Listener on Grant Robertson

March 8th, 2012 at 2:10 pm by David Farrar

An interesting profile of Labour Deputy Leader Grant Robertson in the Listener:

Look at Robertson and you see a big guy with glasses, a slightly sloppy student politician. Talk with him and you find a highly professional MP with a disciplined and meticulous mind. Call him cautious, though, and you make him angry. He doesn’t want to believe that the hesitation that allows him to avoid political pratfalls could also sap his courage to make change. At times his courage trumps his caution. To advance the equality agenda he believes gays should be able to marry and also to adopt children.

“I can’t see any reason why a gay couple who are good functioning human beings can’t provide that environment. It’s about the best interests of the children.” He also wants Labour to adopt a policy of allowing gay marriage. “I am really proud of what we did with civil unions, but I get that for people it is not absolute equality,” he says.

I agree with Grant on gay marriage. However I do think the cautious tag is an accurate one for him. Grant is very cautious in his press releases, in his statements etc. It’s the caution of someone who expects to be a party leader one day, and doesn’t want to have words from the past comeback to haunt him.

“There are gay bus drivers. There are people in all walks of life. It is important that people understand that. That’s one of the issues we have to get past: believing that there is a particular type of gay person.” He knows his sexuality would be more of an issue if he were Labour’s leader and considered that when deciding whether to challenge for the top job. “I thought about, is New Zealand ready for there to be a gay Prime Minister, or a gay leader, and I actually think we are.

I agree. If the good citizens of Wairarapa don’t blink at electing a transsexual as their MP, I can’t imagine the majority of New Zealanders will have a great issue over the sexuality of the Prime Minister. The challenge for Grant, once he ascends to the leadership, will be that his sexuality doesn’t define him (there is a difference between being an MP who is gay, and a gay MP), but I don’t think he is at any risk of that.

The next question was, am I ready? Is this where I should be?”

His answer was no. “I’m 40 and I think I’ve still got a bit more to learn.”

A bit more? As in a year or two?

Labour will also review its policy of extending Working for Families tax credits to beneficiaries. He says there may be other policies to ensure income is “redistributed” to help those children.

Or one could redistribute their parents from welfare to work?

Robertson has little experience in the private sector, but doesn’t see that limiting his understanding of businesses. “You can be the Minister of Health and not be a heart surgeon.”

True. But not have any practical knowledge of how the private sector works is not the same as not being a specialist in an area. Far too many MPs do not have any background at all in the private sector.

I once went from doing the finances for a charity to doing the finances for a small advertising agency. The difference was huge. In just a few weeks I discovered the huge difference between being profitable on paper, and  cashflow and the challenges of paying bills on time. No textbook really teaches that. My two years with that small business taught me a huge deal about the realities of business.

Key started the recent trend of “non-political” leaders and Shearer was chosen to match him. Clark was a politician, Robertson muses. Jim Bolger was, too. And they both led long-term governments. He knows that this is not yet his time, but he senses it may come. “I want to take it as far as I can take it and we’ll see how long that takes.”

Is Grant talking weeks, months or years?

Tags: ,

76 Responses to “Listener on Grant Robertson”

  1. kowtow (8,195 comments) says:

    “Equality agenda”

    And there you have it. Equality.Dressed up as a human right we overturn at least ten thousand years of traditon.

    Nonsense.

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

    If Robertson really “can’t see any reason why a gay couple who are good functioning human beings can’t provide that environment” then he’s arrogant ass who’s never properly listened to what reason pro-tradition marriage people are saying. His words are just political lines run by a lobbyist.

    “It’s about the best interests of the children”. Bullshit. It’s about normalising gay marriage. Argument for gay marriage on it apparent merits, not some bullshit reason about potential parents for children

    “There are gay bus drivers”. Yep, another great reason for gay marriage. FFS.

    There is virtually no critical analysis on the advent of gay marriage in the MSM. Fucking useless.

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

    I’ve never liked Grant Robertson since I saw a video of him ambush Stephen Franks, who had agreed to attend a meeting with gay Wellington voters. He’s a bully boy who pretends to be a big soft teddy bear. No character, just a political hack that wants to tell everyone how to live.

