courage Wolf (559 comments) says:

    To give you an idea of what he was like – you and Dad4Justice’s rantings actually have a lot in common Lee01 – you two should get in touch he’s probably your angry soulmate:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/04/a_domestic_violence_register.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. leftyliberal (601 comments) says:

    “Well pretty much what I thought. An eight year old boy is made to dress like a girl, given hormone treatment and otherwise screwed for life by two Lesbian sickos, and the Liberals have nothing to say. Weihana excuses it with his usual selective and ideologicially driven bullshit, but then Weihana excuses the torture of babies, so no surprise there.

    Liberalism is a disease, and its apologists are seriously sick in the head.”

    Lee, resist the urge to be so bitter towards others.

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

    I think lee is entitled to be bitter towards liberals.

    You are correct, they are a scourge on society, whilst claiming to have the best interest of us all they condescend towards us because they know better as their social engineering screws up our futures and our kids.
    No Lee draw on the well son but do let it pollute you.

    But remember it is not the individuals but the spirits behind them (that they let direct and control them by turning away from the one true God) that we war on.
    That they don’t know God, his holiness nor awesomeness so what can we expect?
    But then that is true of so much of the church, so allowing them to fuel their fire against God.

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

    Lee01, the compelling argument against the Jewish play.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. gump (1,228 comments) says:

    Fletch said:

    “No, but marriage is what it is, just like gravity is what it is.
    It’s just obvious.”

    —————————-

    You should read the following book. You might learn something.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn

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

    @Chuck bird

    Sorry but I can’t take seriously a site called gayconspiracy.info

    “I am pleased you are a normal well-adjusted heterosexual”

    Well thanks I suppose, but again I’m not sure what is defined as normal.

    @Lucia

    Thanks to you also, to be clear I’m a heterosexual male.

    “…did the best they could to shelter you from the homosexual lifestyle”

    No sheltering needed in my opinion, as I said they’re both quite conservative people and my upbringing, I hope they won’t mind me saying, was quite uneventful. I’m not married (I never will be, I’m an atheist and don’t believe in that institution) but I am in a happy relationship of over a decade.

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

    The point I was originally trying to make was that making blanket statements about any group is simplistic thinking and you need to judge the person not what sexual preference they have. I have a friend who grew up in a very fundamentalist Christian house hold and had their own issues relating to sex that they had to deal with. I would never advocate that Christians should not raise children because of their crazy (In my opinion) parents.

    @Lee01. Change the record boss.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Courage Wolf: in your conversation Zac is right, and what Anthony is asking for is pretty much impossible.

    How much should God intervene? If someone is going to burn their hand on a stove, should God then jump in and stop it?
    Wouldn’t that be interfering in our human lives?

    You have to understand that we live in a fallen world. God created the world to be perfect, with no suffering at all – it was Eden – Paradise. But, he gave us human beings Free Will. Why? Well, just think about it – think about the people you love – your partner or kids: it’s only because they have the free will not to love you that makes them able to love. To make a decision. Imagine if your partner or wife had to love you, because that is how they were made. What kind of love is that? Same with God. He gave humans Free Will and the ability not to love. And if you are gifted with this choice, then there has to something to choose about (eg, whether to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil).

    If there is no ‘bad’ thing from which to choose, then there is no free will.

    Do you understand? In any case, we humans chose against God’s will and lost Paradise. We ended up here in this fallen world where we have to work and sweat for our bread and, yes, nothing is perfect – BUT IT WAS in Eden.

    God is also a Father, and he does permit hurt to His children. Even you as a father permit hurt to your children sometimes, if it is for their greater good – i.e inoculation injection. You permit them to go through that pain (and others like it) because in the end it is for their good. The same with a chemotherapy patient who has to suffer through treatment so that he/she can have the greater good at the end. Sometimes we can’t see what that good is, or it might seem that there isn’t a reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah – from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus He overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities – and also the vegetation in the land. But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

    Yes, and God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of the sin of homosexuality. The word “Sodom” is where we get the words “sodomy” and “sodomize” from.

    Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

    Before that Abraham pleaded and bartered with God not to destroy Sodom if there were even 10 good people there. And God agreed, and Lot and most of his family got out.

    Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

    The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD.[d] Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[e] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

    The LORD said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

    Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”

    “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

    Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

    He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

    Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

    He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

    Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

    He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

    Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

    He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

    When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

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

    @Fletch

    Damn that talking snake eh…

    Looking at what you wrote I can’t help but think of Occam’s razor.

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

    Well said, Lee:

    Liberalism is a disease, and its apologists are seriously sick in the head.

    … liberalism is an evil disease that, like cancer, has infected the West.

    Both are examples of Libreralism. One, an example of Liberal notions of “human rights”, the other an example of Liberal welfare policies.
    Liberalism is the cause in both cases. It is a disease, and it’s apologists are diseased in the mind.

    They are, apalling child abuse in societies run by Liberals.

    Feminism, Marxism and moral relatives are all just manifestations of the same disease.

    All those things are worth repeating!
    They should actually be printed out and nailed to the forehead of all those who suffer from this disease … for quick reference purposes.

    Liberals, Cultural Marxists, Social Liberals, Socialists, Marxists, Communists, most Atheists, most Darwinists, Sodomites, Lesbians et al … ARE ALL similar shades of the same grey.

    They must take responsibility for the mess the West is in: for its moral decline, for its economic collapse, for its welfare dependent sub-class, for legalising all manner of sexual deviency, for exposing children to perverted and unnatural ‘parenting’ environments, for the genocide of abortion, for the increasing crime rate, for the socialised education system, for out-of-control youth, for flooding the West with immigrants who refuse to assimilate [Muslims et al] … AND for the majority of mass genocides of the last century.

    And many of the above commenters either see nothing wrong with most of these things based on their continuing to excuse them, or they actively support them and somehow view this as “Humanity advancing itself”.

    Active participants or useful idiots one and all …
    God preserve us from these workers of iniquity!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Aredhel777 (271 comments) says:

    “My advice would be to deal with those issues in a mature and rational way, once you have done so come and join the vast majority of us who do not believe, who do not belong to a cult, who just go about their lives in a normal and decent manner without feeling we have to worry about what some vengeful, hate filled despot is thinking about us.
    You will really enjoy the feeling of relief.”

    This all seems rather arrogant to me.

    “If you hate your fellow Kiwis that much based upon something they do in the privacy of their own bedroom then that says more about the state of your mind and nobody else.”

    I don’t understand where this misguided notion that anyone who disapproves of same-sex relationships hates gays comes from. I think same-sex relationships are wrong but I don’t hate gays in the slightest. There are nice gay people and there are bad gay people, just as there are nice heterosexuals and unpleasant heterosexuals.

    “Lee, resist the urge to be so bitter towards others.”

    You know, Lee’s posting is a little harsh at times, but I find it very hypocritical that people like you tell him off about it but don’t care when militant atheists go mouthing off in their hate-filled rants towards Christians or people of other religions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    I don’t understand where this misguided notion that anyone who disapproves of same-sex relationships hates gays comes from. I think same-sex relationships are wrong but I don’t hate gays in the slightest. There are nice gay people and there are bad gay people, just as there are nice heterosexuals and unpleasant heterosexuals.- Aredhel777

    Exactly.
    Just because I don’t agree with what some people do, doesn’t mean I hate the people.
    I don’t think smoking is good, but I don’t hate the people who do it.

    The problem is that gays want to paint anyone who doesn’t agree with their conduct as ‘homophobic’. In practice, what this means is that for me to disagree with any of their actions or conduct automatically makes me a bigot. Scott Lively puts it this way –

    As a rhetorical weapon, homophobia is unequaled. It serves first to define anyone who opposes the legitimization of homosexuality as a hate-filled bigot. The universal inclusion of all opponents as homophobic is of course not emphasized. Homosexual activists publicly associate this label with violent “gay bashers” and hateful fanatics. When they use the term they want people to think about the killers of Matthew Shepard, but in conventional practice they include every man, woman and child who believes homosexuality is abnormal or wrong.

