Mary Cheney marries her girlfriend
June 25th, 2012 at 9:00 am by David FarrarThe SMH reports:
THE former US vice-president Dick Cheney says he is delighted his lesbian daughter has married her long-term partner. Mary Cheney and Heather Poe, who have two children, were married in Washington DC, where gay marriage has been legal since 2010.
“Mary and Heather have been in a committed relationship for many years, and we are delighted that they were able to take advantage of the opportunity to have that relationship recognised,” a Cheney family statement said. “Mary and Heather and their children are very important and much-loved members of our family and we wish them every happiness.”
The Republicans will not know what to do or say. Who amongst them wants to condemn the fact that their former VP’s daughter was allowed to marry her long-term partner?
Hat Tip: Whale Oil
June 25th, 2012 at 9:22 am
Andrei will be fuming…….
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 9:25 am
Hark! Is that the sound of the intestines of a small army of extreme right wing fundies being tied in knots?
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 9:27 am
My advice to Heather Poe is not to go hunting with her new father-in-law.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 9:33 am
They’re not actually married. A woman can only marry a man. Anything else is just fiction.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 9:39 am
“The Republicans will not know what to do or say.”
Riiight. Because “the Republicans” are a monoculture where everyone thinks the same.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 9:39 am
Reality is who cares outside the family and a tiny group of preachers who spend an inordinate sum of time trying to Canute progress of mankind through time.
Ironic turn of events for Mr Cheney and his philosophical belief as expounded for the consumption of the voters during the Dubbya years.
@ Scott Chris ROTFLMAO, Duckshooting is my Son in Law’s fav solution.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 9:40 am
Wasn’t it a Republican group that ended up getting Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repealed?
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 9:42 am
Pity the children……….Regnerus, Associate Professor at the University of Texas, compared thousands of young adults (ages 18-39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements.
Those who knew that their mothers had had a lesbian relationship fared significantly worse on measures of educational attainment and household income, reported more depression, used marijuana more, more often reported forced sexual encounters, felt less close to their biological mother, felt less safe and secure in their family of origin, had more often pled guilty to a minor criminal offense and were more likely to be on public assistance.
Those who knew their fathers had had a gay relationship were more likely to have been arrested, to have thought recently about suicide, to feel depressed, to report sexually transmitted diseases and to have experienced forced sex.
Twenty-three percent of young adults who knew their mother to have had a gay relationship reported being forced to have sexual contact with a parent or adult caregiver, while only 2 percent of intact families with a mother and father reported such contact. For female young adults, that figure leapt to 31 percent (while only 3 percent of young women from intact heterosexual families reported this).
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/12/study-finds-host-challenges-for-kids-gay-parents/#ixzz1ykWKFV3M
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 9:53 am
@backster
Fauxnews is such a reliable source of information
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 9:54 am
This ‘fashionable’ concept that Republicans are all evil, redneck, racist bigots is quite laughable to anyone who has studied even the basics of American History…
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 9:58 am
Having changed the definition of “marriage” to a ‘man & man’ or ‘woman & woman’, countries are now to change the definition of “gay” to ‘man & woman’ in the interests of fairness and equality. I love consistency.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 10:00 am
If “gay marriage “is so normal and the way of the world ,then why is this news?
It’s not so much news as agenda.
Meanwhile outside if lala land Egypt has an Islamic President, I wonder if he’ll be sending a congratulatory telegram to the happy couple?
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 10:05 am
Parents love their children, and once the children have reached the age where they can support themselves and make their own decisions, if they make a decision contrary to what the parents believe, the parents, invariably, will still love and support their children – even if they disagree with their lifestyle choices.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 10:10 am
@ Ryan yeah I think they were the Log Cabin Republicans.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 10:19 am
What impresses me – from a propaganda point of view – is that the US Left could so effectively sell the story of the Democrats being a non-racist, unbigoted group by 1972 when less than a decade earlier the party had been effectively controlled on Civil Rights issues by a bunch of white Southern racists whom the rest of the party pandered to for support on all their other wonderful ideas, and had done so for decades.
But then I read this the other day, in relation to the latest revelations (from a lefty biographer of all people) that Obama’s first autobiography is – shall we say, less than accurate about people and incidents in his life:
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 10:25 am
“..This ‘fashionable’ concept that Republicans are all evil, redneck, racist bigots is quite laughable to anyone who has studied even the basics of American History…..”
i know that it was the republicans who ended slavery..etc..