    And NZ is not ready for a gay PM. If Grant gets a shot at it, he’ll hide this part of his life in the narrative given to voters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. rouppe (963 comments) says:

    Sounds like what we would end up with is a:
    1) Marriage Act
    2) Civil Union Act
    and then a….
    3) Gay Marriage Act

    All would be near identical in their content, simply targetting different interest groups. As a consequence other acts would have to be amended where they referred to the Marriage Act to make sure they also refer to the Civil Union and Gay marriage Acts…

    This is simply stupid. As I’ve said several times, a marriage and a wedding are completely separate and distinct things. The marriage is the legal aspect. That single Marriage Act should be able to be amended to cover all three of these types of ‘union’, and dispense with the Civil Union Act.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. eszett (2,396 comments) says:

    Yes kowtow, shame we have abolished slavery, tyranny and witch-burnings, all with tousands of years of tradition, lets at least keep some small minded bigotry

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. eszett (2,396 comments) says:

    If Robertson really “can’t see any reason why a gay couple who are good functioning human beings can’t provide that environment” then he’s arrogant ass who’s never properly listened to what reason pro-tradition marriage people are saying. His words are just political lines run by a lobbyist.

    Maybe because the “pro-tradition marriage people” never were able to bring one single reason, merely emotional and superstitcious nonsense.

    Their whole argument boils down to “homos are yuck”! Nothing else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. eszett (2,396 comments) says:

    And NZ is not ready for a gay PM. If Grant gets a shot at it, he’ll hide this part of his life in the narrative given to voters

    He is openly gay, he wont have to hide any more or less than John Key has to hide or show off his wife. It’s simply irrelevant but to a small, insignificant minority of small minded bigots

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. tvb (4,327 comments) says:

    Grant Robinson is very much Wellington Central’s candidate for Leader and possibly PM. The fact that you think is a fine fellow means the rest of us take a more skeptical look. NZ is a whole lot more than Gay Marriage but if Robinson wants to become the gay marriage poster boy then he will not become PM because that is how he will be type caste. He needs to hand that issue over to someone else and focus on bread and butter issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Bob R (1,362 comments) says:

    ***Robertson is reluctant to confirm reports that he confronted Phil Goff in late 2009 when the leader made a race-relations speech likened to the divisive style of Don Brash’s Orewa address.***

    What was so bad about Goff’s speech? Perhaps to a racist cultural marxist the idea of full and final settlement on treaty deals might be “divisive”. What was Robertson’s objection? That Labour can’t be critical of deals with Maori? Here is Goff’s speech, in part:

    “This is not a time to put at risk the concept of full and final settlements.

    You see, when we considered this issue last year, Cabinet decided not to go down this route.

    We looked at it and decided we would have created a permanent class of ‘post-Treaty asset’ – Assets that were once part of a Treaty settlement would forever be eligible for compensation if they were ever affected by adverse decisions by government.

    If the government ever changed the rules relating to forestry, or tax law, or the exchange rate, here is now a precedent for having to compensate the owners of an asset that had once been part of a Treaty settlement.

    That’s a bad principle.

    Full and final settlement would become impossible.

    And as Shane Jones pointed out this week, by allowing some select corporations to top up their settlements, the government is keeping the grievance going.”

    http://www.labour.org.nz/news/speech-phil-goff-nationhood

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. kowtow (8,195 comments) says:

    Can’t speak for them but I have a suspicion that the good Christian folk of Britain who brought about the abolition of slavery and fought for reform in the early 19th C would ,if presented with a petition for so called same sex marriage say “Yuck are you mad?”

    In the meantime slavery,tyranny and witch murder continues in many parts of the world, perhaps the “equality agents” would care to deal with real world problems instead of the manufactured post modern ones of a self destructing ,once great western civilisation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. graham (2,332 comments) says:

    Children need a mother and a father to raise them properly. Not a mother and a mother. Not two fathers. Not a single parent. A mother and a father.

    Can a single parent, or a gay couple, raise children? Sure. But they can not give those children the full well-rounded environment that a mother and father can. And I’m sorry, but any claims that they can are PC nonsense.

    (Sits back and waits for all the tree-huggers and “why can’t we just all live in peace” crowd to start foaming at the mouth …)

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

    It’s about the best interests of the children.

    The best interests of children are served when they are raised by their biological father and biological mother. Anything less that this is statistically sub-optimal. Sorry if that offends people in other family situations, but facts are facts.

    It’s about time we had policy that endorses what’s actually best for kids. Instead we have bleatings from the likes of Robertson.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. dime (9,800 comments) says:

    i dont think being gay would be held against him. i can hear a few “workers” sayings things like – “he’s a poof but who cares, at least hes not national” etc etc

    what will count against him is he is a shit head.

    an unlikeable shit head. hes almost mallard light.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Mother Theresa had a lifetime of good works before being canonized. Clearly Guyon didn’t think the world could wait…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. David Garrett (6,995 comments) says:

    I am not sure why you are so keen on this bloke DPF….I cant find the mag right now but I read the article…among other things he says that the only place his sexuality is denigrated is in the “sewer of right wing blogs”…are you not aware that “the sewer” is one of the labels given to this fine forum by the comrades over at the Stranded?? My impression of him from parliamentary debates was he is just another lump of leftie lard with bugger all idea of how the real world works…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. speters (108 comments) says:

    krazykiwi said “The best interests of children are served when they are raised by their biological father and biological mother. Anything less that this is statistically sub-optimal. Sorry if that offends people in other family situations, but facts are facts.”