    Lively even asked homosexuals – is there any way he is allowed to disagree with any of their conduct and not be labelled a hater and a bigot? The answer: NO

    I hate being called a homophobe. It has such an ugly connotation. Its especially unpleasant because, as a Christian, I’m supposed to have a reputation for loving people, not hating them. So I’ve worked really hard over the years to try to get the homosexuals to stop calling me a homophobe. I’ve pointed out the difference between hating people and hating their behavior (loving the sinner but hating the sin). They hated that. Then I tried “walking my talk” by taking an ex-”gay” man who was dying of AIDS into my family. My wife and I and our children loved and cared for him during the last year of his life. They hated that even more.

    Then I began asking for guidance from homosexuals themselves: “Tell me, where is the line between homophobia and acceptable opposition to homosexuality?” I asked. “What if I just agree with the Bible that homosexuality is a sin no worse than any other sex outside of marriage?” “No, that’s homophobic,” they replied. “Suppose I talk only about the proven medical hazards of gay sex and try to discourage people from hurting themselves?” “No, you can’t do that,” they said. “How about if I say that homosexuals have the option to change if they choose?” “Ridiculous” they answered. “Maybe I could just be completely positive, say nothing about homosexuality, and focus only on promoting the natural family and traditional marriage?” “That’s really hateful,” they replied.

    After I while, I realized that the only way I could get them to stop calling me a homophobe was to start agreeing with them about everything. But here’s my dilemma: I honestly believe the Bible which says that homosexuality is wrong and harmful and that all sex belongs within marriage. I’ve also read the professional studies and know that “gay” sex hurts people because it goes against the design of their bodies. And I’m friends with a number of former homosexuals who are now married and living heterosexual lives. Do I have to give up my religion? Ignore scientific facts? Betray my friends? Is that the only way to avoid being called a hater and a homophobe?

    There’s no escape. A homophobe is anyone who, for any reason, disapproves of homosexuality in any way, shape, manner, form or degree. This leaves me with just two choices: agree that everything about homosexuality is natural, normal, healthy, moral and worthy to be celebrated OR be labeled as a mentally ill, hate-filled bigot.

    There’s a queer reasoning behind all of this. Homosexuals call me names like bigot and homophobe, condemn my religion, mock my rational conclusions about social issues, impugn my motives, display intense hostility toward my actions, and curse my very existence, all under the justification that I’m a “hater.” But if I’m a “hater” for civilly opposing what they do, why aren’t they haters for uncivilly opposing what I do? Such a double standard, in the context of a public debate on “civil rights,” is not just hypocritical, it is surreal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Aredhel777 (271 comments) says:

    That’s a really excellent article/thing, Fletch. Can you provide a link?

    I confess I’m tired of being called a racist/sexist/homophobe/bigot, myself. Or having people imply or state outright that I’m stupid and deluded because I believe in God. It is ironic that the very justification they give for the bile they direct towards me is that *I* hate them. They simply don’t realise that they hate me far more than I hate them or anyone else for that matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Lucia Maria (1,988 comments) says:

    Concentrate,

    No sheltering needed in my opinion, as I said they’re both quite conservative people and my upbringing, I hope they won’t mind me saying, was quite uneventful. I’m not married (I never will be, I’m an atheist and don’t believe in that institution) but I am in a happy relationship of over a decade.

    Yet, you don’t believe in marriage.

    Did you know that women are safer in relationships with men when the men commit to them? That their children are safer when the men commit? That means less likely to be abused? That a man who marries his sweetheart is more likely to still be there for the children when those children are sixteen? That commitment is called marriage.

    Marriage makes a man more than just a live-in boyfriend. Marriage is what you’ve never seen modelled in a same-sex household, therefore you don’t know how to do it yourself. But, it can be learned, so there is hope, only it’s much harder to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Courage Wolf (559 comments) says:

    Lucia – did you know that my friend’s parents were pastors and divorced? Did you know another one of my friend’s parents are atheists and have been together for over 30 years? That just because Maori children are more likely to end up in jail doesn’t mean that we should therefore ban Maori from being able to have children? That the same applies to homosexuals who adopt?

    I posted this in another thread ages ago. Instead of trying to prevent people from having a relationship, the Church ought to be putting in place programmes helping those whose relationships are struggling. Instead all the Church is known for, all the body of Christ, all the Christians, are known for is to be judgmental and condemning and then turn around and expect everyone to repent.

