General Debate 20 May 2012

May 20th, 2012 at 8:00 am by Kokila Patel
Tags:

206 Responses to “General Debate 20 May 2012”

  1. Redbaiter (8,042 comments) says:

    TrueblueNZ- by Redbaiter, in the leftist’s lexicon, the lowest of the low.

    Louis Crimp Speaks Out- Liberals Scuttle For Cover.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    How offensive! http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8470069/anger-over-dictionary-slurs-against-maori

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pete George (23,359 comments) says:

    Something about Zetetic’s Friday post “Dunne Angry” hasn’t been addressed until now. I don’t think Dunne is then angry one here – Dunne isn’t angry, but…

    Zetetic seems to be using “provoke and hope”, trying to use bullshit to provoke Dunne in the hope that something in a response can be used against him. Is it part of a wider campaign? More to come.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (23,359 comments) says:

    Eddie made a part admission of being wrong, but has followed up with more factless accusations.

    I’ve called bullshit again but he hasn’t walked his talk and fronted up with facts, So
    “Eddie” digs dirt deeper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    the rightwinger..and the reactionary…ralston and brian edwards…tutt-tutt about that eugenics-cartoon from trace hodgson..(the mengle-one..)

    ..meh..!

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pete George (23,359 comments) says:

    And the story continues. The Eddie and Zetetic seem to be recidivist ignorers of the truth, some may see this as The Eddie and Zetetic lies.

    But is there a bigger, more important lie? Should parties and organisations involved in political campains, lobbying be open and honest? Or is running secretive attack campaigns just part of the game.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    is dunne continuing his long record of being a bought-pimp for the tobacco-pushers..

    ..and opposing more restrictions/raised taxes on that death-dealing product..?

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Leaping Jimmy (16,112 comments) says:

    Here we go – more propaganda

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/love-sex/6953223/Mau-tells-anti-gays-to-chill-out

    It’s interesting from a tactics point of view, how they will go about isolating opposition and getting the 90% who have no clue on board. Notice how they gloss over the rights issue. The only right they mention is adoption, which could be managed as a separate issue to gay marriage but no, they deliberately conflate the two, to give their execrable campaign to destroy the family, a veneer of respectability.

    If any pro-family campaigners wanted a tactic to fight them, splitting adoption off from the gay marriage debate is the way to go. Whether anyone who can get publicity like say Dunne or Craig will be aware enough of propaganda techniques to attempt that, is another thing. But that’s the way to fight this, if one cares about the family as a social structure in our society.

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

    So the teachers don’t like performance pay. No groups of workers with strong union affiliations like varying pay rates. It shows up the better workers from the not so good. Even pay rates create solidarity among members protecting the less competent. Teachers claim they can’t be assessed because there are too many variables. I’ll bet any school principle can easily rate his staff knowing who he would let go and who he wants to keep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Brian Smaller (4,029 comments) says:

    So, if I want to I can allow or not allow my kids to watch age restricted movies (R16, 18) at home that are showing on Sky, but I cannot go and see The Dictator at the flicks with my 14 and 16 year olds because it is R16. Crazy law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pete George (23,359 comments) says:

    And with similar tactics, The Mallardy approach.

    Is “provoke and hope”, regardless of facts (and often absent facts), appropriate for an MP? For a party?

    Where does David Shearer stand on this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Actually Bob, what teachers seem to be saying is that there does not seem to be any evidence that performance pay is linked to any improvements in educational achievement.
    But never mind that – if you are so keen on performance pay I assume that you would be happy to have your kid in a class taught by the lowest-paid teacher, safe in the knowledge that he or she will have the best possible incentive to do well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. peterwn (3,216 comments) says:

    Crusher Collins has already scored a tactical victory over Trevor and Andrew with her lawsuit. They have decided to act like fugitives when outside Parliament – Trevor driving an unmarked car and presumably no-showing at constituency clinics. This denies them some political oxygen and Crusher is probably delighted with this. Perhaps she should get the process server to do his own movie of service (as proof of course) and put it on Youtube. It might just go viral.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    http://whoar.co.nz/2012/tedxstanford-opens-its-doors-today-with-free-live-streaming/

    “…Many of you know that TEDx conferences are held to promote ideas worth spreading.

    They are an offshoot of the original TED conference (Technology, Entertainment and Design ) held yearly in Long Beach, California.

    Perhaps you didn’t know that today the first ever TEDxStanford (Stanford University) will open its doors at 11 a.m. PDT -

    - with free LiveStreaming of over 21 fascinating talks…”

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    if you are so keen on performance pay I assume that you would be happy to have your kid in a class taught by the lowest-paid teacher, safe in the knowledge that he or she will have the best possible incentive to do well.

    Exactly. Of course you’d never know who was the lowest paid teacher, but you would know that those teachers would watch and learn from their more capable peers in an effort to lift the value of their contribution. You would also know that the useless teachers would have long since left as their lazy indifference saw their peers go on to earn more. Sound good to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Great conversation on National Radio this morning by two former diplomats tut-tutting about the proposed changes at MFAT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. wiseowl (835 comments) says:

    It was painfull watching the red nation this morning with the so called political analyst waving hands all over the show.
    Is this person supposed to be neutral?
    Was right in to the social and cultural well being being funded by ratepayers. In other words a lefty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Other_Andy (2,516 comments) says:

    $ 70,000,000,000.00 and counting….

    The Congressional Research Service estimates that since 2008 the US federal government has spent nearly $70 billion on “climate change activities.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/federal-government-spent-nearly-70-billion-climate-change-224804180.html

    Data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years, so maybe throwing lots of money down the drain is working.
    I wonder how the $ 70,000,000,000 funding for CAGW is stacking up compared with the money spend by ‘Big Oil’ on skeptics of CAGW?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. iMP (2,345 comments) says:

    Is it possible to disagree with Alison Mau’s gradually evolved opinions and be anything other than a “homophobe?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Pete George (23,359 comments) says:

    They were always going to be just waiting for an excuse (and I admit to pushing the envelope):

    Pete George 1.1.1.1.1
    20 May 2012 at 8:38 am

    Ok, try this then. I think this is a big issue.

    Do you think openess and honesty is important in politics and in parties?

    IrishBill: You’ve been here long enough to know that making shit up to attack authors is a banning offence. You can take that week off now.
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-20052012/comment-page-1/#comment-473602

    Authors making shit up is acceptable there (they do it with impunity), speaking openly and honestly is abused and banned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Viking2 (11,286 comments) says:

    The woman applying for a job in a lemon orchard in Keri Keri seemed to be far too qualified for
    the job; given her arts and education degrees from Auckland University and her jobs
    as a social worker and school teacher.

    The foreman frowned and said, “I have to ask you this: “Have you had any actual experience in picking lemons?”

    “Well, as a matter of fact, I have!”
    “I’ve been divorced three times, owned 2 Holden’s, barrack for the Warriors, and I voted for John Banks.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Viking2 (11,286 comments) says:

    iMP (551) Says:
    May 20th, 2012 at 10:34 am

    Is it possible to disagree with Alison Mau’s gradually evolved opinions and be anything other than a “homophobe?”

    Apparently unless your are what is so called straight, religious, biggotted,homophobic, sexually repressed, sexually aroused by the conversation no your not.

    I just cannot understand these types of people who simply can’t tolerate other people. They are after all people and as long as they treat others nicely and fairly, which we should all do, then those bigots should mind their own business and get on with their own lives. They are worse than evill actually, worse than politicians, for they place their own self importance above others without consideration for others, then they try to ram it down other peoples throats.

    Waits for the resident homophob to turn up. Oh he will, with his nasty attitude. Wait and see and he will attack me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Viking2 (11,286 comments) says:

    Why vegans are so pathetically brainless. hahahahaha

    Good one Rodney.

    The way to cure a vegetarian is to cook bacon. The smell of sizzling bacon invariably proves irresistible. The sizzle saves having to explain how humans have eaten meat for two million years.

    It’s the eating of meat that makes us human. The nutrient-dense meat enabled the human brain to grow and the gut to shrink. Our mammalian metabolism could not support a big gut and a big brain. Something had to give.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10807026

    When ya gunna start on the meat . Some of You might become coherent and post some intelligent discourse. That is of course if there is any brain left to expand. hahaha
    Are all lefties vegans, I wonder?

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

    Pete G,

    It is no coincidence that Zetetic rhymes with pathetic

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Paulus (2,568 comments) says:

    Mau is a pathetic description of a Lesbian.
    Anything to get attention, at any cost to her children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    The way to cure a vegetarian is to cook bacon.

    The way to make someone a vegetarian is to show them the pigs being intensively raised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    if you are so keen on performance pay I assume that you would be happy to have your kid in a class taught by the lowest-paid teacher, safe in the knowledge that he or she will have the best possible incentive to do well.

    You mean the incentive of being eligible for a performance-based pay rise? Yes indeed.

    The problems would surely arise if that person doesn’t have such an incentive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Leaping Jimmy (16,112 comments) says:

    They are after all people and as long as they treat others nicely and fairly, which we should all do, then those bigots should mind their own business and get on with their own lives.

    V2 can I please clarify what are you talking about as its unclear from your post. Are you suggesting people against gay marriage have no justification for their opposition to it but are simply bigots? That’s what you seem to be saying, but is that correct?

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

    A bunch of kids baptised at Mass this morning. So much for the view that religion is dying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. labours a joke (442 comments) says:

    More from the real racists..

    http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8470319/sharples-hints-at-budget-boost-for-maori

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Viking2 (11,286 comments) says:

    The Government expects to pay contractors about $120 million to help sell its controversial asset sales plan message.

    Finance Minister Bill English confirmed the spend would total “around 2 per cent” of the proceeds from the partial sale of selected state assets – up to $7 billion.

    The costs were for advertising, PR, legal, banking, call centres and other administrative charges.

    English, responding to a written parliamentary question from Greens co-leader Russel Norman, said the cost was “low by market standards”. But the bill was “doubly offensive”, Norman said.

    “It is a huge amount, and it’s money that belongs to taxpayers.

    Now I don’t have much truck with Wussell but we need to consider if we do this and donate 120 million to the money men or if we should just sell a chunk of the Cullen fund that sits at 20 Billion and earns shit. Most of the 20 billion is invested oversea’s i.e. it ewas yours and my money that has been sent offshore tobe invested in business that are of no value or no interest to us as NZer’s. Sent offshore at a time when we should have invested hugely in ourselves.
    Look around for business capitlal or venture capital and its sadly lacking.
    This from yesterday about the situation in Australia. The IT tech brains are quitting for exactly the same reasons.

    http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/brain-drain-why-young-entrepreneurs-leave-home-20120517-1ytoo.html

    Time for much better thinking.
    Maybe the beltway should be severed fom the stock brokers dept.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    A bunch of kids baptised at Mass this morning. So much for the view that religion is dying.

    Have you ever heard the phrase “the plural of anecdote is not data”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pete George (23,359 comments) says:

    Te Reo Putake, you seem to be checking things here, and seeing as I’m now on a Standard ban I’ll address this here:

    “I accept I was tiptoeing a line so accept the ban, it’s your right and it doen’t seem unfair in the circumstances.” PG on TS at 11.06.