    Sorry, but is this true? I wouldn’t have thought that there was statistical evidence that a child raised by two homosexual parents was less likely to be successful than one raised by their biological father and biological mother.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. eszett (2,396 comments) says:

    Can’t speak for them but I have a suspicion that the good Christian folk of Britain who brought about the abolition of slavery and fought for reform in the early 19th C would ,if presented with a petition for so called same sex marriage say “Yuck are you mad?”

    The good christian folk who traditionally held slaves and burned witches may disagree with you there.
    But thank you for supporting my argument. Just because something was tradition is not a good argument to keep it that way at all.

    You may see the light one day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. eszett (2,396 comments) says:

    Can a single parent, or a gay couple, raise children? Sure. But they can not give those children the full well-rounded environment that a mother and father can. And I’m sorry, but any claims that they can are PC nonsense.

    Would be helpful to back up your claims with something substantial. Just claiming something because you think so is not enough.

    I know a lot a gay couples who provide a “full and well-rounded” environment to their children.
    I also know a couple of straights who don’t.

    It’s rather a matter of personality, attitude, education, etc of the parents, regardless of their sex and sexuality.

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

    speters – I think we’re in agreement. Check out Generalising the Cinderella Effect to Unintended Childhood Fatalities. The risk of injury or death of kids rises a fewer biological parents are functioning as parents.

    eszett – your definition of “full and well-rounded” is almost certainly the same as mine: informal observation. If there is an ideal, an I contended that it’s the biologcal father and biologcial father nurturing their offspring, then should we have policy that encourages that model over others?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. RRM (9,784 comments) says:

    He certainly appears to be a lot less overtly Union Union Union than others on his team.

    Even if he’s no businessman – he won’t ever be the government on his own. In industry you need a mix of business managers and technical experts if you want to make and sell anything of value; in any Government I imagine the career politicians among them probably fill that latter sort of role.

    IMO he comes across as a GC, with a pretty good idea of what Gummint should be doing for the rest of us (compared to others on his team) and he seems to have a pretty good idea of what his role and obligations are (compared to others on his team.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. cows4me (248 comments) says:

    Well if all Grant can offer is gay marriage and wealth redistribution though more devious means then it’s painfully clear these idiots will never get the to weld the big stick and good riddance to .

    Fuck whats wrong these Lefty loons, they wanted civil union, they got civil union. Of course it’s not MARRIAGE.Calling for gay marriage is another attempt to stick it in our faces . They want to be excepted, fine but when has a marriage meant two people of the same sex, never. They have equal status as anyone else in NZ, do they think marriage will somehow make it normal? I suspect if there was gay marriage tomorrow these people would not be happy and would want some other law or benefit to push the gay agenda. So why the fuck don’t they just get on with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Neil (578 comments) says:

    This blogsite heavily supports the urban areas,particularly Wellington. I don’t know if DPF has been out into rural and provincial New Zealand where there is no Downstage Theatre , high culture or elitist restaurants.
    Robertson has no profile in the rural New Zealand. Where did he work ? What is his parliamentry record ? Is his record such that one could trust him ?
    I am a political junkie and Robertson has a lot to do to convince me. Is he far left,just left,pinkie or is he mainstream ? Not he last I would sense.
    Whether he is gay or not is immaterial. What he does with spending,developing a work ethic in people and his closeness to the outdated union movement wioll define his support with the public..
    To me,Robertson achieved his position not through ability but simply because Labor had no people up to the task of leadership.
    Shearer is far from ready to lead Labor,so is Robertson.
    Bill English had 11 years in the House before ascending to leadership. That was too soon-for Shearer and Robertson are just babes in the House kindergarten.
    Forget about knowing people personally. They might be good guys and gals but are they ready to run the country ?. The answer is NO.

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

    krazykiwi,

    I agree that, all else being equal, children are best raised by their biological parents. But, all else is not generally equal. Biological parents are sometimes unfit, othertimes unwilling, to be parents.

    When and where it is either not possible, or not sensible to have children living with both biological parents, the question then becomes what the next best option is. Often, the next best option is adoption.