    I’ve been thinking about homosexuality, and have come to the conclusion that Christians in general have missed the boat. We should be the ones pushing for gay rights, not fighting against them. By demonizing homosexuality I think we’re missing a great opportunity to do a great good in our world, and instead are letting ourselves become tools for evil. I want to outline some of my thoughts on the matter.

    In reality, it is hard to make a watertight biblical argument against homosexuality. To my knowledge, there are three main biblical passages that appear to be against homosexuality. The first is in old testament law (e.g. Leviticus 18:22), but is alongside a lot of other bizarre commandments, which no christian I know observes (e.g. don’t wear cloths with two fibres?), so there is no reason to see the law’s condemnation of homosexuality as anything more than an obscure old law.

    The next is the example Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19), cities that were destroyed by God for their unrighteousness. The question is, what were they doing that caused them to be considered unrighteousness? The bible gives us an example; angels visit the town, and the men of the town want to homosexually rape them. Some take this (as does christian tradition) to be an indication that homosexuality is wrong, but this misses the far more obvious sin; rape. Any town that’s default response to visitors is attempted rape is unrighteous, heterosexual or homosexual. So this account doesn’t provide evidence that homosexuality is wrong.

    Lastly, there are a few new testament passage that mention homosexuality amongst a list of other negative attributes. The most notable one is Romans 1, where Paul talks about people turning away from God, and engaging in homosexuality, among other things. This may appear as a scathing condemnation of homosexuality, but we should look closely at what Paul is actually saying. For a start, Romans is a horribly difficult book to understand, so we should be careful in coming to firm conclusions from a single passage. Among various interpretations, it is possible that Paul is quoting another passage, and doesn’t actually agree with what the passage is saying, which would explain why Paul suddenly flips the blame onto the readers in Romans 2:6 Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. Additionally, it is entirely feasible that Paul (or the passage Paul is quoting) is not commenting homosexuality per sei, but pagan cults that involves sexual rituals.

    So there is some apparent biblical condemnation of homosexuality. But it’s in isolated passages, which can be explained as culturally irrelevant today. What we should look to is the broader picture of the bible, and ignore the pieces that seem to be artifacts of the culture of biblical authors (e.g. slavery, a decidedly non-christian practice, is all but endorsed in Colossians 3). What is the broader picture, and what does it have to say about homosexuality?

    Jesus did not come to the ‘in’ crowd. He came to the outcasts of society. He helped the lepers, he associated with ‘sinners’ with tax collectors, with prostitutes, with the common people, all the people who the religious leaders looked down upon. He came bringing reversal to exploitation, he hated the idea that religion was being used to make money of people, that people were being oppressed by the economic and religious systems, and he fought against it. It took a while, but eventually his disciples caught on to the idea that the kingdom of God was not just for Jews, it was for Gentiles too. It wasn’t just for free men, but for slaves, for women, for everyone. Before God, all men and women are equal. All men and women. The end of James 1, James makes it pretty clear that if we resort to following the old ways of respecting one group over another group, we are really going against the message of Jesus.

    I put it to you that Homosexuals are the outcasts of modern society. Admittedly their lot in society has been getting better, but unfortunately this has been because of efforts outside of the church, and in fact their lot has been impeded by the church. It should be the other way round – the church should be advocating for homosexual rights.

    An appeal for Christians to accept, and advocate for homosexuals

    It’s hard to be different. Our society is heavily heterosexual, to be homosexual is a deviation from the norm. Someone who comes to terms with being a homosexual can go through a very difficult journey. They have to come to terms with being different from what seems like everyone else, they have to deal with an inner conflict as they try and work out who they are, and what they believe is right and wrong, they have to come to put up with all the derogatory comments towards homosexuals, the reactions of others when they come out, which can range from surprise to moral condemnation to disgust. Some people can be accepting, but others are not – and the most screwed up thing is that Christians are often the most unaccepting people.

    Christians condemnation of homosexuality is an evil, as it goes against what Jesus taught, and also, it causes much pain. Consider the familiar example of someone growing up inside Christianity, but coming to the realisation that they have homosexual feelings. There is an inevitable dilemma; either reject the church dogma that homosexuality is wrong, or reject a part of themselves. Both of these choices can be incredibly painful, one often leading to a disconnection from church, family, sometimes all they know, the other often leading to a rejection of self, a horrible, horrible fate. I have seen people destroyed by this dilemma. People shouldn’t have to make this choice.