    “Authors making shit up is acceptable there (they do it with impunity), speaking openly and honestly is abused and banned.” PG on KB ten minutes earlier.

    I presume you are trying to make a point about the timing, but it’s irrelevant, becaasue the comments are not directly related.

    IrishBill and I know why I was banned. I’m aware of their super-sensivity to identities of posters – some of that’s for good reason. I have wondered out loud whether a bit of flexibility is allowed for some of their stated rules. But I’m calling that a fair cop, I knew how it was.

    A separate issue – I don’t think I’ve made shit up (but have raised some important possibilities), and Eddie and Zetetic seem to have made shit up with impunity. In the circumstances I think that is unfair, but their blog, their rules, albeit somewhat lopsided and unevenly applied.

    Note – Irishbill can be tough and abrubt but he’s one of the fairest Standard moderators. And he wasn’t involved in any of what happened in the last couple of days, until now. That’s why I take his ban on the chin.

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

    @ Viking2

    This is exactly the point. The gay lobby is, intolerantly, demanding that their views be accepted by everyone. Those that don’t conform, get labelled as bigots etc etc. If gay people want to hold marriages then fine. But don’t expect me to approve it.

    Also, i’d like to add that in all my time in church, I’ve never seen anyone bullied or abused for being gay. Yes, the church has a clear teaching on this issue but that’s different. All these rants about hateful Christians fail to reflect what I see here in NZ. This misrepresentation adds to the tension between the gay lobby and Christian churches.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Viking2 (11,286 comments) says:

    If the shares in the NZ companies are sold and you or I choose not to invest will you or I be better off. The answer of course in no. Will we be compenstaed in any way for the years that we have invested via our taxes in these buisnesses. I doubt that, so after 45 or more years investing yours and mines investment will give us a nil return because we are captured by the socialist good.
    The reason why Governments should never be in business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    Gay marriage
    Is not a large part of opposition to gay marriage, that artificial insemination or adoption and raising of children in such a marriage will be the next step? And what effect does that context in their upbringing have on their own sexual understanding and orientation?
    People are screwing around with the marriage question when it is one couple’s business and harmless to anyone else.
    However when it can potentially harm others, as in bringing up children in a homosexual context, that is where a question needs answers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Viking2 (11,286 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero (815) Says:
    May 20th, 2012 at 11:46 am

    There’s none so blind as them that cannot see.

    People are people are peeople. That we don’t like some is natural, that some are different is natural, that there are some we agree with is natural.
    NZer’s seem to me to be less and less tolerant of one another which raises the question and the reason perhaps why some people or groups have a say about the way others treat them.

    Why should any person have greater rights than another person and why should some people be denied rights others have?

    Can you can clearly tell us why those differences exist in the allocation of rights either by Law, the Church or anybody else?

    All people are equal unto God.

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

    @ V2

    It depends what you mean by “greater rights”. My concern isn’t about whether two gay people have a ceremony and pretend they are married. But do they have a right to make me accept this as normal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. dime (9,690 comments) says:

    whats Alison Mau been doing?

    a 40 year old new dyke is like a born again christian. a pain in the ass

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

    Furthermore, while I appreciate this is only a weblog, at a philosophical level you’re all over the place. At one level you speak in relativistic language, denying (possibly unintentionally) that there are no absolute truths. And then you demand there are a bunch of absolute rights that everyone must enjoy.

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

    Anyway, I have better things to do today in the Auckland sun. Enjoy your little anti-religious hate-fest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Other_Andy (2,516 comments) says:

    @Viking2

    “Why should any person have greater rights than another person and why should some people be denied rights others have?”

    Who is being denied “rights”?

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

    Regarding Alison Mau.

    If she and her partner are not wishing to adopt more children, why does she need to go ‘offshore’
    to get married.

    What is wrong with a Civil Union ?
    What would ‘marriage’ give Alison that a Civil Union would not ?

    She also says, ‘when I was straight.’

    Maybe i stand to be corrected but i don’t buy the idea that a person gets to their late 30s/early 40s
    and wakes up one morning and decides that they are now a lesbian.

    This would be a convenient truth of course because it would absolve one from the guilt and shame of
    having conned a previous innocent partner over many years.

    Is it not true that people are aware if they are gay round about pubety and they can choose either go into
    the closet or not ?

    How does society regard a married man who goes cruising for homosexual sex ?
    Would he be gay or straight ?

    Do lesbians get cut more slack than gay men ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Leaping Jimmy (16,112 comments) says:

    V2 I wish you had answered my question above but since you haven’t I’ll just assume you’re saying that people who object to gay marriage are doing it on the basis they are bigots.

    In which case I must assume that like some others here including the host, you don’t recognise social engineering when it’s staring you in the face in flaming letters one thousand feet high.

    The reason I object to gay marriage is because it is a social engineering ploy just as disgusting as the social engineering which has resulted in pre-pubescent children being exposed to sex education in the classroom. Anyone who thinks that 5 year old children need to be told how to slide a condom over a plastic penis and that this is a good thing for it ‘protects them,’ has lost their perspective on humanity. As anyone can see, since sex education began in the seventies it has been a continuous gradually gradually slice the elephant become more and more explicit and delivered to younger and younger children. This has been no accident and anyone who thinks it’s “just happened” has no idea how social engineering works. It is intended you think that it “just happened” of course, that is the primary intent. But if you do think that, then put yourself into the useful idiot category for that is where you belong.

    I only use sex education as an analogy so you can see what a social engineering exercise is and how it works. It’s a slice the elephant campaign conducted over years often decades often generations and it’s not aimed at today’s people when it’s first introduced it’s aimed at generations yet to be born. This is what has happened since the seventies and if you imagine gay marriage today as sex education was in the seventies, that is the generation these people are aiming for today, the people to be born in 2050.

    The people behind this campaign are aiming to change the concept of what “marriage” is, as it exists, in people’s minds. As a concept. That is what they are aiming at. Just as with sex education, the outcome of that change of concept in people’s minds, is a change in behaviour across society. So if you tell children, in their innocence, precisely how sex works in explicit and excruciating detail, why naturally, they all want to try it, with each other, as you would only expect children to do. So there is no more concept of “virginity” being a virtue. No, sex with everyone, all the time, no matter the age. That’s what these bastards are doing to YOUR children. I can’t understand why any parent is quite sanguine about this but apparently, many are. This post is getting long, I shall continue with what gay marriage is, in part II. I have previously explained it, BTW. I’m getting sick of explaining it. Just as I get sick of watching profoundly idiotic parents pretend there is nothing wrong with their 5 year old getting sex ed. WTF is wrong with some people?

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

    Just before i get jumped on for being a homophobe.

    We have a gay friend who joined his partner in a Civil Union.
    They had a ‘wedding’ ceremony.

    They refer to themselves as being ‘married.’

    Whats wrong with that ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    Why should any person have greater rights than another person and why should some people be denied rights others have?

    You mean like a man who wants to marry his sister, his cousin, or a goat? Or a man who wants to marry a minor? or two minors who want to marry? There are very good reasons why these “rights” are denied.

    And who are you to call same sex marriage a “right”? According to whom? As I said yesterday, in reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    She also says, ‘when I was straight.’

    Maybe i stand to be corrected but i don’t buy the idea that a person gets to their late 30s/early 40s
    and wakes up one morning and decides that they are now a lesbian.

    This brings up an interesting point. “When I was straight” infers that she was once straight. Isn’t it part of the homosexual narrative that they are “born this way”? I read an article today where a school superintendent is discriminating against PFOX, a group that supports ex-gays. It turns out that ex-gays are the subject of more discrimination and attack than gays even.

    Maybe it is because it breaks the false ‘born this way’ narrative that progressives are trying to tell.

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/were-here-were-un-queer-get-used-to-it/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Other_Andy (2,516 comments) says:

    @Fletch

    “Maybe it is because it breaks the false ‘born this way’ narrative that progressives are trying to tell.”

    The ‘ex-gays’ are using the same ‘progressive’ tactics as the ‘gays’. Reading that article, it sounds the ‘progressives-gays’ can dish it out but can’t take it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. cha (3,856 comments) says:

    So you’ve not seen this Fletch.

    I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some “highly motivated” individuals.

    Robert Spitzer. M.D.
    Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry,
    Columbia University

    http://www.truthwinsout.org/news/2012/04/24542/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    I don’t often support what the self-important eurocrats propose. But this looks good:

    Leaked Strategy Paper: EU Plans To Phase Out Green Energy Subsidies

    The economic cost of the expansion of renewable energy could become prohibitively expensive. Subsidies in the EU for solar and wind power should be phased out as quickly as possible. That is what the European Commission says in an internal draft strategy paper that EU Energy Commissioner, Günther Oettinger, will present in Brussels early next month.

    I support centrally funded R&D for emerging energy technologies, but the nonsense of lavish operational subsidies resulting in increased fuel poverty must be stopped.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    cha, and yet there are many who have changed, famously, Michael Glatze, who was the editor of YGA (Young gay America), and an up-and-coming star in the gay movement, and Charlene Cothran, also and editor of a magazine, Venus, for black, gay women. They both gave up the lifestyle and became Christian.

    One doctor’s saying that he doesn’t think so does not mean much when you consider how many gays have become ex-gays.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Pete George (23,359 comments) says:

    Blue may not have noticed the ban, or he might be one of those who post knowing you can’t respond, but he’s wrong. I can’t point that ouit here so will do here

    You personally couldn’t produce evidence that Peter Dunne said he would support National’s proposed asset sales. Insider did it for you.

    This is wrong. Blue is either mistaken – hasn’t looked properly and hasn’t seen many comments relating to it – or is deliberately posting false claims that I can’t challenge.

    Link to details.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Pete George (23,359 comments) says:

    bereal @12.24pm – nothing’s wrong with that, if they are happy with that. But there’s something wrong if they have to settle for that because they don’t have the choice of a legal marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Leaping Jimmy (16,112 comments) says:

    Pete they already have the choice of a legal marriage, it’s called a Civil Union. Why is that not good enough already? What more do they need?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    it’s not just ‘one doctor’ there fletch..

    ..it is the doctor who wrote the piece he is apologising for..

    ..the tract you nutjobs cling to for yr gay-cure bullshit/reasons/justifications…..

    ..hardly ..’just one doctor’..eh..?

    ..(and you have two anecdotals y’say..?..impressive..!..)

    ..(on another level..kinda like einstein saying :..’um..!..about that relativety-theory…i was wrong’..)

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    The gay lobby is, intolerantly, demanding that their views be accepted by everyone.

    No they aren’t. Nobody is asking you to accept homosexuality, any more than everyone accepts Christian views and practises.
    They are simply saying that the state doesn’t get to be used by one side or the other, which means it can’t sanction one form of marriage over another.

    Remember, it is the Christian church not the gay rights movement which has the long and nauseating history of intolerance and brutal persecution.

    If gay people want to hold marriages then fine. But don’t expect me to approve it.

    That’s all they’re asking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..or is deliberately posting false claims that I can’t challenge…”

    you mean like you do frequently about me..on sites where i am banned…?

    ..how exactly does that feel..?..there..p.g..?

    ..shall we compare notes..?