    Is there any good reason to believe that children would be better off in a broken home with parents who don’t want them than they would be being adopted by a gay couple?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    anyone who thinks that everything about Grant Robertson is not all about him being a homo is soft.

    Homosexual peoples lifes view is seen through the lens of their homoism. Thats just the way it is.
    Hetero people do not carry that cross.

    Of all the things that we could discuss surrounding Labours No2 and a ‘prospect’ for the future, how is it that 80% plus
    of the comments and discussion above regarding his views and opinions on this thread revolve around the
    fact that he is a homo ?
    Has he got anything else about him ?

    OK What is it ?

    Now personally i dont care that he is a shirtlifter.
    Thats not the reason that i would never vote for him.
    It’s just that he is not straight up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. RRM (9,784 comments) says:

    This blogsite heavily supports the urban areas,particularly Wellington. I don’t know if DPF has been out into rural and provincial New Zealand where there is no Downstage Theatre , high culture or elitist restaurants.

    Why don’t you tell us what you think of that flash harry John Key Neil? He’s some kind of suit-wearin’, fast talkin’ stock trader from the big city isn’t he? Probably never done an ‘honest’ day’s work in his life.. (If by that you mean, milking cows and nothing else?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. RRM (9,784 comments) says:

    Homosexual peoples lifes view is seen through the lens of their homoism. Thats just the way it is.
    Hetero people do not carry that cross.

    You’re tuned to Kiwiblog, folks…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. eszett (2,396 comments) says:

    Homosexual peoples lifes view is seen through the lens of their homoism. Thats just the way it is.
    Hetero people do not carry that cross.

    LOL. Brilliant!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    and RRM 4.27
    you know that that is a true statement.
    Don’t you dear ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. David Garrett (6,995 comments) says:

    God, how this hurts….(agreeing with some of the lefties here, I mean)…I dont think you can say “homosexual peoples lifes view is seen throught the lens of their homoism”…There is actually a good letter in the latest Listener criticising Espiner’s assertion – in the article on Robertson – that Key mincing down the catwalk with a couple of Queens is “gay”…the letter writer points out that that sort of behaviour is CAMP and not gay, and there is a big difference…And of course he is right….

    It might be fair to say – if you are comfortable murdering the English language as bereal is – “squealing queens view the world through their queenness”…but I personally know a number of gay guys who one would never know are gay from either their behaviour or their world view…interestingly, in my personal experience, those kind of gays have no interest at all in “gay marriage” and disagree with gays adopting kids….but my sample is not large…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Pete George (23,437 comments) says:

    RRM, that’s just a tiny smatter of besurreal.

    Homosexuals that carry crosses are likely to be preyed on by their praying peers.

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

    Arguing that a child raised with two loving adoptive gay parents would be better than two abusive hetero parents is pretty bloody obvious. It’s also a pathetic argument for gay marriage/adoption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RRM (9,784 comments) says:

    bereal

    I know I did a bit of work for a couple of middle-aged gay blokes who were doing some alterations on their house last year.

    Good customers, always up to date with our invoices. Never afraid to make decisions when their project hit a bump in the road. They did a lot of the excavation work themselves with shovels, site was on the side of a hill in Wellington with rock near the surface so it would have been pretty hard digging.

    Those lads would raise a kid right, teach it the value of honest hard work and being true to yourself, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

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

    Also, the ‘loving’ parents line is ambiguous. Many gay folk want a child for themselves; a life accessory that ‘proves’ they are ‘normal’. The welfare of the child is by definition secondary. I know a gay couple that have kids, and they are good ‘parents’. However, accepting these arrangements is very different from establishing them as normal, and then using state education to teach our kids that this is all normal and equal is very different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. RRM (9,784 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero –

    Arguing that a child raised with two loving adoptive gay parents would be better than two abusive hetero parents is pretty bloody obvious. It’s also a pathetic argument for gay marriage/adoption.

    I always get suspicious when the “right” suddenly starts sounding further left than the lefties.

    On what other grounds could Nanny State possibly be justified in seeking to prevent a stable, tax-paying, law-abiding couple from adopting a child, OTHER than a track record of bad parenting?

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

    And no doubt tonight we’ll all be labelled homophobes but the lobbyists that don’t want to engage in debate; that just want to make us believe.

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

    nzclassicalliberal – I’ll post a response in today’s General Debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. RRM (9,784 comments) says:

    Many gay folk want a child for themselves; a life accessory that ‘proves’ they are ‘normal’. The welfare of the child is by definition secondary.