    Premise 1: It is not good for man to be alone? It is an inalienable right that someone should be able to live with their mutually chosen partner. An individual’s right to form a close intimate bond with another individual should not be taken away, without very very good reasons.

    Premise 2: There exists homosexual individuals who would not be satisfied by a heterosexual relationship. I’m not saying that homosexuality has a solely genetic aieteology, I’m just saying that some people are at a point where they just couldn’t do a heterosexual relationship.

    If one deems homosexuality to be wrong, this means that there will be individuals who have had their right to form an intimate relationship taken away from them.

    What would you do if someone told you that even though you loved someone, you were not allowed to be with them? If you have a partner, think about them. What would it be like to look upon your very relationship as something pathological, something wrong, something to be repressed, ignored? Think what it would be like to spend the rest of your life away from them, knowing that although you both love each other, you must live apart?

    I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.

    In the past I believed homosexuality was a sin. Naively I contributed to the christian culture that preached that homosexuality was wrong, that people who ‘had it’ could repent and change. I now recognize that I contributed to oppression; I contributed to the culture that causes a lot of pain for many people, a lot of which I probably wasn’t aware of it. No more.

    See, if instead you had posted something so Christlike and accepting and loving, us atheists might consider Christianity a worthy cause. But instead, history repeats itself, and Christians never learn.

    The following is an article that is posted at http://www.newreformation.org whose founder is definitely off the deep end liberal in my opinion, but I find this article so utterly brimming with the mind blowing truth about how wrong conservative Christians have historically been on social issues in this country that I reposted it here. This should give us all pause to think the next time we think we know what the Bible “clearly says.”

    Moral Legalism – by Steve Faulkenberg

    http://www.newreformation.org/heresy2.htm

    The fundamentalist evangelical church is the natural heir of pharisaism. They have a well deserved reputation for being judgemental and moralistic. The conservative protestant evangelicals have always taken what they call a strong stand on issues of right and wrong. They have always stood firmly for Biblical standards as set forth in the Old Testament and the New. They have always defended these standards in the face of social and cultural disintegration. The following are some examples:

    In the founding charter of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest protestant denomination in the United States, just prior to the civil war, the founding fathers took a firm stand in defense of slavery which they believed to be ordained by God and justified through the references to slavery in the scripture (Eph 6: 5-9, Col 3:22-4:1).

    Many conservative evangelicals took a strong stand against women’s suffrage around the turn of the century. They argued that the Bible clearly specifies that women should have no place in the governance of men and that to give women the right to vote would be a clear violation of the laws of God (1 Tim 2:11 – 3:13; 1 Cor 14:33-35).

    In the early decades of this century, conservative evangelicals took a strong stand favoring prohibition. This issue was so important to them that they violated their own doctrine of separation of church and state to lend their full weight to the ratification of the 18th amendment. This too was done based on clear scriptural authority (Rom 14:21, 1 Cor 6:9-10, Eph 5:18), while ignoring scripture to the contrary (1 Tim 5:23, John 2:1-11). In standing for prohibition, the church participated unwittingly in laying the foundations of organized crime in the United States. The structures and alliances which developed during prohibition for distribution of moonshine are now used to distribute drugs. As a result, prohibition may well have been the most socially destructive event in our nations history. (For more on this topic see Sermon Number Nine).

    Conservative evangelicals took a strong stand against allowing divorced individuals full participation in church life. This too was based on strong scriptural authority (Mark 10:1-12, Mat 19:1-12, Luke 16:18). For many years divorced individuals were not asked to teach Sunday School or hold office in the churches.

    Conservative evangelicals took a strong stand against racial integration. Churches which accepted African-Americans as members were removed from fellowship in the local associations and censured in various ways.

    In fact, conservative evangelicals have been on the wrong side of every major social issue in the past 150 years. Is it any wonder that the church has lost its place in society as a moral authority. Is it any wonder that evangelical fundamentalists have become a laughing stock. (emphasis added)

    The message of Christ is not about right and wrong. In the Bible it was the Pharisees that had right and wrong all figured out. The message of Christ is about loving people, good or bad, right or wrong. We should be following the example of Christ who condemned the Pharisees (who were the great authorities on what was right and what was wrong), but did not condemn the woman taken in adultery, or the Samaritan woman, or Zacchaeus, or a multitude of other sinners He encountered.