..but that has as much relevance as comparing the labour party of michael joseph savage to that of the rightwing ratbags in the 80′s…
..here my favourite libertarian bill maher says it much better…
http://whoar.co.nz/2012/bill-maher-slams-gop-you-act-exactly-like-14-year-old-boys-video/
“..”No wonder 14-year-old boys can do your act,” he said, referring to the Republican Party and its media supporters.
“You act exactly like 14-year-old boys.
There’s no ideology here.
It’s just about being a dick.”..”
phillip ure whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 10:31 am
Bill Maher is one of philu’s favorites….
Nuff said.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 10:33 am
tom
Vote:Maybe the gun walking is a bit off topic, but I’d be interested in your take on who is responsible for it and who might be brought to account.
June 25th, 2012 at 10:36 am
This is a misrepresentation of my views at least. The invoking of executive privilege by Obama may well be the biggest political mistake he’s made – possibly fatal. I can only guess that the scandal he seeks to hide is greater than the the scandal created by this apparent cover-up. Either that or Obama really is stupid.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 10:36 am
of course..don..a humourless bastard such as yrslf…
..burdened with that simplistic-thinking/sense-of-humour-byepass character you have..
..wouldn’t come within a bulls’ roar of ‘getting’ maher’..eh..?
..c’mon..!..tell us yr favourite comedian..!..eh..?
..you haven’t got one..eh..?..’cos you don’t laugh..eh..?
..your comments here to date reveal you to be a particularly sad old bastard..eh..?
..wouldn’t wanta be ya..!..eh..?
phillip ure whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 10:40 am
“…redneck, racist bigots..”..eh..?
..something this forum has more than its’ share of…eh..?
..do i need to list the many…?
..that’s a tough defence of the indefensible you are running there..eh knives..?
phillip ure whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 10:46 am
backster (1,506) Says:
June 25th, 2012 at 9:42 am
Pity the children……….Regnerus, Associate Professor at the University of Texas, compared thousands of young adults (ages 18-39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements.
The study Fox News is citing is extremely flawed and little more than a propaganda piece for the Romney campaign. The study was funded by the “Witherspoon Institute”, a conservative think tank with ties to anti-gay activist Robert George as well as the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council.
But putting aside the obvious bias which motivated this study, the methodology itself is ridiculous and flawed. The study compared children whose parents had “EVER” had a same-sex affair and comparing them to “intact biological families”. So essentially it was a comparison between unstable and stable families and not surprisingly their results showed exactly that.
But there is a deeper flaw in the very premise of such a study and the issues it seeks to address. What is more concerning than the flawed methodology is the notion that one’s basic civil rights are dependent upon the outcome of a statistical survey of some group to which that individual belongs.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/2012/06/16/why-mark-regnerus-study-shouldnt-matter-even-if-it-were-the-most-scientifically-robust-study-in-the-world/
I suggest we start with comparing the religious to the non-religious.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 10:54 am
They’re not actually married. A woman can only marry a man. Anything else is just fiction.
Exactly.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 10:57 am
I just wish people would leave Ms Cheyney alone. It is because of who her father is and the stand the Republican party had on gay marriage.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 11:01 am
I’m sure most people are not going to personally condemn these two women. If they want to pretend they are married, that’s fine. The problem becomes when society decides to call what they have a marriage as well.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 11:06 am
Fair enough. Sadly it is not a misrepresentation of the views of all (and I do mean all) of my Obama-lovin’ associates back in Chicago.
And it is off-topic mm, so my apologies for introducing it. Perhaps it will surface as an issue, even a Kiwiblog thread – but I doubt it.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 11:11 am
It’s like when you give your kid a toy lawnmower, and he pretends to mow the lawn.
It’s just pretend. He isn’t really mowing it, and he knows it, even if the authority figure in his life pretends he is too.
Dad will pretend along with him so that he feels good.