    Whereas any straight couple that wants to adopt a child, wants it for all the “right” reasons, right?

    “By definition”… :-D

    I know a gay couple that have kids, and they are good ‘parents’. However, accepting these arrangements is very different from establishing them as normal, and then using state education to teach our kids that this is all normal and equal is very different.

    So, that particular gay couple you mention are good parents, you just don’t want any other gay couples raising children? I’m confused…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. David Garrett (6,995 comments) says:

    RRM: Ah, I am so glad the world is back on its axis…you get “suspicious” when supposed right wingers sound more leftie than you….that, my boy, just illustrates what a narrow view blinkered view your common or garden leftie has….we on the right can have a whole spectrum of views on different issues…they dont all have to fit some kind of PC/Left template….

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

    @RRM

    There are actually surprisingly few legal adoptions in New Zealand. Many are foster arrangements that can be reversed. Also, the supply side is lower as we abort about 50 unborn kids a day.

    With regards to your question, I couldn’t list all the reasons because I’m not an expert. However, I suspect you’re trying to get me to say that the couple being gay should be one of the barriers. And that is what I would say. The evidence shows that, all things being equal, the healthiest, most confident, and successful young adults are raised with a father and mother.

    Of course, if you think that men and women are not different then you’ll philosophical reject this, and I really can’t do much about that. But if you think men and women are not different then you’re living on another planet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. nzclassicalliberal (34 comments) says:

    It wasn’t an argument in favour of gay marriage/adoption, it was pointing out that the assertion that children are better off with their biological parents is not a good argument against gay adoption.

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

    If NZ brings in gay marriage/abortion, there will be no real debate about it. It will be rammed through and awash with emotion and outlier examples – and speeches about equality and the like. The media, and Labour/Greens, will line up examples of idiot fundamentalist Christians and make them the villain, rather than get the opinion of clinical psychologist and more tradition churches who actually offer substantial reasons why this is not good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. RRM (9,784 comments) says:

    we on the right can have a whole spectrum of views on different issues…

    Very well said Mr Garrett, but in this instance that is a euphemism for “we believe that all taxpayers should have equal rights and responsibilities before the law… except homosexual ones, whom we don’t fancy that much” and you know it.

    But go on, please tell me more about my “blinkered, leftie” view of things… :-)

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

    Anyway, back to Grant Robertson.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. RRM (9,784 comments) says:

    Of course, if you think that men and women are not different then you’ll philosophical reject this, and I really can’t do much about that. But if you think men and women are not different then you’re living on another planet.

    No, I’m not going to say I think men & women are not different.
    But I don’t accept that a woman & woman (or a man & a man) are incapable of raising a child.

    I can’t post you a link to youtube from where I am, but google “two lesbians raised a son and this is what they got” -

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Pete G 4.42
    ‘besurreal,’ thats so good i might consider changing my moniker. Well done.

    RRM 4.48
    So. A coulple of poofters did some hard digging and that makes you certain that they would raise a kid right. FFS mate,
    i’m not sure if you are taking the piss or not so i leave it to others to see how ludicrous that statement is.

    This thread is about Grant Robertson and how little experience of anything except shirtlifting he has.

    All i said was that homos see everything through the prism of their homoism.

    Look what has now jumped out of the woodwork.

    Gay marriage, gay adoptions, homophobia, and of course,
    the definitive unarguable argument from David Garrett,
    the oldest one, and most pathetic one in the book,
    “I personally know a number of gay guys who……………”

    Oh dear, truly pitifull David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Just so no one thinks i am biased on this matter i would like to declare,

    i am not a homo,
    but i think that the boy that i sleep with may be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Chuck Bird (4,835 comments) says:

    Dr. Byrd Provides Testimony In English Court Case Regarding Same-Sex Adoption

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

    Above are some good reasons why allowing a couple of homosexual men to adopt children is not a good idea if we need any more.

    We just have a case of some scumbag getting life with MNP 17years. He was not the natural father.

    Statistically homosexual relationships do not last anywhere near as long as heterosexual on average. The next boyfriend is the big worry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. eszett (2,396 comments) says:

    Statistically homosexual relationships do not last anywhere near as long as heterosexual on average

    What statistics? The ones that you made up in your head?

    gayconsiparcy.ino????? Really? That’s the best you can do.
    You do have a problem, chucky.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. RRM (9,784 comments) says:

    bereal –

    Grant Robertson is one day gonna be PM of this country.

    And when he does, homosexuality will be made compulsory for all citizens on the electoral roll.

    You’d better keep your back to the wall, champ! :-)

    Or start stocking up on lube. You never know, you might like it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Chuck Bird (4,835 comments) says:

    “You do have a problem, chucky.”