    Of course I expect you Christians in this thread to just continue being the Pharisees that you are and refute these articles and posts as too liberal and not written with the ‘spirit’ of God and that your self-righteousness interpretation is the true way of Christianity and that homosexuality is still wrong etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. leftyliberal (601 comments) says:

    Lucia: The commitment needn’t be called marriage. A piece of paper and the exchanging of vows does not a successful relationship make – after all, we can see this with the great number of marriages that end in divorce.

    Aredhel777: You quoted me above and suggested that I’m a hypocrite for suggesting to Lee that he should not be bitter to others, because apparently I don’t say anything when “atheists mouth of on their hateful rants”. Is it wrong that I should expect more from Lee, or is it OK if everyone else does it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Lucia Maria (1,988 comments) says:

    Courage Wolf,

    Lucia – did you know that my friend’s parents were pastors and divorced? Did you know another one of my friend’s parents are atheists and have been together for over 30 years? That just because Maori children are more likely to end up in jail doesn’t mean that we should therefore ban Maori from being able to have children? That the same applies to homosexuals who adopt?

    There are always exceptions to the rule. Unmarried atheists can stay together for longer than married Christians, but when you look at the trends, those that marry stay together more often and longer than those that don’t, those that don’t live together before marriage stay together more often and longer than those that don’t.

    No one is talking about banning any one from having children. However the difference between Maori having children and two men having children is that one group can create them naturally, the other needs that child to be created between a man and a woman. Two men cannot have a baby together, it just cannot happen. So a ban on them not being able to adopt is very different from what you are implying with Maori.

    That’s a very long piece of writing there. I’ll have a go at it in bits.

    Btw, it’ll be from a Catholic perspective as I’m not a Protestant

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Lucia Maria (1,988 comments) says:

    Lefty liberal,

    The piece of paper is proof of the commitment. If people don’t want to get the piece of paper, then you have to question the level of commitment they really have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Lucia Maria (1,988 comments) says:

    Courage Wolf,

    First of all, it’s very easy to make a watertight Biblical argument against homosexual practice, if you aren’t trying to deny that it’s there and doing the standard Protestant thing of reading into the text what you want to see there. If we go back to Genesis, you will see that God’s original for humanity was for there to be male and female together.

    We have two accounts of Creation in Genesis; in one woman is taken from man’s side and he recognises her as part of himself, and in the other God makes man as male and female. There is no room there for the same type of relationship to develop between two of the same sex; two men cannot complement each other in the way that a man and a woman does.

    Pope John Paul II goes into great detail on what a lot of this means, also bringing to mind Our Lord’s words when asked about divorce. Jesus said that Moses allowed men to divorce their wives because of their hardness of heart, but in the beginning it was not so. Have a look at some of these articles: Theology of the Body.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Aredhel777 (271 comments) says:

    “See, if instead you had posted something so Christlike and accepting and loving, us atheists might consider Christianity a worthy cause. But instead, history repeats itself, and Christians never learn.” – Courage Wolf.

    I have yet to see any Christian in this thread, including myself, say anything as aggressive, crass or offensive about atheists as you say about Christians on a regular basis. Chill out and relax. Nobody hates you or thinks they are superior to you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Aredhel777 – parts of my article come from the two links below –

    http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/archives.php?id=4429887
    http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/archives.php?id=4693988

    On my browser (at least), some of the quotation marks end up being these question mark things, so it may be easier to read the PDF version (links at the top of the articles)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria says:- “First of all, it’s very easy to make a watertight Biblical argument against homosexual practice”

    Where did Jesus specifically condemn gays?

    And how do you interpret this passage:

    Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. *The one who can accept this should accept it*.”

    Matthew 19 11-12

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Lucia Maria (1,988 comments) says:

    Scott,

    Our Lord did not specifically condemn gays. He came to save them and everyone else from sin, not to condemn.