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Pete George (23,359 comments) says:

    Pete they already have the choice of a legal marriage, it’s called a Civil Union.

    No, that’s a civil union, not a legal marriage, the two are different. Some couples can choose a Civil Union or a marriage, some don’t have a choice, they can only do ther Civil Union.

    I thought you would be able to understand that.

    Like, everyone’s able to get a learner license to drive a car, and everyone’s also able to go for a full license.

    Same sort of thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. cha (3,856 comments) says:

    Why Fletch is Spitzer suddenly only One doctor’s saying when a of search of WND has returned about 381 results citing his 2003 investigation which states that “In some of the subjects, the reports of change in sexual orientation were substantial, credible and believable,”?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. BlueGriffon (204 comments) says:

    Go read the comments here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10807029

    I think Bomber logs on with multiple names. Some comments are bordering on threats to the PM’s life.

    On another note, seeing as we will possibly have Russel as our next Finance minister, should I fix my mortgage for 5 years rather than 3?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Johnboy (15,602 comments) says:

    “you mean like you do frequently about me..on sites where i am banned…?”

    A true genius often goes unrecognised in his own lifetime Magpie! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Other_Andy (2,516 comments) says:

    “Like, everyone’s able to get a learner license to drive a car, and everyone’s also able to go for a full license.
    Same sort of thing.”

    Everyone’s able to get a learner license to drive a car, and everyone’s also able to go for a full license??
    Are you serious?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Scott Chris (5,981 comments) says:

    A bunch of kids baptised at Mass this morning

    Hmm, the thorny old issue of juvenile indoctrination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. bc (1,356 comments) says:

    Brian Smaller @9.33am
    It is not a “crazy law” because your understanding of the NZ Censorship laws are wrong. From a legal viewpoint your first sentence is incorrect. The “red sticker” restricted ratings meet that it is illegal to show restricted films to people under the age shown, eg a R16 film cannot be shown to your 14 year old.
    So technically you are breaking the law if you allow your 14 year old to see a R16 film. Now of course in reality the police won’t be banging down the door if you do that, but the contradiction that you perceive by not being able to take your 14 year old to an R16 film isn’t there from a legal perspective.

    http://www.censorship.govt.nz/img/tear%20off%20pad.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Johnboy (15,602 comments) says:

    Still teaching then bc? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    cha, well, I’ve never heard of him?
    Maybe it’s political? Who knows?

    I guess anyone is entitled to change his mind. You’re saying he was wrong to begin with and now he is right, and I could just as easily contend he was right before.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Leaping Jimmy (16,112 comments) says:

    No, that’s a civil union, not a legal marriage, the two are different.

    How are they different?

    Precisely what rights don’t they have under a Civil Union?

    Apart from adoption rights, which can be dealt with as a debate separate from gay marriage.

    Why do gays and their supporters, of whom you appear to be one Pete, require “marriage?” It’s only a label, isn’t it. Why is there such a global furore over a mere label? Why? They have every single other right under the sun, do they not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Johnboy (15,602 comments) says:

    I might be regarded as a tad kinky round here but I have never married a Ram yet! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..You’re saying he was wrong to begin with and now he is right, and I could just as easily contend he was right before…”

    there ya have it..!..the ‘logic’ of so many of the followers-of-dictated-plans…

    ..just blindly ignore what dosen’t ‘fit’..

    ..eh..?

    ..brilliant..!

    (on another level..spitzer denouncing his previous findings..it’s like ronald macdonald coming out and saying..’i was wrong..!..stop eating that crap..!..it’ll kill ya..!..)

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Pete George (23,359 comments) says:

    Leaping Jimm: Precisely what rights don’t they have under a Civil Union?

    Precisely they don’t have the right to get married.

    If some kids were allowed to have a party with a cake, and just some kids were allowed to have a birthday party with a cake as well, try telling birthdayless kids that would be fair. They have the same rights to stuff themselves with sugar and hyper around. But some would have more limited human rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Harriet (4,626 comments) says:

    Leaping Jimmy @

    What got me about what Mau said is – “Why should anybody be uncomfortable about something that is normal? ”

    Well if it is ‘normal’ why then is she supporting a ‘coming out’ support group ? Isn’t she then saying that gay’s are ‘differant’ ?

    Why is it that they want to redefine marriage? That is what they want to do right? Not being happy with having been granted every single right provided by marriage, homosexuals now are agitating that the definition of the word “marriage” to be redefined.

    Why? What extra rights will that confer on their unions?
    Can Mau please name one ?
    If they can’t, then the likes of Mau must admit that all their complaints are esoteric and are made purely for social engineering purposes.

    Having to ‘express one’s sexuality’ has always been the hallmark of homosexuals who ‘out themselves’ as it is central to what they are – homosexual extroverts that are differant to hetrosexual extroverts.Hetrosexuals themselves don’t think that ‘extrovert sexuality by hetrosexuals’ is suited to Marriage as it’s the OPPOSITE reason as to why hetrosexuals get Married. Marriage is all about sexual restraint.Homosexuals will place themselves in the position of having to ‘restrain’ themselves if they marry, going from the position of ‘identity’ to ‘regular’ and ‘ordanary’.

    It’s people like Mau who create the division between homosexuals and hetrosexuals by always ‘expressing their sexuality’ which can only send them right back in ‘proposed marriage’ to where they are now – always ‘expressing’ to society and an institution ‘what they are’ ; Differant.And in this way, they will change the nature of Marriage forever[social engineering], unless society and the churches keep reminding us that Marriage is an institution of restraint for the sake of the husband and wife and the offspring of that Marriage that naturally occurs. Marriage is what it is, and, is what it always has been. It’s not a modern invention.

    In fact, I’d have thought it was of particular interest to gays that children be socialised well and not turn out suffering from the lack of that basic human right ‘the upbringing by, and knowing who their natural parents are’.All adopted children face problems because of adoption.Adoption in itself, is to create a better enviroment for children.Defending traditions such as marriage is crucial in that work.Marriage as it currently is, is made for adoption.Children require a mother and a father. It is tantamount to child abuse to place them into a “family” that does not provide them that basic need of mother & father ‘like’ figures – and that, is the opposite of what adoption as an institution has meant.[Foster care is differant to adoption and should NOT be confused as adoption.]

    So now they want to turn both Marriage and adoption upside down !

    Mau needs to think and listen some more before she has imposed on other children what she has imposed on her own -I’m not saying Mau has/is done anything wrong – but she is no authority on institutions such as Marriage, adoption and children who ARN’T her own. Neither am I. I’m just giving an opinion I don’t know too much about.The welfare of ALL kids is not just an opinion.It’s life.And parents in a Marriage have proven to know best about that practicality !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Other_Andy (2,516 comments) says:

    @PG

    “Precisely they don’t have the right to get married.”

    Rubbish, they do have the right to get married.

    “But some would have more limited human rights.”

    No they don’t. No matter how you twist it, they have the same rights as everybody else.
    Gays have the same right as everybody else.
    What you want is a different ‘right’.
    You want the ‘right’ for a man to marry a man and for a woman to marry a woman.
    Nobody has that ‘right’ at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..And parents in a Marriage have proven to know best about that practicality !..”

    but..so..why do so many of them have gay children..?

    ..can/should we ‘blame’ those parents there..harriet..?

    (and this is just so good you should bottle it:..maybe put it on a t-shirt..?

    “..the churches keep reminding us that Marriage is an institution of restraint..’

    ..phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Leaping Jimmy (16,112 comments) says:

    Precisely they don’t have the right to get married.

    That’s right Pete, but marriage = family, in people’s minds. That’s why gays can’t have it. By definition, a gay relationship is not about family, it’s about sex. That’s why they can’t have it.

    As I explained above, this is a social engineering exercise. Only useful idiots cannot see that. It is designed to change society’s perception of “marriage” as a concept in people’s mind.

    It is designed to change that concept, from an inextricable linkage between marriage = family, to a cheapened, disgusting linkage to marriage = sex. That’s what this whole global issue is all about, Pete. It is a communist social engineering ploy attacking the family unit because commies really hate the family unit. Their whole philosophy is based on destroying it and this is but another ploy in a long list of ploys designed to do this.

    The fact that people like you and wat and DPF et al cannot see that, does not mean this is not actually what is happening.

    Happy to explain further how it works, but please read my 12:22 first because this is all very elementary and I’m getting really tired of repeating it.

    phil this is not a religious question. Why do people like you and wat keep thinking it is? It’s not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    (this stuck in my mind/amused yesterday..)

    ..lots of money was spent developing a bread-slicer for blind people…

    ..(a thorny/complex problem..you’d agree…)

    ..but then the blind people told them that they always buy sliced bread..

    (why does that make me think of the ‘reforms’ this govt is doing..?.)

    ..phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..to a cheapened, disgusting linkage to marriage = sex. That’s what this whole global issue is all about,..”

    wow..!..you really have that raging-homophobia thang going on there..eh twitchy-jim/reid..?

    ..is it leavened with self-loathing..?..that raging-homophobia..?

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Harriet (4,626 comments) says:

    Philu @

    “….but..so..why do so many of them have gay children..?

    ..can/should we ‘blame’ those parents there..harriet..?….’

    In a lot of cases yes, as their kids have not been affirmed into their sexuality.Biology tells us two things ‘what goes where’ and that young males & females who ‘identify’ with being ‘homosexual’ have the same fertility rates as hetrosexuals.

    Meaning that all people are ‘born’ hetrosexual.

    Or if you are STILL confused – virtually all kids are born with their ‘stuff’ in good working order.And those who are not, are ALL given medical reasons as to why they arn’t – and not one of those reasons is because they were born ‘homosexual’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Leaping Jimmy (16,112 comments) says:

    wow..!..you really have that raging-homophobia thang going on there..eh twitchy-jim/reid..?

    As I’ve mentioned before phil my brother is gay and I love him deeply, naturally. Conflating opposition to a social engineering attack on the family unit with some sort of anti-gay sentiment is a typical lefty ploy. I would have no problem with gay marriage if it wasn’t attacking the family unit. Please don’t allege I am something I’m not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Pete George (23,359 comments) says:

    I would have no problem with gay marriage if it wasn’t attacking the family unit.

    I don’t see why it would attack “the family unit”, least of all attacking it, it shouldn’t make any difference at all to how families are made up, it just equalises symbolic status.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    harriett..!..it dosen’t happen often..!..you have left me fucken speechless..

    ..i just don’t know where to begin..

    .you truely are a moon-unit..

    ..you just keep shining on..!..you crazy diamond..!..eh..?

    ..over and out..

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..my brother is gay and I love him deeply, naturally…”

    perhaps an unfortunate choice of words..there..twitchy-jim/reid..?

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Leaping Jimmy (16,112 comments) says:

    I don’t see why it would attack “the family unit”, least of all attacking it, it shouldn’t make any difference at all to how families are made up, it just equalises symbolic status.

    Pete the reason I gave you the sex-ed analogy in my above is so you could see the same thing in what that does. I presume you would agree that explaining to five year olds precisely how to insert a condom over a full sized plastic dildo might not be the most thing those five year olds have ever experienced. Yet this is precisely what the sex education social engineers advocate would be an extremely good thing to do in order to “protect” those children. This is how it works. They wrap up disgusting undermining attacks in the guise of something positive, like “protecting” children. It’s nothing of the sort, of course, but that’s what they say it is.