    At least I do not have to worry about being HIV positive like most homosexuals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. RRM (9,784 comments) says:

    @ eszett –

    That gayconspiracy.info is a GREAT site!

    Redbaiter or dad4justice would be proud.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. eszett (2,396 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero (687) Says:
    March 8th, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    If NZ brings in gay marriage/abortion, there will be no real debate about it. It will be rammed through and awash with emotion and outlier examples – and speeches about equality and the like. The media, and Labour/Greens, will line up examples of idiot fundamentalist Christians and make them the villain, rather than get the opinion of clinical psychologist and more tradition churches who actually offer substantial reasons why this is not good.

    You are yet to offer a substantial reason why this is not good. So far it’s been huffing and puffing. None of the traditional churches have offered a single substantial reason either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. eszett (2,396 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,009) Says:
    March 8th, 2012 at 6:11 pm

    “You do have a problem, chucky.”

    At least I do not have to worry about being HIV positive like most homosexuals.

    Just because you prefer to be blown rather than sticking it up the arse?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. eszett (2,396 comments) says:

    Like most homosexuals, Chucky?
    Finally coming out.

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

    I took a similar conversation over to todays GD.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Chuck Bird (4,835 comments) says:

    “Just because you prefer to be blown rather than sticking it up the arse?”

    eszett, I was referring to normal sex with a woman. The chance of me contracting HIV that way would be the same a getting struck by lightning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. eszett (2,396 comments) says:

    eszett, I was referring to normal sex with a woman. The chance of me contracting HIV that way would be the same a getting struck by lightning.

    Only if you use a condom.
    Shows how little you actually understand of the issue.
    And of sex.
    And of sexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Chuck Bird (4,835 comments) says:

    “Only if you use a condom. Shows how little you actually understand of the issue.”

    Shows how little you and your lot actually understand of the issue. The rate of HIV amongst homosexuals is at least 50 times greater in the homosexual community. How many case do you know of a many contracting HIV from a woman in NZ and born in NZ or another western country?

    I am far safer having sex in the normal with a woman without a condoms than you are having up the arse with someone who may have just had sex at a public bog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. pseudonymous (74 comments) says:

    bereal@5.57
    That’s like the bloke who said he was a lesbian, he only loved women!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    It’d be nice to have some discussion of Robertson’s views and abilities, but I see the homophobes have taken over this thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. nasska (11,186 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    It’s just that his sexual preference, although terribly hum drum, is more interesting than the man & far more interesting than his opinions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    my beliefs are as follows:

    marriage is about biological truth and about the best mechanism to give kids a start in life. That means a female and a male who are biologically the parents of their children. END of Story.

    Gay, meh, who cares, I believe that gay people are fine people and should have the legal right to combine their assets and be protected in their relationships. Is it “marriage” no not really, but I believe their relationship and commitment should be recognised both publicly and legally.

    Grant Robertson. Machine bureacrat, just another professional labour kid, no experience of the real world, no life experience, no knowledge of what the rest of us have to live with, university, student politician, MFAT and labour party.

    What does he know about making payroll, meeting bills, managing conflict on the factory floor, filling an order, balancing the budget and paying the taxman on time. Nothing at all. He is a professional child politician who wants desperately to be a politician and a party leader. he knows nothing of “labour” or “work”, so I guess will be our next labour prime minister.

    God help us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I think you would find that any attempt to discuss the merits of any homosexual politician on this forum would only be a discussion of his or her sexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. eszett (2,396 comments) says:

    Shows how little you and your lot actually understand of the issue. The rate of HIV amongst homosexuals is at least 50 times greater in the homosexual community. How many case do you know of a many contracting HIV from a woman in NZ and born in NZ or another western country?

    Infection rates through sex is depended on risk behaviour (e.g. unprotected sex). You are far more at risk of contracting HIV if you have unprotected sex with a woman than if you have protected homosexual sex.

    And again, you are just making up numbers.

    male-to-male sexual contact 23,846
    Heterosexual contact 12,860

    Of the heterosexual contacts
    male 4,399 female 8,461

    source: http://www.cdc.gov/

    So it’s double the risk not 50 times greater. But again, it’s driven by behavior, not sexuality.

    It’s obvious that you are just driven by you absurd hatred of homosexuals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    At least nigel attempted to discuss the person, even though he had to preface his discussion with an irrelevant point about gay marriage.