That’s a bit like gay marriage.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 11:25 am
Fletch you are stupid and ignorant. You seem to think marriage is just for having children. And gay relationships can involve children including Ms Cheyneys
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 11:34 am
tvb,
Gay relationships can only have children if they come from outside the relationship.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 11:39 am
I doubt that a side-car political discussion will have any chance of derailing the gay marriage coal-train. My money’s on 130 comments by 6 pm.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 11:45 am
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 11:45 am
It’s sad that there are idiots who are happy to believe in an old guy floating above the clouds controlling our lives but not in the rights of two people who love each other and who happen to be the same sex being allowed to get married.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
“tvb (2,686) Says:
June 25th, 2012 at 11:25 am
Fletch you are stupid and ignorant. You seem to think marriage is just for having children. And gay relationships can involve children including Ms Cheyneys
Lucia Maria (1,055) Says:
June 25th, 2012 at 11:34 am
tvb,
Gay relationships can only have children if they come from outside the relationship.”
Exactly!!! This is the point that no seems to want to talk about. Where are these children coming from? There is another biological parent here. Are we concerned about the kids? Or are we happy to let them be lifestyle accessories for gays?
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
@ YesWeDid
Who brought God into the discussion? Except for you, who is trying paint this as a religious debate in order to judge criticism of gay marriage as invalid.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
@East Wellington Superhero – on what basis do you say ‘they are not married’? Legally they are. Maybe you would like to explain.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
East Wellington Superhero
Because the overwhelming number of persons opposed to gay marriage on here are f undie god bothers of some sort
Including you
And the reasons that they give are pathetic because they are trying to justify their sky pixie driven belief’s with logic
It never works
like your “?”lifestyle accessories for gays
Is that any different from being a lifestyle accessories for F undies?”
To me being brainwashed by a bunch of superstitious nutters is far worse than having gay parents.
We should make religionR21
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
So as Western civilization continues on its death spiral – two decadent, pampered, rich, self indulgent women get their vanity pseudo “marriage”.
And those in liberal la la land cheer this as progressive while listening to their Lady Gaga CDS.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
So presumably it’s just the marriages of all OTHER homosexuals that he doesn’t like?
The classic right politician. UTTER hypocrite.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Fun times at the next Republican Party conference:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QK4U6E6s3Bw/T9YckNOU1WI/AAAAAAAAFvw/ksZL0R-J1m4/s1600/enhanced-buzz-18404-1262723652-31.jpg
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
@Andrei & Fletch – I’d pity your poor children if they were gay, imagine having to tell either of you.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Oh really.
Perhaps he’d be more admired by your good self if he’d “evolved” on this issue since 2009.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Fletch (2,959) Says:
June 25th, 2012 at 11:11 am
It’s like when you give your kid a toy lawnmower, and he pretends to mow the lawn.
It’s just pretend. He isn’t really mowing it, and he knows it, even if the authority figure in his life pretends he is too.
Dad will pretend along with him so that he feels good.
That’s a bit like gay marriage.
No, asking God to bless a marriage is pretending. A marriage certificate is a legal document recognized under law.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 1:21 pm
One does not have to be religious to observe that the coming together of a man and women is, and has always been, the natural order since the beginning of human history. This is not some fantasy or an article of faith – everyone person who is reading this has a father and a mother. This is fundamental to our biological and relational nature; we come from, and are nurtured by, a father and a mother. Though not exclusively to create to children, nor invalidated by those who find themselves infertile, nor disproved by the fact some men abandon their children (which most normal people recognise as wrong and unfortunate) marriage has always been the source of the next generation and has provided a stable environment for children to be nurtured and raised in.
Gay marriage is a biological falsehood and a relational fiction.
‘Marriage’ pre-dates Christianity – churches, and other religions Eastern and Western, have simply acknowledged what was always the natural order. If 21st Century Christians are the most vocal opponents, it’s circumstantial to the debate rather than peculiar to it.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 1:25 pm
@ Weihana
“A marriage certificate is a legal document recognized under law.”
So what?
In the last hundred years various forms of ‘the law’ have said African Americans and woman couldn’t vote, and aboriginal Australians and Jews weren’t considered humans. A positivist approach to law doesn’t make things right or true.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
EWS,
My partner’s parents did not marry and they have raised two very good children, sent them to good schools, and they are both very well adjusted.
Gay marriage is a biological falsehood and a relational fiction.
So are infertile couples who get married a “biological falsehood”? Why do you make exceptions for them but not gays? Is it because you are stupid?
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
East Wellington Superhero (905) Says:
June 25th, 2012 at 1:25 pm
@ Weihana
“A marriage certificate is a legal document recognized under law.”
So what?