    Like I said above, gay marriage is aimed at the generation born in 2050, who grow up in a world where there is no family the way we know it today. In 2050, instead of most families being what we know, most families instead consist of several siblings who each have different fathers and the mother currently lives with a man who is not the father to any one of them. This is the “normal” family then. These children from birth are taught not explicitly but just by natural absorption, that “marriage” is something you do when you care slightly more than casually about someone. But it is not a lifetime commitment, no way, it’s not even done when you want to have kids. It’s really a bit like living together, only slightly more special than that. Back in the “olden days” it used to mean something, but it doesn’t now.

    If you think this change is healthy for society Pete then pray explain how come all healthy civilisations throughout history have also had healthy long term stable families and when that disintegrates so too does the society. You can see this throughout history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Pete George (23,359 comments) says:

    how come all healthy civilisations throughout history have also had healthy long term stable families

    That’s a big statement. Are you talking about going as far back in history as the cavemen and aborigines of Australia who had women groups looking after children while men go away hunting and gathering? Or the Roam era when many men went way for long periods of time legioning (and homosexualling)? Alexander the Great’s time was a bit like that too.

    When was younger “living in sin” was frowned upon and predicted to be the end of the family unit too, but I ended up with a good family unit that went on the live in sin and then went on to set up good family units.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    Interview with Charlene Cothran, a militant lesbian for 3 decades and editor of gay magazine Venus, about how she left the lifestyle and became Christian.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Johnboy (15,602 comments) says:

    “the cavemen and aborigines of Australia ”

    I trust you are not avoiding an Aotearoa comparison in view of your future political aspirations PG? :)

    Edit: When you spellcheck Aotearoa it suggests “Tearoom”…rather appropriate somehow! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    Leaping Jimmy – The reason I object to gay marriage is because it is a social engineering ploy just as disgusting as the social engineering which has resulted in pre-pubescent children being exposed to sex education in the classroom. Anyone who thinks that 5 year old children need to be told how to slide a condom over a plastic penis and that this is a good thing for it ‘protects them,’ has lost their perspective on humanity.

    Name one New Zealand primary school where five-year-olds are receiving sex education classes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Leaping Jimmy (16,112 comments) says:

    When was younger “living in sin” was frowned upon and predicted to be the end of the family unit too, but I ended up with a good family unit that went on the live in sin and then went on to set up good family units.

    Yes Pete it’s all a slice the elephant thing, isn’t it. You think today’s society is healthier than it used to be? What with the attitudes of people and everything else?

    The generation that fought WWII was the last generation to have been bought up with what I would call a high level of moral fibre. The baby boomers started the decline and every generation since had ratcheted it up a notch. This doesn’t mean there aren’t decent individuals in all these generations, of course there are. It means as a generalisation, the sorts of values these generations now have, in terms of things like frugality, self-discipline, ability to delay gratification and all that good stuff, becomes less and less prevalent in each passing generation.

    All I’m saying is, the fact this gay marriage is a world-wide global phenomena should be a raging tell to those astute enough to read trends in society. It is a signal that social engineers really really regard this as something extremely important. This should give pause for thought amongst thinking people as to why this might be.

    Given that gays already have equivalent legal rights in Civil Unions and adoption can be dealt with as a separate debate quite apart from gay marriage, I don’t buy the argument that this is in any way discriminatory against gays. They don’t have to have the label, so don’t give it to them.

    Edit: When you spellcheck Aotearoa it suggests “Tearoom”…slightly appropriate somehow!

    Probably knows something we don’t Johnboy.

    Name one New Zealand primary school where five-year-olds are receiving sex education classes.

    Yvette the link I had referred to the UK, but don’t you realise that what happens there ends up here? What about social engineering don’t you understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Harriet (4,626 comments) says:

    “…I don’t see why it would attack “the family unit”, least of all attacking it, it shouldn’t make any difference at all to how families are made up, it just equalises symbolic status…”

    It does matter how Marriages are ‘made up’ as Marriage is an institution for a male and female to commit to a life together, for better or worse, and for those of the children that come from it.Marriage is the social construct to recognize and support ‘natural order’ parenting.Stats confirm that children are best in a Marriage made up of their natural parents.But those who are not the natural parent of a child[illegitimate] in their Marriage are recognised by the likes of churches as ‘doing what is best’ for the child because Marriage is significantly about children’s and women’s welfare.In most 2nd Marriages, the mother is generally the ‘natural’ parent and it is recognised throughout society that by having a male in the family unit -preferably Marriage- the children’s and their mother’s welfare is more secure than without a male.That is not to say that divorce[it's true meaning] serves any good to children – it seldom does.[children often can't work out why dad was violent to mum - didn't we matter in this? is the question most posed by children].

    Marriage is an institution that gives support to children.It should not be anything less than this or it’s ‘symbolic status’ as ‘best practise benefactor’ of women and children will become equal to that of de-factos etc – the less ‘committed’ relationship.

    The Marriage Act needs to be strenghtened as ‘what becomes optional leads people to concentrate on the negatives rather than the positives.’ No-faults divorce and the feminist mantra have really been the culprits of current high divorce figures – leading couples to ‘think’ that leaving a Marriage is ‘best option’.For children it is not.

    What would couples behave like towards each other if they had no option but to stay Married- negatively towards each other ?- or start to act more like adult ‘parents’ should act ?

    The divorce rate is higher than those who smoke – so why are the left then asking for gay Marriage as being the best social outcome for all? Don’t they know better ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    Harriet,

    A long posting, but you didn’t refute the point: recognition of gay marriage won’t attack the family unit. It won’t have any impact on yours or anyone else’s marriage. You won’t be forced to wear spandex.

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

    @ Fletch

    Interesting Youtube clip. I was struck by her comment “there’s a lot of loneliness in the gay community that no one talks about”. This would be anathema wouldn’t it. I know four gay people closely. One in a cousin, two from university, and one is the long-time trusted friend of my wife. They are all unhappy. They put on a brave ‘pride’ face but are not content. And I don’t mean ‘discontent’ in they way that we all wish for things to be a bit better. I mean a deeper discontent.

    Now some might argue that once society fully ‘accepts’ them with equal rights then maybe they’ll be happy. I doubt it. They all have caring families and largely, as far as I can tell, don’t really give a rip what ‘society thinks of them’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Harriet (4,626 comments) says:

    Fletch @

    “…Interview with Charlene Cothran, a militant lesbian for 3 decades and editor of gay magazine Venus, about how she left the lifestyle and became Christian….”

    Christianity gives homosexuals the chance to change by the ‘whole of life’ process which lends support at all times of the day on all matters of the day.It leaves no option to be Christian on mondays through Friday but homosexual on Saturday evenings.Where as the likes of physciatry tends to concentrate and deal with only their ‘homosexual’ choice .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Leaping Jimmy (16,112 comments) says:

    A long posting, but you didn’t refute the point: recognition of gay marriage won’t attack the family unit. It won’t have any impact on yours or anyone else’s marriage. You won’t be forced to wear spandex.

    Yes it will wat and if you don’t think it will you don’t understand social engineering. It attacks the family unit in precisely the same way that sex education attacks children.

    It has nothing repeat nothing to do with any particular individual marriage. It is concerned solely with the concept of ‘marriage’ as it exists as a concept, in people’s minds. And at this moment, the concept marriage in people’s minds is inextricably linked with the concept of family. Gay marriage breaks that linkage, which attacks the family unit as a social institution.

    What about any of that don’t you understand, wat?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    You won’t be forced to wear spandex.

    … unless you come out as a cyclist :)

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

    @ wat dabney

    During the civil unions debate Lianne Dalziel gave a speech in the House about how civil unions wouldn’t affect her marriage to her husband. Along with my thoughts on what type of man would have the courage to marry Lianne Dalziel, I also thought that she was either a fool, or being deliberately deceptive. Of course it wouldn’t affect her marriage (though there are some arguments for suggest it could but there’s not the scope to discuss them here). You’d have to have a pretty shitty relationship with your spouse to all of a sudden affected by new social trends. The real point made by opponents – often a bit ham-fisted – is that it erodes the notion that the healthy self-giving of a man to a women (and vice-versa) is devalued. Yes, of course we can find examples of shitty husbands and wifes, and good parents who are homosexual. I saw a classic poster saying “Rush Limbaugh says gay marriage erodes the scantity of marriage. His first, second, third and fourth wife couldn’t be reached for comment”.

    However, the exceptions don’t prove another rule. For children to grow into healthly young adults, they need a male and female role model. Yes, people can develop normally without this without these – the current PM had no father growing up (though some of you may insist he’s not normal ;) ) But these are exceptions to the rule. Are we now going to set in place systems that entrench a social order that, on averages, will not give our children what they need to grow maturely? It would seem that the gay lobby wants this for there own ends, not for the ends of others in the community.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    …if you don’t think it will you don’t understand social engineering.

    Again, Jimmy, by definition those who advocate selective and discriminatory laws are the ones practising social engineering.

    You favour the current discriminatory law because, as you have argued at such length, it leads to what you consider to be a socially desirable outcome. You are indicted by your own statements.

    If it wasn’t about your urge to social engineer then you and others would not be posting at such great length about the dire future for society and the species.

    So by all means continue to argue for the state to act in such a way: you can argue that Muslims or Jews should not be allowed to marry; that blacks and whites should not be allowed to inter-marry; that the disabled should not be allowed to marry. Whatever.

    But what you can’t logically do is claim that those who are advocating equality before the law are the ones attempting social engineering.

    Don’t make me use italic again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    ps, sorry that the video is choppy in places.
    Is another different interview here – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQGA-n4JyOY

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

    As I’ve said earlier. Gay folk can do what they want in their own time, but my concern about gay marriage is that it will then force the rest of society to approve of/assent their behavior – in out schools, churches, finances. If you think the gay lobby is not determined to force everyone to assent – including churches – under pain of legal prosecution, then you’re not paying attention.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Leaping Jimmy (16,112 comments) says:

    wat, all I want is the status quo. How is that engineering?

    You’re the ones who want things to change, destruction-wise.

    Simple as that.

    It has nothing to do with equality. They already have everything in civil unions. And if you care to argue they don’t have adoption, gay marriage is NOT a pre-requisite to that issue, it is separate and can be treated separately. What about that don’t you understand?

    You are the destroyers of society, wat. You and the other useful idiots. Why do you want to do that? Are you all mad, or are you just stupid because you don’t see what it is you are doing? Which of those two alternatives are you? It has to be one of those two wat, you don’t have a third. So: are you mad, or are you stupid? (Of course you could be evil, but I’m assuming none of you are that so I’ve left it out of the possibilities.)

    Don’t make me ask you again.

    If you think the gay lobby is not determined to force everyone to assent – including churches – under pain of legal prosecution, then you’re not paying attention.

    Of course they are EWS. That’s exactly what they’re planning on doing. Of course they won’t admit it, but that’s what they’re going to be doing. Only idiots wouldn’t see that.