    I’d dispute that Robertson has no experience of the ‘real world’, whatever that is exactly. We have seen quite a few comments about the extremely capable MFAT people losing their jobs. Robertson has clearly been successful in the role he has undertaken. It’d be a said day when Parliament was only composed of people with a background in small business, as nigel seems to suggest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Chuck Bird (4,835 comments) says:

    eszett, did your mother tell you what masturbation does for your eyesight? Read what you quoted. I am talking about NZ not Africa and not the US. Also look up disproportionate in the dictionary. I see enough people on this blog taking numbers into account when if comes to Maori issues. When I do the same on issues relating to homosexuality I get called a homophobe. There is nothing wrong with my logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Chuck Bird (4,835 comments) says:

    eszett, you are typical of homosexual activists. You engage in personal attack rather that logically debate an issue. I do not have a hatred of homosexuals, absurd or otherwise. However, I do detest homosexual activists like you and particularly those at the NZ AIDS Foundation

    Check out Issue 69

    http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/hiv-and-aids/aids-new-zealand-newsletter

    Take note of the first paragraph of page 3. Screening of prospective migrants has reduced heterosexual HIV transmission considerably. This is something the NZ AIDS Foundation strongly opposed. One can only guess why. I would have thought the main purpose of the NZ AIDS Foundation would be to reduce the prevalence of HIV in New Zealand. It appears they are more concerned with promoting a homosexual agenda than public health.

    I challenge you to show one case of a man married to a New Zealand born woman getting infected from her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Paulus (2,603 comments) says:

    I understand that from within the beltway Grant does not expect to be Deputy for too long.
    He backed Shearer knowing that he was not really a politician, and would not last long in the job.
    Cunliffe, who he originally supported would not have stood up to Grant’s tricks, quietly gnawing away at Shearer behind his back.
    Grant has been employing like minded staff (of both hews) since before Christmas who he expects to follow him as soon as he acceeds.
    Watch this space. It has little to do with being a homosexual, a byline, but more like raw politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. KH (694 comments) says:

    Is New Zealand ready for a gay prime minister (Grant R). Yes. Fine by me – no problem.
    Is New Zealand ready for yet another Prime Minister who has only ever been in student politics, and employment as a senior Bureaucratic, and a politicised one at that. A beltway insider. (Grant again). No No No. Shock horror. I shudder at the thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. KH (694 comments) says:

    As for the gay parenting thing. Not something we should be worrying about. If as Grant says “are functional human beings”.
    If there is a real worry, that we should intervene in, is the parenting by the heterosexual ferals and sloths in our society. That’s hugely harmful to just about anything, as well as the kids, and self perpetuating to boot. Let’s worry about that – it’s far more important.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Chuck Bird (4,835 comments) says:

    KH, It not just homosexual adoption that concerns me. Grant is a homosexual activist. A few years back Michael Coote stood as an ACT candidate. Coote was a candidate who happened to be homosexual unlike Grant. He has a lot of talent and I would vote for him to a high list position or to be on the ACT Board if he decided to join ACT again.

    Sadly, according homosexual activist and many libertarians anyone who opposes homosexual activists of things like homosexual adoption are called homophobes.

    I note eszett seems to have no answer to my latest post.

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

    David Garret,

    “I am not sure why you are so keen on this bloke DPF”

    He’s a homosexual and DPF is a liberal. He could be advocating pure Stalinism and DPF would still promote him, because his liberalism and his hatred of Traditional Western values and morality trumps everything else. Thats why, when it comes to the really big moral questions of our time, DPF sides every time with the liberal Left.

    Thats also why a string of comments were deleted from this thread, because DPF at heart is no different to the Stalinists at the Stranded. ANY robust criticism of the homosexual political agenda must be silenced and crushed.

    At the end of the DPF is no different to the lefties he criticises.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. eszett (2,396 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,015) Says:
    March 9th, 2012 at 10:01 am

    eszett, you are typical of homosexual activists. You engage in personal attack rather that logically debate an issue. I do not have a hatred of homosexuals, absurd or otherwise. However, I do detest homosexual activists like you and particularly those at the NZ AIDS Foundation

    Oh, Chucky, I have been waiting for your “homosexual aktivist”. I am surprised you didn’t go straight (pun intended) to “militant homosexual activist” which is your favourite line.

    And you claim you don’t hate homosexuals. But everytime the topic is even remotely touched here your are quick to comment with negativity. You don’t hate homosexuals, but you read gayconspiracy.info.
    You don’t hate homosexuals but somehow you think HIV is a gay disease.

    You make me laugh.

    It’s always fun to pull your small-minded bigoted leg. No matter how you put it, you are driven by irrationality.