So it isn’t pretending, it is very much real and has the same legal standing as any other marriage.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
EWS,
Point is that marriage equality is about equality UNDER LAW. Sure, gays want social acceptance but they can’t make you a kind, decent and understanding person. Some people will always be assholes no matter what the law says. But at the very least the government should treat them equally and that is what they seek.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
EWS – You have failed to explain why you are opposed to same sex marriage other than something vague about us all having a mother and a father and it’s the natural order of things.
Does it occur to you that people get married for reasons other than having children?
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
It was a Democratic Congress under a Democratic President. In the House, 235 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted for repeal, and 160 Republicans and 15 Democrats voted against; in the Senate, 55 Democrats and 2 independents (the entire Democratic caucus except for one abstention) and 8 Republicans voted for repeal, and 31 Republicans voted against.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Why do the anti-gays have such strong views about this? Gay people don’t want to marry them, they wont be required to marry gay people, their marriages should be no more threatened by gay people marrying then by hetero people divorcing, or not marrying. Jebus, as long as they don’t frighten the horses just take your nose out of other people’s business.
And of course gay marriage has always been legal as long as it’s a gay man marrying a gay woman, NZers should know that!
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Though not an exhaustive or detailed list, here are a few points:
1. Perhaps my biggest objection to this is that there has been no critical analysis of what would be a huge social change. And we are not allowed to have any debate about it. Rather than maturely debating the issue, it is treated with either soft-heading emotion and/or the gay-lobby bullies and belittles anyone that dares to disagree.
2. I consider it a psych disorder – as do many non-activist professionals – and I don’t wish to live in a society where we teach each other, and our young people, that this is normal and healthy.
3. By giving it equality status, groups that disagree with this will be forced against their conscience to assent. Churches may be forced to do gay ‘marriages’ and private companies will be forced to provide certain services they have a moral objection to – e.g. About a month ago a Christian photographer in New Mexico was forced by the courts to do wedding photos for a gay couple. Private schools may be forced to teach things that go against their beliefs. The social acceptance that the gay-lobby is demanding will not permit certain groups to not assent to their new order; they demand we all assent..
4. There is no large body of evidence suggesting that this huge social change will be healthy for society, and of the evidence from the large population studies out of Christchurch and Dunedin, the evidence does not put gay parenting in a neutral light. (Of course no one dares discuss this for fear of the gay-lobby inquisitors screaming ‘hate-crime!’)
5. There is an unsettling correlation between homosexuality and paedophilia that has not been even remotely addressed by gay ‘marriage’ proponents. And the adoption reform bills that are being prepared would seem to ride roughshod over legal devices that are in place to protect children.
6. And while this could apply to any ‘equality’ campaign, the greater the number of lower-order issues that we demand ‘equality’ for, the more potential damage could do to more higher-order issues of equality.
Notice that NONE of these reason have anything to with religious revelation.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
EWS
Vote:Your view that homosexuality is a ‘psych disorder’ may provide a clue as to why you can’t find anyone to have a ‘mature debate’ with, at least at your level of maturity.
June 25th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
So EWS can you be ‘cured’ of being homosexual?
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
@ mikenmild
What positive proof do you have to suggest homosexuality is not a disorder? If you have no proof, then why am I automatically immature and wrong for saying that it is.
No bullying and name-calling please. Just facts.
@ YesWeDid
It depends on the definition of ‘cured’. Most psychological disorders aren’t cured how a bacterial infection or broken leg is cured. But I would assert that, just as other psyche disorders can be treated but perhaps not always completely removed from a person’s behaviour, so too can homosexual tendencies. A person who is antisocial (the unreasonably mean arsehole brother or boss) or a sex addict (someone who cheats on his wife multiple times) might be able to change their ways and mind sets, but may still be more at risk of exhibiting that negative behaviours. Are they ‘cured’? I’m an alcoholic (probably; I’ve never been official diagnosed by a professional) and I have to discipline myself not to drink too much, which largely means not drinking at all. Am I ‘cured’?
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
East Wellington Superhero (906) Says:
June 25th, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Would you “maturely” debate someone who sincerely argued that blacks shouldn’t be allowed to vote? Some opinions simply do not deserve to be taken seriously. They deserve protection from the law as to the right to advocate the idea/opinion but they have no claim on anyone’s time or anyone’s attention.