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

    Anyway, as I’ve also said earlier, I’m looking forward to the eventual showdown between church and state. The church won’t blink first.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..If you think the gay lobby is not determined to force everyone to assent..”

    ‘assent’ to fucken what..?

    ..compulsory anal-sex..?

    ..equality/recognition under the law..?

    ..(you people are so funny…tizzing out over nothing/yr own fears/bigotry…)

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

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

    Gay “marriage” is simply a stepping stone for gay progressives to elevate the homosexual as someone or something special. We all knew civil unions would not cut the mustard when it was introduced. As soon as civil unions were set in law the call then went out for gay marriage. Yes it’s all social engineering and once gay marriage is normalised the call will then be for greater gay rights. Something like the implementation of hate speech laws should anyone dare to offend someone gay. It’s all part of the gay progressive movement to be in your face, they simply will never be happy. If gay marriage was introduced tomorrow there would then be a further push to make gayness the new norm and it would be insistent that being gay is to be special. Marriage is between a man and a woman, gays have their civil unions, they should just get on with their lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    EWS,

    The real point made by opponents – often a bit ham-fisted – is that it erodes the notion that the healthy self-giving of a man to a women (and vice-versa) is devalued.

    No, the real point is that it isn’t; and the rider is that even if it is you don’t get to discriminate against other people.

    Hands up all those here whose marriage is validated by the fact that homosexuals are denied the same recognition.

    I didn’t think so. One’s marriage would have to be a worthless hollow lie for it to be affected in any way by what other people do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..… unless you come out as a cyclist :)..”

    ..(shudder..!..now there’s a group deserving of the approbrium of society..

    ..the spandex-cyclist..

    ..ugly to behold…ugly to behold…

    ..phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

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

    @ Leaping Jimmy
    @ wat dabbey

    It would be interesting if some brave reporter (most NZ reporters are cowards) asked Charles Chauvel, Grant Robertson, Maryan Street, GayNZ, NZAF and other gays leaders, if they would give their word that if gay marriage was ushered in, they would still defend the rights of certain groups (the Catholic Church is just one example) to continue to freely speak their view of men and women and married life?

    I’d like to see that Q&A TV show and the weasel words that follow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Harriet (4,626 comments) says:

    Walt @

    “…Harriet, A long posting, but you didn’t refute the point: recognition of gay marriage won’t attack the family unit. It won’t have any impact on yours or anyone else’s marriage. You won’t be forced to wear spandex…”

    Being Married affords people the opportunity to be parents and as a result of that, better people.The Marriage tradition seems to suggest that.

    However, Marriage I would guess, would not make someone a better ‘homosexual’ as there is nothing more for them in a Marriage that they can do for themselves other than ‘existing as they currently do’ as homosexuals.Marriage would offer homosexuals nothing but confusion I would think.Or a false sense of security at the very best.

    Marriage is the social construct of the natural order family unit.

    Family n. – group of parents and children or near relatives; person’s children; decendants of common ancestor.

    Homosexuality has nothing to do with Marriage. As has been said by our ancestors for a while now.

    If Homosexuals want to have a ‘social construct’ like the one that ‘natural order parents’ enter into, then they should go and do that.No one is stopping them.’Deconstructing Marriage’ is not a social construct and is not being done by progressive homosexuals, but by regressive homosexuals .

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

    @ philu

    ““..If you think the gay lobby is not determined to force everyone to assent..”
    ‘assent’ to fucken what..?
    ..compulsory anal-sex..?”

    Please don’t tell me you are this stupid.

    Of course no one will advocate compulsory anal sex. Your suggestion of this shows how disingenuous your debate on this issue is. For example, the Catholic Church has clear views on men, women, and marriage. Would the ‘normalisation’ of gay marriage pave the way for gay lobby groups to accuse the Church of hate crimes? Would gay lobby group pressure Catholic schools, or other conservative schools, to accept gay-educators into the class room to educate everyone on how normal this all is? If you think there are not gay lobby people that want this, then you’re a bit naive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Leaping Jimmy (16,112 comments) says:

    I’d like to see that Q&A TV show and the weasel words that follow.

    They wouldn’t ask the question EWS, it would break the meme. The reporters are on the same page as the useful idiots here are. They all support it because they think it’s about human wights.

    Anyway, no concession on this, EWS. They cannot have the label. Of course I predict they will get it. That is quite obvious. Just look at the number of useful idiots on this conservative blog. Imagine how many there are on the lefty blogs. And then consider that 90% of the voting population are by definition in the useful idiot category anyway since they haven’t even yet realised the power of politics on their lives (the first veil).

    But the label should never be conceded to them as some negotiated settlement. That is their Mt Suribachi. It’s what they’ve been aiming at for decades. It’s the pinnacle of their combat and once they have that, all else (such as what you mentioned above re: forcing the churches), flows from it.

    Sorry. That’s not on my agenda. Not ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Harriet (4,626 comments) says:

    “…Anyway, as I’ve also said earlier, I’m looking forward to the eventual showdown between church and state. The church won’t blink first….’

    Spot on…and neither will the Conservative Party.

    Schooling will get bloody exspensive to have kids educated to the level they are now….you know….with the subsidisation that the parents of kids in private schools now provide for the kids in state schools.

    The catholic church in aust has already pulled out from providing adoption services…..because the law got changed….to them HAVING to provide kids to gay couples.

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

    Also, saying something is ‘just a social construct’ doesn’t necessarily connect or disconnect it from Natural Law or so-called ‘Human Rights’.

    Abolition of slavery, the female franchise, and democracy are ‘social constructs’, as is the stoning of women in certain places, one-party states, the acceptance of child labour, and the approval of destructive ‘martyrdom’.

    Just because something ‘is a social construct’, it doesn’t mean it’s changeable on a whim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    Jimmy,

    wat, all I want is the status quo. How is that engineering?

    Are you serious? The fact that the discrimination is currently enacted in law somehow magically doesn’t make it discrimination?

    By your logic, the US black civil rights movement was not about equality but was evil social engineering, because the racist legislation was the status quo.

    It has nothing to do with equality. They already have everything in civil unions./i>”

    You’d be happy to reverse the situation then, so homosexuals get to marry but heterosexuals are restricted to civil unions? I mean, if they’re equal…

    You are the destroyers of society, wat.

    Isn’t that what they said to the family that hid Anne Frank in the attic?

    Invoking “society” as the justification for discriminatory legislation is the hallmark of leftism and all enemies of freedom.

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

    @ Harriet

    I’m not sure about the CP. Parties of one person are extremely problematic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    Harriet,

    You are entitled to your views about homosexual marriage but, again, you have said nothing which suggests it will affect traditional heterosexual mariage in any way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Would the ‘normalisation’ of gay marriage pave the way for gay lobby groups to accuse the Church of hate crimes?..”

    well if that church is preaching hate/the marginalising/bigotry/denial of human/legal rights to a group of humans in society…

    ..that most definitely is a hate-crime..

    ..how can it not be..?

    ..so..following on from that..

    ..surely that is down to the churches..

    ..not to do that..

    ..eh..?

    ..your twisted view is like blaming the victim for the crime..

    ..or do you feel you should be free to preach unfettered-bigotry..?

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Leaping Jimmy (16,112 comments) says:

    Are you serious? The fact that the discrimination is currently enacted in law somehow magically doesn’t make it discrimination?

    What is the discrimination, wat? They have civil unions. That gives them all legal rights.

    What else is left, apart from adoption, which can be dealt with separately to gay marriage. This is the 3rd time I’ve spelt it out wat. Where is the discrimination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Johnboy (15,602 comments) says:

    “..the spandex-cyclist..

    ..ugly to behold…ugly to behold…’

    and here was us all thinking you were a bit of a fan of Trev’s Magpie.

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

    @ Philu

    Well of course the church isn’t going to ask people to go out and be mean to gay people or encourage Catholic business-folk to side-line them out of jobs. So let’s not use vague ‘discrimination’ as the topic. Let’s get specific.

    The church is quite clear, marriage is between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is a disorder. Yes, it teaches that all people are to be treated with respect and dignity but we don’t assent to their views just ‘to be nice’. So, if the numerous Catholic high-schools in NZ simply taught this, and if in their teaching of marriage on Sundays the priests taught this – would you consider that ‘preaching hate’? Should the church be stopped from doing this? Would you – as a ‘liberal’ – defend its right to do this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Harriet (4,626 comments) says:

    The homosexuals will move on to ‘hate speech & hate crimes’ after homosexual marriage is permitted as there is already some talk amongst some religious affiliated groups for ‘celebration of children being born to their natural order parents’ which differs to Christenings.

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

    Bereal:She also says, ‘when I was straight.’

    She was presumably referring to the time that she was with Dallow, no to her orientation. Mau is bisexual and has admitted this.

    Maybe i stand to be corrected but i don’t buy the idea that a person gets to their late 30s/early 40s
    and wakes up one morning and decides that they are now a lesbian.

    [...]

    Is it not true that people are aware if they are gay round about pubety and they can choose either go into
    the closet or not ?

    Most people know their sexual orientation at puberty but a small percentage don’t and take a few more years to figure it out. There is a very small minority that don’t figure it out until their twenties and a very minescule number of people who don’t figure it out until their thirties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Viking2 (11,286 comments) says:

    If you think this change is healthy for society Pete then pray explain how come all healthy civilisations throughout history have also had healthy long term stable families and when that disintegrates so too does the society. You can see this throughout history.

    Don’t know much about history then do you. You thnik it was utopia. Go read some real history.

    If you think this change is healthy for society Pete then pray explain how come all healthy civilisations throughout history have also had healthy long term stable families and when that disintegrates so too does the society. You can see this throughout history.

    You know that to be true? It just ain’t.

    The generation that fought WWII was the last generation to have been bought up with what I would call a high level of moral fibre.
    Really. you don’t know much about family history then. Perhaps yopu should do some research on a few.

    There is nothing new under the sun.
    Much of past history was repressed and never ever spoken about. Women were treated badly, second class citicens much like the muslims treat them today. Many a baby was born to young women out of wedlock, indeed many needed the men to survive.
    Alkl this revisionist nice nice hoistory that some people have accumlated via the props ganda schools.
    Stop and think why we had womens movements to get things changed.
    I guess its the vegans and their little brains again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Viking2 (11,286 comments) says:

    Sexual orientation is determined by the hormones in the body. That can change. It is without doubt affected by the use of hormone treatments and is affected by other external chemicals ingested from the food chain.
    A good example is the hormones that were once used in chickens causing young girls to develop early. Plenty of literature out there if you bother to google.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Johnboy (15,602 comments) says:

    Does eating Lentils and Mung Beans make you a slow developer, or even a retard, V2? :)

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

    Fletch: and yet there are many who have changed

    There is a whole ex-ex-gay movement full of people who used to be gay, became christian and ex-gay, then realised they were lying to themselves. There are so many of these people that some christian groups offering “therapy” to gays now admit that they can’t change gays to non-gays but instead aim to get the gays to “control” themselves.

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

    V2:Sexual orientation is determined by the hormones in the body.

    Nope.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Scott Chris (5,981 comments) says:

    there is already some talk amongst some religious affiliated groups for ‘celebration of children being born to their natural order parents’ which differs to Christenings.