    TTFN

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Chuck Bird (4,835 comments) says:

    eszett,you cannot refute my logic showing homosexuals are greatly overrepresented on HIV statistics so you start with your childish personal attack. I wonder if any other of the libertarians disagree that homosexuals are greatly overrepresented on HIV statistics. In 2011 52.3% of HIV infections were male homosexual contact and 13.7% were male heterosexual contact. These are NZ figures.

    http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/hiv-and-aids/aids-new-zealand-newsletter

    Considering male homosexuals make up less than 3% of the population including bisexuals. I think that proves homosexuals are greatly overrepresented.

    Lets see if others can debate the facts rationally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. eszett (2,396 comments) says:

    Oh Chucky, I would love to have a rationally discussion with you, but you would recognise a rational argument if it hit you in the head.

    For starters, quoting the 3% number (including bisexuals) already shows how preconceived your position is. Also concentrating on men only in heterosexual contact infections is misleading. Women infections don’t seem to interest you.

    And not being to understand that HIV infections are driven be risk behavior and not sexual orientation only shows how blinded your are.

    Your inane example that your are safe from because you engage in “normal sex” (whatever that may be) with a woman is another proof of that.

    Firstly what is normal sex? You seem to think that homosexual sex is not “normal”.
    Secondly the reason you are safe is because engage in a safe sexual practice (which is commendable) but you would be just as safe if you’d been in the same relationship with a man as you are with your wife.

    Here are the numbers from your very own source.

    109 people were diagnosed with HIV through antibody testing in New Zealand in 2011.
    59 were men infected through sex with other men,
    28 (16 men and 12 women) through hetero-sexual contact,
    one through injecting drug use, and
    one child through mother-to-child transmission.
    For the remaining 20 people (15 men and 5 women) the means of infection was unknown or information is still to be received.

    Homosexuals are more respresented than heterosexual because they (unfortunately) engage in more risky sexual behavior.
    If you look at your very own stats over the years you will notice that infection rates dropped until around 2000 and then started to rise again. In fact between 2003 and 2008 50% of the new infection rates were through heterosexual contact. In 2011 a third of HIV diagnoses were through heterosexual contact.

    That indicates that both groups dropped their guard, and were more engaging in risky sexual behaviour (i.e not using condoms)

    In any case, HIV is a human disease, not a gay disease. Whether you get it or not depends on whether you engage in safe sex or not and not whether you are gay or straight.

    I maintain that you are blinded by an irrational and absurd hatred of homosexuals and the your position is bigoted, hateful and dangerous. Anyone who disagrees with you and points out the misconceptions of your arguments gets the label “militant homosexual activist” (whatever that may mean).

    It only shows that you are not capable of any rational argumentation when it comes to this topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Chuck Bird (4,835 comments) says:

    Eszett, I will try to deal with you point by point. Firstly, you are trying to tell me and other men how to practice safe sex. That is why a focused on men. If you want to challenge the 3% figure what is your source? Here is mine

    http://www.gayconspiracy.info/10percent.html

    “Your inane example that your are safe from because you engage in “normal sex” (whatever that may be) with a woman is another proof of that.”

    According to MOH stats – not mine – there have been over 3600 cases of HIV reported since 1985. I challenged you to show one case of a man married to a New Zealand born woman getting infected from her. You did not answer. Can you even show on case of a man in a permanent relationship with a New Zealand born woman getting infected from her?

    “Secondly the reason you are safe is because engage in a safe sexual practice (which is commendable) but you would be just as safe if you’d been in the same relationship with a man as you are with your wife.”

    Firstly, I have not been married for almost 30 years. Secondly, I do not intend on going into the details of my sex life other than to point out that like the vast majority of married couple we did not use condoms all the time if at all. That is evidenced by the fact I have children like most married couples. That is why the NZ AIDS Foundation and your position is so ridiculous. You seem to think that seem to think married couples should use condoms expect presumably when they want to have children.

    “In 2011 a third of HIV diagnoses were through heterosexual contact.”

    The figures you quote are not from the source I gave you. I actually make it a little higher than a third.
    What the figure does not tell is the status of the sexual partner. Was she a prostitute or a one night stand?
    If a heterosexual couple are checked for all STDs before they enter a relationship the chances of one of them contracting HIV are minimal particularly for the man. One of the main risks for a woman is that she enters into a relationship or even marries a bisexual.

    If you want to know the facts about AIDS read

    http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Ecology-Birth-AIDS-Destiny/dp/0525941649

    Rotello is homosexual but honest and intelligent unlike many homosexual activists. I see you are not getting much support and none from any prepared to use their own name.

    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.