The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that sexual orientation is innate and cannot be changed in any fundamental way and that people are capable of living perfectly happy and healthy lives as homosexuals.
The same thing can be said about racists and that they are forced to treat other races equally against their conscience. Boo fucking hoo. Personally if I were gay I wouldn’t bother trying to get a bigot to conduct my wedding. I would want it a special day not soured by ignorance and intolerance.
This doesn’t concern “society”. It’s about individuals and their civil rights. If you don’t want to be gay, don’t be.
It generally isn’t addressed because it is bullshit.
Religion is about faith. Faith is belief without evidence. By that standard your views would seem to be very religious in nature.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
EWS,
Yes gays are perfectly capable of going through life hiding their sexuality and pretending to be straight. But why the fuck should they cater to your demented prejudice and sacrifice their happiness because you have an obsession with their sex life?
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Many many people have, and function with, minor psychological disorders in society. These can range from minor things like an acute lack of confidence or anxiety, through to serious things like anorexia, alcoholism, or addiction to pornography just to name a few that come to mind. These things aren’t the end of the world and people can live normal lives if they manage these conditions.
Of course, people should not be ridiculed and socially isolated for having these conditions. However, we shouldn’t go around calling these things normal either.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
It depends how you define ‘mental disorder’. According to wikipedia:
So I guess what you would argue is that homosexuality is not a normal development of a person’s culture, whereas we liberals would contend that homosexuality is a normal development of a person’s culture.
In other words, truth is relative to the beholder.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
“But why the fuck should they cater to your demented prejudice and sacrifice their happiness because you have an obsession with their sex life?”
Because this issue is bigger than the sex life of gay men. Frankly, I don’t really care if two gay guys insist on having sex and living together. The bigger issue is having a cultural change that redefines marriage, family arrangements, and what we teach our children is normal, healthy and fulfilling sexual behaviour. The gay ‘marriage’ campaign is not about what two gay people do in the privacy of their own home. It’s a campaign to change society.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
EWS – the change in society is ‘acceptance’, so that people who are gay don’t live their lives in denial or have to hide their sexual orientation. Normalising same sex marriage is part of that process. Any other gay agenda is a figment of your imagination.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
“change in society is ‘acceptance’, so that people who are gay don’t live their lives in denial or have to hide their sexual orientation.”
Homosexuality is a behaviour, not an orientation.
“Any other gay agenda is a figment of your imagination.”
No, denial about the cultural Marxism that lies behind so-called “gay rights” movement is a figment of yours.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
their marriages should be no more threatened by gay people marrying then by hetero people divorcing, or not marrying.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/12273
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
@Lee01, Fletch etc
conservatives and socialists are really quite similar, you both love controlling what others do in their private lives.
Besides, government should get out of the business of marriage altogether.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
mikenmild et al –
Do you agree that paedophiliac desire is a psych disorder? Or bestial desire?
I would be interested to know, and if you consider them so, then how does this differ at all from homosexual desire? Are not the desires of the paedophile and the desires of the homosexual both, well, just sexual desires? How can you say one is a disorder and one not?
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Homosexual desire: grown man/woman wants to have sex with another grown man/woman.
Paedophilic desire: grown man/woman wants to have sex with a child.
Pretty simple really?
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:20 pm
@Fletch et al
Paedophilic and bestial DESIRE is not a crime, ACTING on those desires is and should be a crime, because you are not dealing with consenting adults.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
What these gay laws (including gay marriage) are all about is really legitimizing the sexual perversions of a small, vocal group, who scream “discrimination” against anyone who (quite rightly) sees their sexual conduct as quite abnormal.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
JMS – why should acting on bestial desires be a crime?
When that young guy fucked a Donkey in Christchurch in early 2010, did anybody think to ask the donkey whether the sex was consensual?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/christchurch/news/article.cfm?l_id=187&objectid=10637316
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Fletch: Who are you to say that somebody else’s sexual conduct is “abnormal” or “wrong” or “should be illegal”?
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
@Fletch et al
Paedophilic and bestial DESIRE is not a crime, ACTING on those desires is and should be a crime, because you are not dealing with consenting adults.
Exactly, the DESIRE is not a crime. But is the PRESENCE of the DESIRE an indication of so-called “orientation” in BOTH the paedophile and the homosexual, or is the orientation theory (as I see it) a smokescreen or rationale for the practice of sexual perversions?