    I can’t see why a religious group that chooses to discriminate against gays would want to discriminate against their children too. Their children would most likely be heteros.

    Spiteful really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Johnboy (15,602 comments) says:

    Like keeping them off Pekapeka beach when they are in season chiz? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Leaping Jimmy (16,112 comments) says:

    Stop and think why we had womens movements to get things changed.

    V2 re: your entire 5:08, I suggest the same thing to you – read some history, but in particular, as far as the wimmin’s movement goes, what about feminism as cultural marxism, don’t you understand? I mean, failing to understand that, and confusing it for a movement that is truly concerned with women’s rights, is the very definition of useful idiocy V2. If you don’t get feminism, it’s no wonder you don’t get gay marriage, either. Seriously, educate yourself. You appear to really need some. Just google “feminism cultural marxism.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    interesting how you are preaching your religions’ churches as holders of moral-rectitude..

    ..what with all that/so much ‘unfortunate-business’..eh..?

    (just saying..!..

    ..have the ironies inherent in that passed you by..?..)

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Harriet (4,626 comments) says:

    wat dabney (1,443) Says:

    May 20th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
    Harriet,

    “…You are entitled to your views about homosexual marriage but, again, you have said nothing which suggests it will affect traditional heterosexual mariage in any way….’

    It doesn’t effect homosexual relationships that they arn’t Married.

    But anyway….Why do I need to say it will effect my Marriage -I’m already Married- maybe I will get one of my hetrosexual children to comment on Kiwiblog to say why it will effect theirs.

    O’k i’ll do it for them.

    Because they ARN’T homosexual and they want to have the tradtional HETROSEXUAL Marriage that signals to people that they are ALSO NOT homosexual – which gays will have denied them by that time.

    Which PROVES that homosexuall marriage is all about ‘social engineering’.

    Why should homosexuality be treated as the VERY SAME ‘subject matter’ as hetrosexuality when it is not ?

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

    Philu,

    This isn’t a debate about the moral rectitude of the church, of which I wasn’t trying to trade off or to promote. It’s a debate about religious freedom – of which I’m not convinced the gay lobby and some of its supporters a willing to give.

    (with regard to the ‘unfortunately business’, if you do some reading you’ll see that despite its faults – none of which I’m specifically defending – the church’s record in that area is cleaner that other groups in society – especially public schools.)

    So, back to the topic at hand. What’s your answer? Or are you too much of a coward to speak what you really think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Harriet (4,626 comments) says:

    Scott @

    “…I can’t see why a religious group that chooses to discriminate against gays would want to discriminate against their children too. Their children would most likely be heteros…..Spiteful really….”

    They are not discriminating – they are celebrating the fact that their children have been born to their natural parents.

    It is the same as organic farmers taking pride in their crops and GM farmers taking pride in theirs….who are you or me to say Scott ?

    All it means to me is what is more healthy for me and society ….you know…the health costs and all that…natural…..or GM ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..they want to have the tradtional HETROSEXUAL Marriage that signals to people that they are ALSO NOT homosexual ..”

    won’t people get that from looking at them..?

    ..could they wear declaration-t-shirts..?

    (oh..!..you lot are so funny..always delivering the crack-up punchlines..eh..?..)

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Andrei (2,532 comments) says:

    Sunday Night at the movies : When the elites of Beograd tried to show the elites of Brussels that it is a modern European city

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

    Harriet:Because they ARN’T homosexual and they want to have the tradtional HETROSEXUAL Marriage that signals to people that they are ALSO NOT homosexual – which gays will have denied them by that time.

    So … you want to deny gay people the ability to marry so that your children can use marriage to signal to veryone that they are not gay themselves? Why is signalling to people that you aren’t gay so important?

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

    @ Philu

    So, what’s your answer? Or are you only good for cheap-shots?

    “So, if the numerous Catholic high-schools in NZ simply taught this, and if in their teaching of marriage on Sundays the priests taught this – would you consider that ‘preaching hate’? Should the church be stopped from doing this? Would you – as a ‘liberal’ – defend its right to do this?”

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

    Regarding Alison Mau.

    Lets cut to the chase.

    Who believes that as a 40 odd year old you wake up one morning and decide you are a lesbian ?

    If that is not credible, does it not follow that if you have been married to someone who acted in
    good faith when thay married you, and had kids with you, and devoted his life to that union,
    then that makes you a cheat and a user ?
    i think that it does.

    Your only way to avoid that inescapable conclusion is to offer up the bullshit excuse that you didn’t know
    you were gay. RIGHT ?

    If thats not right, lets hear the argument.
    And.

    After reading the wise counsel from the likes of Pete George above i have to ask,

    hey Pete, what would you have against three people getting married ? (maybe five)
    Nothing in your argument would seem to proclude that.
    If you dissagree, why ?

    Harriet @ 2.05 etc. Well said.

    Anycase, love to hear any answer to my first three questions above.

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

    Bereal:Who believes that as a 40 odd year old you wake up one morning and decide you are a lesbian ?

    She didn’t. She is bisexual and always has been. She may not have told Dallow about this however.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Leaping Jimmy (16,112 comments) says:

    She didn’t. She is bisexual and always has been. She may not have told Dallow about this however.

    I wonder if she would have married Dallow if he’d told her before the wedding he was bisexual and at some point the old marriage vow thing might just become history if he came across some sexy stud sometime in the future and he might just follow his cock and wander off, leaving her with the kids, if any. I wonder what she would have said if he’d told her all that before the wedding?

    Having children is a sacred commitment, the precursor to which is the sacred commitment of marriage. Contrary to popular belief, this commitment is not just taken seriously by women. Guys, most guys, take their marriage vows very, very seriously. Otherwise what’s the point?

    It’s hard to understand why all of you profoundly useful idiots out there don’t get how having gays do it cheapens the whole thing so it becomes meaningless in people’s minds and why that would be a bad thing. I mean how stupid can you be? Surely this isn’t rocket science? Or perhaps it is, to you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Harriet (4,626 comments) says:

    Chiz @

    “….Harriet:Because they ARN’T homosexual and they want to have the tradtional HETROSEXUAL Marriage that signals to people that they are ALSO NOT homosexual – which gays will have denied them by that time.

    So … you want to deny gay people the ability to marry so that your children can use marriage to signal to veryone that they are not gay themselves? Why is signalling to people that you aren’t gay so important?…..”

    Because it is VERY differant than being hetrosexual….infact….it is SO differant that homosexuals ‘express’ that they are differant from hetrosexuals.

    Just look at Mau ‘I’m gaaaaay…and I’m now getting divorced ! ‘

    See now chiz ? Marriage signals to ‘all and sundry’ that you HAVE COMITTED into a relationship for the sake of the children that come from that relationship.Being ‘homosexual’ as Bereal#5.40 suggests – is not an excuse to leave a Marriage that was entered into in good faith.

    Like in Mau’s case, sexuality is placed above children, which is of course what homosexuality is – childless sex.

    As I said ‘homosexuality is a completely differant ‘subject matter’ to hetrosexuality.’ – It’s chalk and cheese.

    Marriage signals to people that you care about children – your own !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. graham (2,295 comments) says:

    @ East Wellington Superhero at 5:35 pm:

    Philu … are you only good for cheap-shots?

    That’s about it, summed up very well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    Jimmy,

    What is the discrimination, wat? They have civil unions. That gives them all legal rights.

    So if heterosexuals were restricted to civil unions whilst the state recognised homosexual marriages, that wouldn’t be descrimination either?

    Do you really believe the stuff you post here?

    Harriet,

    Because [my children] ARN’T homosexual and they want to have the traditional HETROSEXUAL Marriage that signals to people that they are ALSO NOT homosexual – which gays will have denied them by that time.

    Wow.

    So you would discriminate against homosexuals so that your children can signal to others that they aren’t gay?

    That’s ugly by any standard.

    Should we also ban Jewish marriage as well, in case they get mistaken for Jews?

    Or Australians?

    Tell you what, if your children wish to signal something they can get facial tatoos or wear funny hats or something. What they don’t do is get to discriminate against other people.

    Which PROVES that homosexuall marriage is all about ‘social engineering’.

    Indeed. Specifically, your social engineering. Which is the point I’ve been making.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Leaping Jimmy (16,112 comments) says:

    Change of subject: more on Iceland. How come the MSM doesn’t cover this miraculous recovery, if the MSM isn’t controlled? Surely it is newsworthy for the MSM to suggest Iceland’s solution to Greece and the whole EU, is it not?

    Gee, anyone would think the MSM was in the pocket of the people who stand to profit from the current situation.

    But surely not, the MSM is free, isn’t it? Just like democracy…

    http://crazyemailsandbackstories.wordpress.com/2012/05/12/icelands-amazing-peaceful-revolution-still-not-in-the-news-backstory/

    Wake up, useful idiots. Time is running out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Leaping Jimmy (16,112 comments) says:

    So if heterosexuals were restricted to civil unions whilst the state recognised homosexual marriages, that wouldn’t be descrimination either?

    wat, marriage was designed for heterosexuals, not for gays. This is how civilisation developed. WTF is wrong with your head that you can’t get that through your skull.

    The reason is, marriage = families = children = evolution.

    Gays does not equal children therefore, ergo, fucking d’oh, DOES NOT EQUAL EVOLUTION therefore ergo fucking d’oh what the fuck is wrong with you it’s not good for society.

    Like I said wat, not rocket science is it.

    Hopefully you understand now.

    Sorry I had to shout.

    You seem particularly dim, that’s the only reason why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Philu … are you only good for cheap-shots?..”..often..aye…

    but you ask me for an ‘answer’..?

    ..my ‘answer’ is a question..

    ..it is:..why don’t you just fuck of and mind yr own business..?

    ..and let others mind theirs…?

    ..eh..?

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Harriet (4,626 comments) says:

    Wat dabney @

    “…So you would discriminate against homosexuals so that your children can signal to others that they aren’t gay?…”

    I’ll repeat it just for you Wat…

    “…Like in Mau’s case[divorce], sexuality is placed above children, which is of course what homosexuality is – childless sex…..As I said ‘homosexuality is a completely differant ‘subject matter’ to hetrosexuality.’ …It’s chalk and cheese…..Marriage signals to people that you care about children – your own !….”

    “….Which PROVES that homosexuall marriage is all about ‘social engineering’.”….Indeed. Specifically, your social engineering. Which is the point I’ve been making….”

    What Wat ?….like I’m thousands of years old !

    People are ALLOWED to enter into a relationship for the sake of the children’s welfare that comes from that relationship.Infact, it is often suggested that women SHOULD get Married if they are going to have children.

    Marriage was never designed for homosexuals and for the same reason cars were never designed for horses – future progess isn’t required as gays and horses don’t really need it….do they Wat ?

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

    @ Philu

    That was a pretty shitty response to a reasonably clear question about freedom of expression and free speech. Some people, less charitable than I, could read that as you being unwilling to affirm freedom of expression for Catholics. And therefore some people, less charitable than I, might say that this is hypocritical.

    “why don’t you just fuck of and mind yr own business..?”