    With regards to that passage from Matthew, the kingdom of the heaven is the church, so Jesus is talking about the celibate priesthood.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria says:- “so Jesus is talking about the celibate priesthood.”

    Yes he is. The way I understand it, is that Jesus is accepting of the notion that some men are *born* with a sexual disposition other than the *normal* heterosexual. Sounds fairly liberal to me.

    He also overrules Moses in the same passage:

    “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

    8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Aredhel777 (271 comments) says:

    Thank you Fletch. Those articles were very interesting, particularly the first one although you had already posted it.

    “Where did Jesus specifically condemn gays?” – Scott Chris.

    In the period that he was incarnated there is no indication that he mentioned homosexuality, however there are many other verses in the Bible which condemn homosexuality as a sin. As has already been mentioned, the Bible is quite clear on the subject unless you specifically want to believe it says something that it doesn’t say and look for reasons to twist what is written.

    “Yes he is. The way I understand it, is that Jesus is accepting of the notion that some men are *born* with a sexual disposition other than the *normal* heterosexual. Sounds fairly liberal to me.”

    The way I read Romans 1, homosexuality is innate to a person and they are born with it, but the reason that people are born with a homosexual sexual orientation is the brokenness in nature as a result of the Fall, which is why it is still wrong to enter into a same-sex relationship.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Lucia Maria (1,988 comments) says:

    Courage Wolf,

    More from your comment:

    Jesus did not come to the ‘in’ crowd. He came to the outcasts of society. He helped the lepers, he associated with ‘sinners’ with tax collectors, with prostitutes, with the common people, all the people who the religious leaders looked down upon. He came bringing reversal to exploitation, he hated the idea that religion was being used to make money of people, that people were being oppressed by the economic and religious systems, and he fought against it. It took a while, but eventually his disciples caught on to the idea that the kingdom of God was not just for Jews, it was for Gentiles too. It wasn’t just for free men, but for slaves, for women, for everyone. Before God, all men and women are equal. All men and women. The end of James 1, James makes it pretty clear that if we resort to following the old ways of respecting one group over another group, we are really going against the message of Jesus.

    I put it to you that Homosexuals are the outcasts of modern society.

    Ok, that bit that I’ve bolded, that’s made Jesus into some sort of social change revolutionary, which He was not. His primary purpose was to save mankind from sin. That’s why He died on the Cross. Before that, He healed people from their ailments and forgave their sins. He told them to sin no more. He transformed the people whom He hung out with.

    That’s what God does, and that’s what he can do to every person that lets Him, including you.

    Before He ascended back to Heaven, he gave His Apostles this power to forgive sin (John 20:21-23). That power has been handed down to all Catholic priests who can forgive your sins when a person makes a sincere confession. When the sins are forgiven, God give grace specifically to help with the sins you’ve confessed so that you have the ability to overcome them. This involves struggle, it’s not necessarily easy, and people tend to fail over and over and over again. But in the failing we learn to rely on God more, to distrust ourselves more and grow in humility and perseverance. It is doable. Jesus tells us to take up our Cross and follow Him, that means we have to expect difficulties and temptations, but know that we can overcome because He is helping us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Lucia Maria (1,988 comments) says:

    Scott,

    Lucia Maria says:- “so Jesus is talking about the celibate priesthood.”

    Yes he is. The way I understand it, is that Jesus is accepting of the notion that some men are *born* with a sexual disposition other than the *normal* heterosexual. Sounds fairly liberal to me.

    Ok, but he’s not talking about men who have sex with other men, he’s talking about men who have no interest in sex because they are eunuchs. Are you trying to say that Jesus is endorsing homosexuality here? Because He’s not, not in the slightest.

    He also overrules Moses in the same passage:

    “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

    8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

    Yes, Our Lord overrules Moses and points to the beginning when man and woman were made. What is your point here, that by overruling Moses, Jesus somehow overrules the 10 Commandments, maybe? The Commandments that were written by the finger of God? Or, do you mean something else?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    Aredhel says:- “result of the Fall, which is why it is still wrong to enter into a same-sex relationship.”

    Hmm, well obviously I don’t agree, but I’ll leave it at that.