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
RRM- if you had read what I wrote, you would see that I included term “consenting adults”.
Fletch- how are you planning on preventing these thought crimes?
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Fletch (2,964) Says:
June 25th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
mikenmild et al –
Do you agree that paedophiliac desire is a psych disorder? Or bestial desire?
I would be interested to know, and if you consider them so, then how does this differ at all from homosexual desire?
Because a paedophile cannot live a normal and healthy life as a paedophile. Either they will wind up in prison or they will be killed by an angry mob. Children cannot consent. Adults can.
It’s pretty easy to figure things out when you engage your brain.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Fletch: Who are you to say that somebody else’s sexual conduct is “abnormal” or “wrong”..
So, you’re saying that sodomy (for instance) is equal to heterosexual intercourse?
Personally, yes, I think it is abnormal – the anus is not a sexual organ but the sewer line of the body.
I think that if you asked anyone privately – without fear of “homophobe” being yelled at them – they’d say the same.
The gay lobby has created a culture of fear against anyone being critical of gays. I can feel it. It’s a cultural thing. It’s been pushed by the cultural and social higher-ups as being normal and also that anyone who disagrees is a bigot and not cool.
People are afraid to say what they really think.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Fletch, this has been explained to you many times before. The key distinction is that paedophiles (or zoophiles) desire to act in ways where informed consent would not be possible if those desires were actually acted out.
Consider, for example, someone who hears voices telling him to kill people. This person has a disorder. Now imagine that this person is stranded on a island with no company. Does the fact that he can’t actually carry out his desires change the fact that he has a disorder. No it doesn’t.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Because a paedophile cannot live a normal and healthy life as a paedophile. Either they will wind up in prison or they will be killed by an angry mob. Children cannot consent. Adults can.
Who says?
Vote:What about if he never acts on his desire? Isn’t the mere presence of that desire an indication of his orientation? I’m not talking about the social mores of consent, I’m talking purely about the presence of DESIRE.
June 25th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Fletch:So, you’re saying that sodomy (for instance) is equal to heterosexual intercourse?
Personally, yes, I think it is abnormal – the anus is not a sexual organ but the sewer line of the body.
I think that if you asked anyone privately – without fear of “homophobe” being yelled at them – they’d say the same.
And yet, many heterosexual couples also enjoy anal sex.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
I thought it was The Lord Cheney…
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Fletch
if no person with with paedophilic desires ever acted on them, there would not be a problem, because no child would ever be abused. I repeat (and obviously will need to keep repeating) it is the ACTING on those desires that is the problem.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:37 pm
Fletch, this has been explained to you many times before. The key distinction is that paedophiles (or zoophiles) desire to act in ways where informed consent would not be possible if those desires were actually acted out.
In our culture, yes. But in cultures gone by, Roman, or Greecian, sex with a minor was very acceptable.
And what about if the minor DOES consent?
In truth, I believe that the homosexual lifestyle is just as dangerous and dysfunctional and has just as bad an effect on society as do the other desires. More disease, more suicide, substance abuse, depression, etc etc…
Vote:Even gays admit as much. Who would want to promote such a lifestyle? It seems society does, for the cause of, 2 or 3% of society.
June 25th, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Fletch,
So, you’re saying that sodomy (for instance) is equal to heterosexual intercourse?
Sodomy IS heterosexual intercourse… or part of it at least. Go check out one of the porn tube websites if you don’t believe me. I’m sure you’ve got it bookmarked.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:40 pm
Fletch
if no person with with paedophilic desires ever acted on them, there would not be a problem, because no child would ever be abused. I repeat (and obviously will need to keep repeating) it is the ACTING on those desires that is the problem.
JMS, yes, I KNOW.
Vote:But the point I am trying to make with all of this is, is paedophilia an orientation, even if never acted upon. You seem to be saying yes. What I’m saying is that the GLBT (is that it?) community does not recognize paedophilia or bestiality as orientations. Because to recognize other orientations — peadophilia, for example — would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct by obscuring this distinction.
June 25th, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Flecth:And what about if the minor DOES consent?
Go back and read the bit where I said informed consent. Minors aren’t mature enough to give informed consent.
More disease, more suicide, substance abuse, depression, etc etc… Even gays admit as much. Who would want to promote such a lifestyle?
They’re not promoting it as much as saying that its OK. One of the reasons why suicide and depression are more common among gays is because of homophobia from people like you ( or, even more so, Andrei).