    I’ll be charitable and read this as you supporting free speech for all. Unfortunately, it’s very hard to get people who are pro-SSM to give a plain answer on whether they really believe in free-speech for all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    It seems that the arguments in favour of the traditional definition of marriage are just that – based on tradition alone.
    Some argue that marriage is designed for the rearing of children, but conveniently overlook childless couples, couples whose children have died, or gay partners raising children perfect adequately. So it can’t be about children.
    Some people seem to feel that the nature of homosexuality is qualitatively different to the ‘normal’ heterosexual experience. That is such obvious nonsense that it barely needs any refutation.
    Others seem to feel that there is something mystical about the status of state-sanctioned marriage that should be denied to those who do not share their views. This seems to be related to the strange desire to have the government prescribe the nature of their personal relationships. Ironically, many who often call for more personal freedom and less government are perfectly happy to apply to that same government for permission to get married.

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

    Jeez o’dear,

    has there ever been a more moronic non argument ever than wat dabney @ 6.26
    start reading at….’so if heterosexuals were restricted to….’
    Have a good laugh.

    And.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/love-sex/6953223/Mau-tells-anti-gays-to-chill-out

    Just read this sanctimonious crap from Alison Mau.

    “adoption hasn’t come up and it didn’t when I was straight either.’

    Guess what Alison.
    You were not straight for 40 or so years and then suddenly became a lesbian. Just crap.

    Accept the fact that you have always been a lesbian and you knew it and for totally selfish reasons you
    conned a poor bloke like Simon for your own ends and then shat on him, and his commitment for your own selfish
    reasons.

    This, “when I was straight.” crap is your excuse to escape the inescapable fact that you have been a
    selfish user.
    Why can’t you be honest ?

    Your statement, “desperate to belong.” sums it up.
    That is the reason you lived a lie and conned your ex mate for all those years.

    Face it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    http://whoar.co.nz/2012/joe-strummer-the-angry-young-man-who-grew-up/

    “..The leader of The Clash was the spokesman for a generation.

    But what was Joe Strummer really like?

    To mark the 10th anniverary of his death, his widow reveals the truth behind the legend –

    - and how the angry man of punk finally found real happiness in the country life..”

    (cont..)

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Steve (North Shore) (4,525 comments) says:

    In my opinion people who keep in going on about the gay, queer and lesbian stuff may be hiding their own insecurities.
    Forget the religous nutbars, they are already insecure.
    Resident magpie has had a lot to say today. How fucking queer are you Mr Magpie?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Marriage was never designed for homosexuals and for the same reason cars were never designed for horses – future progess isn’t required as gays and horses don’t really need it…..”

    (a new classic..!..)

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    Jimmy,

    wat, marriage was designed for heterosexuals, not for gays. This is how civilisation developed. WTF is wrong with your head that you can’t get that through your skull.

    Traditional marriage may indeed have much to recommend it, and people are free to partake of whatever magical and mystical ceremonies they wish and call it “marriage.”

    No need for state involvement.

    But if you do involve the coercive state you don’t get to define marriage according to your own favoured mythology or selective reading of history. Every adult gets to be treated equally. Christian, Atheist, Homosexual, Heterosexual, Able-bodied, Physically-Disabled, etc.

    Gays does not equal children therefore, ergo, fucking d’oh, DOES NOT EQUAL EVOLUTION therefore ergo fucking d’oh what the fuck is wrong with you it’s not good for society.

    You sound like a raving eugenecist, and like every other social engineer you imagine the words “good for society” justify your actions.

    Sorry if the perfect society eludes you and free individuals continue to have private lives which outrage you, but really, get a hobby or something,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    oh look..!..the north shore brains trust has arrived..!

    ..heereess..steve..!..

    ..(and what a gay name..’steve’..eh..?..)

    ..i mean ‘gay’ in the meaning before the current one..and after the old one..

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

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

    When a gay man removes his penis from the anus of the person he’s engaged in sex with, it’s covered in human faeces and maybe blood from tissue damage.

    All perfectly normal. Nothing to see here folks…

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

    I don’t mean to be too graphic but let’s get real here people. Are we really going to teach our children this is normal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    When a straight man removes his penis from the anus of his wife after sex, it’s covered in human faeces and maybe blood from tissue damage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    Harriet – Marriage signals to people that you care about children – your own !

    No. Marriage signals you and your partner are committed to an expected exclusive life-long relationship, which MAY include having children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Steve (North Shore) (4,525 comments) says:

    Gay as in happy? yeah I’m happy about my name ‘Steve’
    How many tricks have you done this weekend to subsidise your drug habbit Phool? I mean if the TAXPAYER is not paying and your are earning that has to be good

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Harriet (4,626 comments) says:

    Before the state it was Marriage[parents] that protected children, now it is Marriage and the State[laws, regulations] that protect children, but if the State at the behest of the likes of Feminists, Homosexuals, Media & political influence can deconstruct Marriage[a centurys old benefit to women and children] on a whim and a polling result, then what real protection do children have from those who influence the State?

    It has long been proven that it is the influence from parents that influences the State to protect children – Labour and it’s ‘academic support team’ promoting the concept of ‘parentless children’ were voted out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    as long as yr ‘happy’ with it..steve…that is the main thing..eh..?

    ..do people laugh when you are introduced..?

    ..do you get asked what were yr parents thinking..?

    ..giving you such a cliched-gay-name..?..

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

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

    @ mikenmild

    “When a straight man removes his penis from the anus of his wife after sex, it’s covered in human faeces and maybe blood from tissue damage.”

    So what?

    Are you asserting that because some hetero couples might engage in anal sex, that this normalises gay sex? Rather than the alternative, that men who partake in anal sex with women are also disordered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Steve (North Shore) (4,525 comments) says:

    mike@ 7.03
    that ‘straight’ man is just kidding himself that he is straight. He is not normal and his wife aint normal either

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. nasska (10,917 comments) says:

    It’s only kinky the first time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    What is surprising is that you wish to define what is ‘normal’ in a sexual relationship between consenting adults.

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

    @ mikenmild

    Do you look forward to your daughter being in a sex-ed class and being taught about how it’s normal if her boyfriend wants to have anal sex with her?

    I’m not trying to be a smart-arse. But by you saying this is normal, you are thereby saying it would be normal for your daughter to accept this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    how are you with cunnilingus there..superhero..?

    ..is that also ‘disordered’…?

    ..what does the church say about that..?

    ..phillip ure@whoar.co,nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. OneTrack (2,847 comments) says:

    Mikenmild (4066) – far too late I know, but the answer is Yes. Better that than having somebody who is just cruising along, doing what they have always done, because there is no incentive for them to do anything else. Especially when the teacher in the next room is always in the car and on their way home at 3:05pm ( for the same reason).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Harriet (4,626 comments) says:

    Mikenmild #

    ‘…but conveniently overlook childless couples, couples whose children have died…’

    Women who are barren, and child death through accident or illness, is not the basis of an arguement for homosexual marriage.

    All are TOTALY unrelated as they are medical issues or accidents.

    However…if you are suggesting that homosexuality is a medical condition, then we can offer young homosexuals medical treatment if they are still wishing to get Married….actually….we’ve been supportive of them for a while now…go have a look at the medical costs of male homosexuals and the types of treatments that they recieve at taxpayer expense….and it’s higher than hetrosexuals medical costs. …..reconstructions….I won’t go on.

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

    No mikenmild, I’m just pointing out that the human anus is a waste canal. We obsess over cleanliness in restaurants, hospitals, workplaces, schools, and we employ public health officers and demand ‘next-generation’ antibiotics at the doctor. And yet you’re willing to assert that the normalcy of putting one’s penis in an anus is open to debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    EWS – Saying something is ‘normal’ these days is code for “It’s normal for other people. I wouldn’t myself indulge, but to spare the triade of abuse claiming I’m a bigot etc, I’m just pretending I’m completely ok with it”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Next these jokers will want laws banning the sexual practices that they find so objectionable.
    EWS said “anal sex” and “smart arse” in the same comment. He he.

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

    @ Philu

    “how are you with cunnilingus there..superhero..?
    ..is that also ‘disordered’…?
    ..what does the church say about that..?”

    Well Philu, if you weren’t such a poorly read fool, you’d know the church’s view on sex, and the appropriate place for cunnilingus within sexual intercourse. But you probably don’t because you’re a prejudiced git that believes his own jacked-up prejudices when it comes to sex and the church. The late John Paul II – when he was a bishop in Poland – and then latter as the Pope – exhorted husbands to ensure that as part of sex, the females orgasm was achieved, because without that, sex was not authentic. So within the context authentic sex, cunnilingus is not explicitly ruled out.

    Getting human faeces on your penis, and then putting that faeces inside your wifes vagina and cervix is obviously ruled out – in case you were wondering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Will the bludger, baker, and crim Ure kick with both feet or bat for the other team? If it gives him more free home, I bet he would.

    Once a parasite, always a parasite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    Phil – 1 Corinthians 13:1 it’s a No, even although there is a lot of it around at times

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

    @ Yvette

    What do you mean?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    how about fellatio..?

    ..what does the church tell you to think about that..?

    ..phillip ure@whoar.co,nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Harriet (4,626 comments) says:

    Yvette (1,884) Says:

    Harriet – Marriage signals to people that you care about children – your own !

    No. Marriage signals you and your partner are committed to an expected exclusive life-long relationship, which MAY include having children.

    No Yvette, in NEARLY ALL cases of 1st marrages it includes the birth of children.

    The ‘odd exception’ and like ‘mikenmilds -barren women arguement’ does not make a case for anything – as they are ‘exceptions’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Steve (North Shore) (4,525 comments) says:

    “how about fellatio..?

    ..what does the church tell you to think about that..?”

    Why are you asking the church Phool? you know what it is – cocksmoking.
    Some mornings you don’t appear until 11am, doing the morning shift at Pt Chev?

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

    @ Philu

    The converse of the response to your first query.

    But your questions are a distraction from the original point: the unnaturalness of anal sex (amongst the myriad of problems with the ‘normalisation’ of homosexual behaviour).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Leaping Jimmy (16,112 comments) says:

    Traditional marriage may indeed have much to recommend it, and people are free to partake of whatever magical and mystical ceremonies they wish and call it “marriage.”

    No need for state involvement.

    But if you do involve the coercive state you don’t get to define marriage according to your own favoured mythology or selective reading of history. Every adult gets to be treated equally. Christian, Atheist, Homosexual, Heterosexual, Able-bodied, Physically-Disabled, etc.

    wat, how come you’ve morphed into an argument about state involvement in marriage from whether or not gay marriage is a good idea?

    They’re not the same thing.

    If you think they are, then pray explicate how and why, in detail. It would be also good to know why you haven’t made this your central tenet from your first post on this today, since it seems rather fundamental, if you really think the heart of the gay marriage issue is actually not what we’ve been discussing but rather, about state involvement in marriage.

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

    Where’s Tom Hunter? I miss his input into these threads.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    Harriet – are you saying a marriage which does not include children, is not as valid as one that does?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. nasska (10,917 comments) says:

    A father picked his young son up from school and the boy was going on and on about his friend. “James is really really cool”, he said. “He’s a secret agent AND he can fly a plane”.