    I am interested in your analysis of this line from Matthew 19 v8:

    Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard…”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Johnboy (13,386 comments) says:

    It would be better if Moses had said “Your wives are permitted to divorce you because your cocks gone soft”. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria says:- “What is your point here, that by overruling Moses, Jesus somehow overrules the 10 Commandments”

    No. And I’m sure that even his sermon on the mount he doesn’t do that either. What I think he does do is reinterpret the old testament in a more liberal way. That is how I see Jesus, as a kind of reformer who was simply applying the fundamentals of a tribal law to a more modern society.

    I’m not gay, but I’m pretty sure he would have been just as accepting of gays as he was of Matthew and Mary Magdalene. Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    Johnboy

    Well here’s how I see it. Moses is adapting the law to his people. Means it wasn’t set in stone (ironically) and appears to have been negotiated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Johnboy (13,386 comments) says:

    Poor old Moses. Just think what sort of rigid laws he may have set if Viagra had been invented 4000 odd years ago. :)

    ps: Scotty. Don’t let my inane comments detract from the good work you are doing here with the God botherers. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. nasska (9,501 comments) says:

    I don’t believe there has ever been a more voluminous collection of shit in one place since the GreaT Outlet Blockage at the Mangere Sewage Plant back in 1974.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Johnboy (13,386 comments) says:

    Never met David Lange then nasska?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Lucia Maria (1,988 comments) says:

    Scott,

    Jesus was not a reformer in the modern sense of the word. He is God, and He came to realign us back to our original design – back to the beginning. Two Baptised Christians who get married do so in the original sense, because that which caused a barrier to true oneness (of the beginning) was redeemed through Jesus. A Baptised person is capable of far more than an un-Baptised Old Testament person, and because we are capable of more – more is expected of us. So while Moses allowed divorce to a people who had hard hearts, it is no longer allowed of us because our hearts can be conformed to His through His Sacraments (Baptism, and then Confession, and Holy Communion – where He changes us physically as well as spiritually).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    nasska:- “since the GreaT Outlet Blockage at the Mangere Sewage Plant back in 1974.”

    Ha! That’s ironic. Sounds like a real bad case of constipation.

    But I don’t agree with you about the Bible. I think it’s a fascinating collection of documents which give an insight into our present human condition as well as that of past society.

    I’m also fascinated by Jews. I’d like to know what makes them such an exceptional race.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Johnboy (13,386 comments) says:

    Putting up with other peoples shit for 4000 years probably made them pretty tough I suspect Scotty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. tom hunter (4,004 comments) says:

    Well – reluctant as I am to enter this debate, and at the risk of derailing it somewhat, I thought many of you might like to read this rather long article from one of my favourite magazines, the Atlantic. The article is on modern marriage – All the single ladies:

    For centuries, women’s sexuality was repressed by a patriarchal marriage system; now what could be an era of heady carnal delights is stifled by a new form of male entitlement, this one fueled by demographics.

    Most striking to me was the innocence of these young women. Of these attractive and vivacious females, only two had ever had a “real” boyfriend—as in, a mutually exclusive and satisfying relationship rather than a series of hookups—and for all their technical know-how, they didn’t seem to be any wiser than I’d been at their age. This surprised me; I’d assumed that growing up in a jungle would give them a more matter-of-fact or at least less conventional worldview. Instead, when I asked if they wanted to get married when they grew up, and if so, at what age, to a one they answered “yes” and “27 or 28.”

    Ah yes. Innocence. Nice to know it still exists, though Roissy’s blog (now gone) had a much different explanation for male-female sexual relationships in this modern age.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Johnboy (13,386 comments) says:

    Hard to derail a train wreck any further Tom! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Clint Heine (1,560 comments) says:

    So Fletch says because he never saw gay animals, they cannot possibly exist. Given that precedent, then there is no god.

    The difference is scientists have already proved the existance of homosexuality of animals on multiple occasions while Fletch, Lucia and the rest of the god hate squad have not once provided one little shred of evidence that there is a god or any spiritual power in this universe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Clint Heine (1,560 comments) says:

    Lucia, why read out verses from the bible when we’re disputing the entire idea that the bible is nothing more than a glorified book of fairytales. The bible is irrelevant because one cannot believe in it, and it’s interpreted so widely that it cannot be taken seriously.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.