    “Look son”, the man said, “you can’t go round believing everything people tell you. James is 5 years old. It’s completely and utterly ludicrous to even suggest he is able to fly an aeroplane. Totally unrealistic”.

    “Now be a good lad and get your Bible. Today we are learning about how God sends sinners to a big pit of fire called Hell”.

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

    @ nasska

    You could say they same thing about utopian political leaders and atheists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Harriet (4,626 comments) says:

    Wat Dabney @

    If I demand that a group of vegetarians include me – a ravishing meat-eater – in their group, do you think they might have some compelling reasons why they would say no to my request? Would they not rightly argue that to admit a carnivore will not just redefine their core message, but define it right out of existence?

    To accept meat eaters into a vegetarian organisation is of course to destroy it: it is no longer a vegetarian group. In the same way to claim out of the blue that marriage somehow has nothing to do with a man and a woman and should be open to any gender combination is of course to destroy marriage.

    How much historical amnesia do we have to somehow think that heterosexual marriage is merely some recent invention
    There is a very simple refutation to the unfounded claim that “homophobia” is somehow the reason for higher than average mental health problems and suicide rates amongst homosexuals.

    Simply examine the data from the world’s most homosexual-friendly cities on earth, be it Amsterdam, or Sydney, or San Francisco. Guess what? The same high rates are found there as well. It really is hard to think of San Francisco as being so very homophobic.

    Even the homosexual medical community admits to this, highlighting the very real physical and mental health risks associated with the lesbian and homosexual lifestyles:
    glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=690
    http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=691

    Perhaps there is something about the homosexual lifestyle itself that causes these higher than usual rates of social pathologies. Why blame it on those who simply uphold the normal understanding of marriage, and are concerned about the wellbeing of children?

    To say that legalising homosexual marriage is going to magically make all these problems disappear is reckless and unempirical nonsense. You really want to destroy the millennia-old institution of marriage simply because you think a few people might have a better self-image or higher self-esteem afterwards?

    And we are supposed to accept this as a rational and logical argument for the destruction of the most enduring and vital social institution ever known to man? If this is the best your side can come up with, then can I simply say we just are not very impressed.

    And we are “discriminating” against others by affirming the fundamental nature of marriage? Oh really.

    Clearly there is such a thing as good discrimination. Recognising a social institution which has contributed so many benefits to society, including the raising and rearing of the next generation, is not discrimination or hate. It is basic common sense.

    Treating different things differently is the height of common sense and sound public policy. Homosexual relationships are not at all the same as heterosexual ones, so please stop pretending they are. If children had nothing to do with this issue, then governments would have no interest at all in the marriage question.

    But the union of a man and a woman does have something to do with procreation, and that is why the state has a keen interest in recognising and endorsing heterosexual marriage. This simply does not exist with barren homosexual unions, so there is no compelling reason why governments should confer special recognition and privilege upon them.

    I have not mentioned the R word once. The case for marriage and the wellbeing of children can be, and has been, made without any appeal to religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Rather than conferring ‘special recognition and privilege’ on heterosexuals and deny that to homosexuals, how about just withdraw the special recognition from any personal relationship on the grounds that it’s no one else’s business.

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

    @ Harriet

    Nice comment.

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

    @ mikenmild

    But it IS everyone’s business. That’s the point. Mature and content human beings – as a result of being raised in stable and nurturing homes – are important to the future of the community. As tax-payers, as carers of their parents in old age, and as parents of the generation after them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Leaping Jimmy (16,112 comments) says:

    mm I think the points made by Harriet put it very well. Albeit the point made is terribly inconvenient to gay marriage proponents. However, the equation is quite simple, isn’t it.

    Heterosexual marriage produces more citizens. It’s productive.

    Gay marriage OTOH is barren. It will never produce offspring. It’s not productive in any sense of the word. Indeed it’s not only not productive but to the degree it obstructs heterosexual reproduction it actually generates fiscal and social drag (as it were).

    Sad though it may be, this is a fact, is it not?

    Yes it is.

    How terribly inconvenient for all of you proponents.

    Perhaps Al Gore could write another book and do great slide show on it.

    Worked for AGW, didn’t it.

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

    When I compare acquaintances that come from stable homes, with those that come from divorced parents or homes that were even more disruptive, the former are more content and successful.

    Does this mean a jihad against divorcees? OF COURSE NOT!

    But, if we were to agreed that stable mum and dad homes are the best for our young people (while still of course showing that dignity that all people deserve to those that – for whatever reason – don’t have this) why would we then rearrange the social order?

    Just to make Allison Mau and Grant Robertson feel affirmed? Please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    Marriage has traditionally [from time immemorial] meant a formal union of woman and man.
    Homosexuals wanting to express the same union go get another word – homiage – whatever the hell you want.
    In fact ‘homiage’ seems available – most Internet use of the word is a bloody mis-spelling of something else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. nasska (10,917 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero

    Your arguments don’t seem to leave a lot of wriggle room so I think it is best that we proceed immediately to Plan B. To this end, at the risk of being guilty of exegesis, I commend the instructions contained in Genesis 19: 13.

    Let the smiting begin!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Scott Chris (5,981 comments) says:

    If I demand that a group of vegetarians include me – a ravishing meat-eater – in their group, do you think they might have some compelling reasons why they would say no to my request?

    1) You are a vegetarian by choice. Anyone can be a vegetarian.
    2) There is no exclusive vegetarian club. You are either a vegetarian or you’re not a vegetarian.
    3) Why would you want to join a vegetarian group if you are a meat eater.

    Fact is, marriage is a brand that gays want in on. Why should they be denied it because of another group in society’s wish to keep the brand exclusive. That group doesn’t own the marriage brand, society as a whole owns it.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

    [EWS] No mikenmild, I’m just pointing out that the human anus is a waste canal.

    So is the penis. That argument doesn’t wash….(poor choice of words maybe)

    Buggery is a bit weird but then so’s sharing saliva.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Scott Chris (5,981 comments) says:

    Marriage has traditionally [from time immemorial] meant a formal union of woman and man.

    Get with the times Yvette. Women from time immemorial, have been the chattels of men. That state of affairs has only recently changed.

    Do you wish to turn the clock back on that tradition too? After all, the same egalitarian principle applies.

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

    I say! We should all have a drink at a cocktail bar somewhere. It would be lark!

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

    Now, after reading through the above, seems i put my finger on it @ 12.18

    Secondly, Pete George @ 1.17 seems to have no problem with 3 people and an orang utang getting married
    as long as they all are happy.

    Bottom line is.

    Alison Mau lied to her ( he thought ) life long time partner from the get go and now,
    she is seizing the high ground based on …………..well, you tell me ..? (she didn’t know she was
    a lesbian untill one day when she was 40 odd years old )
    well fuck off, i don’t buy that.

    How sad that standards have dropped to such an extent that there are plenty of shallow drones
    keen to lap up the puke that a lying, lesbian con artist, who thinks she deserves her cake and eat
    it too, when she is happy to shit on the genuine bloke she conned, who will support her due to what ?

    Bottom line.. you believe that someone can be so self deluded that think they are straight for
    40 years then wake up one morning and decide that they are a lesbian,,,,, or not.

    Well then, if you believe that , then, shit, you might turn queer when you are 70.

    Must be a worry for youse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    Scott Chris – so it is a little hard to work out what your problem is then.
    You want ‘marriage’ reserved to mean man and a woman, and you don’t want a homosexual relationship to have the same status.
    But now you will also piss all over the traditional idea of marriage.
    I was talking about the word having a hetrosexual meaning, nothing to do with what was thought of ‘chattels’ or the backward krap you refer to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. nasska (10,917 comments) says:

    Bereal

    If she tended to being ‘bi’ rather than ‘gay’ then coming out at forty makes a certain amount of sense. Certainly her marriage was a social success, a financial success, produced children & was probably not too arduous to endure.

    From her point of view she has put the icing on a very full life.

    The rest of us might think that she is a self centred, egotistical ‘bi##ch.

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

    Correct nasska

    and if this self centered, egotisical b++ch is given a free pass, well, others of her ilk will be encouraged
    to travel the same path.

    Best of both worlds for her, no accountability, and shit on the Simon Dallows of this world. Fuck him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Scott Chris (5,981 comments) says:

    You want ‘marriage’ reserved to mean man and a woman

    Nope. What marriage means is relative to the society that constructs that institution. Our society is liberal and egalitarian, therefore the institution of marriage will inevitably be defined as the union between two consenting adults.

    Culture evolves. Nothing is written in stone.

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

    Thats right Scott Chris
    and by the same token, when marriage “elvolves” to mean three people
    and two orang otangs, thats cool by you.

    It’s all, “relative” right ?
    So liberal.

    Effing idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Harriet (4,626 comments) says:

    Scott Chris @

    “…Fact is….Why should they be denied it because of another group in society’s wish to keep the brand exclusive. That group doesn’t own the marriage brand, society as a whole owns it…”

    Fact is….society doesn’t own it…..but recognises it.And the court of public opinion is much differant to the court of law and the court of public polling.-

    Marriage is not only a Legal Act of a ‘bond between one man and one woman’. But also a ‘bond between that man and that woman and the children that may come from that bond.’ Legal and otherwise !

    Statistics and evidence on everything to do with child welfare – be it education, health or that outdated cliche ‘general well being’ tell us that children from Marriages HAVE ALWAYS THROUGHOUT HISTORY feared better than those that haven’t been raised in one.

    Gays themselves recognise that fact and they as members of society then also recognise the benefits of what Marriage means to society and it’s future.

    No one is excluding gays from being part of a modern society, by acknowledging their existance in Law and Civil Unions allows them a place in society to form a mature recognition of what the institution of Marriage is in society and what it does.Like it has always done.Like it should do : caring for children.

    But then maybe gays just want the next ‘brand’ Scott Chris !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Harriet (4,626 comments) says:

    Scott Chris @

    Gays fronting up to this debate have so far been – piss weak.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Griff (7,017 comments) says:

    The standpoint of those that seek to ban homosexual marriage seems to be based on to things
    1 an abhorrence of anal sex
    2 Cristian tradition
    All other arguments are merely justification rather than based on any reality
    its 2012 and if they so desire homos can rent a women to have a baby or use artificial insemination to have a child
    Joseph and Mary according to Cristian tradition were a married couple that brought up a child that was artificially inseminated
    Why could not tom and dick or sue and Lucy do the same
    Culture can and has changed. In the period Since the church controlled life we have evolved into a fairer and less dogmatic society
    long may that change continue

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

    Hey Harriet

    Think about his feelings.

    After all, Scott Chris has had to carry the burden on his todd tonight.

    Don’t be too tough on him.

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

    and Griff @ 10.51
    Very wise and sage counsel mate.
    Pity about the spelling and comprehension, otherwise 3 out of 10
    Much improved on your usual effort.
    Well done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Viking2 (11,286 comments) says:

    Mr de Bres said Mr Crimp’s comments were absolutely appalling and were not at all representative of New Zealanders as suggested by the Invercargill businessman.

    “We’re all looking around for the so-called New Zealanders he’s talking about.”

    Still with his head under his desk then.

    I see that pratt Banks has run away as well. Fair weather friend to his big donators. What else would we expect from a prick like him?

    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.