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
Fletch
I don’t care what the gay/lesbian community recognises as an orientation. The only important question here is whether both parties to the sexual intercourse consent to it or not.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:47 pm
JMS, well, what if they are cousins, or father and daughter? Or brother and sister (all of consent age, and all consenting).
Vote:DO you have a problem with that?
June 25th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Fletch,
GLBT (is that it?) community does not recognize paedophilia or bestiality as orientations. Because to recognize other orientations — peadophilia, for example — would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct by obscuring this distinction.
LGBT, does it matter?
Anyway, their aim is to distinguish between their behaviour, which is morally acceptable, and paedophilia, which is not. Political discussion does not often permit a nuanced discussion about sexual attraction and human behaviour.
The whole paedophilia association is an unfair smear against people who engage in activity which is nothing like paedophilia and to equate the two is an insult to those who have suffered serious sexual abuse. It diminishes their experiences by equating it to something which is acceptable and harmless.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Fletch-
I find the concept of incest among consenting adults distasteful, but it should not be illegal.
Vote:But consenting parents to disabled children born to that incestuous relationship should not be able to collect taxpayer funded benefits for that child.
June 25th, 2012 at 5:58 pm
ps, it may interest you to know that Paedophilia is defined at a psychiatric disorder, at least according to Wiki (has citations).
Homosexuality also used to be considered the same until 1974, when the APA was bullied by gay activist groups into changing it.
But the vast majority was not behind the change. How do I know? Four years later, the Medical Journal Aspects of Human Sexuality reported a survey showing “69 percent of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote and still considered homosexuality a disorder.”
The change wasn’t made because of any new scientific evidence: it was made purely because of the disruptions of activists.
Vote:As one activist said –
June 25th, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Anyway, their aim is to distinguish between their [homosexual] behaviour, which is morally acceptable, and paedophilia, which is not.
Weihana, morally acceptable to whom? It’s not to me. I find both just as morally unacceptable.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
Fuck is that Scott Chris’s 130 comments? If not, it’ll be there by 7pm.
Vote:I just don’t really care what consenting adults do. It’s just part of the fabric of humanity. I really don’t think the church has much to do with the definition of marriage these days. Once politicians stop paying political football with the issue to court the blue rinse brigade then that’ll be the end of the debate.
Please, no more donkey fucking stories.
June 25th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
“Anyway, their aim is to distinguish between their [homosexual] behaviour, which is morally acceptable,”
Only to liberals. But then you think we need a debate about allowing parents to murder their newborn babies, so expecting morality from you and other liberals is a waste of time. You have no morality. You have not got a clue what the word even means.
“The whole paedophilia association is an unfair smear against people who engage in activity which is nothing like paedophilia”
Bullshit. The preference of older gay men for underage boys is a historical fact.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Down with this sort of thing
http://imgur.com/wtWwG
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Fletch, and Lee01,
I find the Bible and the Koran to both be immoral.
Vote:Do I have the right to want these violent books to be banned?
June 25th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
ps, I like this quote from Captain America (Civil War arc) –
http://imgshack.info/images/19bqojqetbwly48sp7hj.jpg
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
Fletch, and Lee01,
I find the Bible and the Koran to both be immoral.
In what way?
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
“I find the Bible and the Koran to both be immoral.
Do I have the right to want these violent books to be banned?”
For a start, sticking the Bible and the Quran in the same sentence is meaningless. They are vastly different.
And the answer to your question is no, you do not have the right to want the Bible banned.
Now, assuming your next response (then why do want homosexuality banned).
A: I don’t want it banned.
B: Keeping traditional marriage does not ban anything.
C: Christian values should be given priority in the law.
Now, assuming your response to that last statement (how dare you!!! what right do you have to force your religion, blah blah liberal blah)
Let me be clear.
I do not give a crap about your liberal notions of equality, fairness, “rights”, secularism, or anything else.
For example, in a just society advocates of abortion would be imprisoned for advocating the murder of children.
So do not bother coming back to me about “rights”, democracy, secularism, or anything else.
To be clear. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT SECULAR LIBERAL NOTIONS ON ANY SUBJECT.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Fletch-
you are the mob.
You’re the one telling others what they can and cannot do with their own bodies on their own PRIVATE property.
The streets of Auckland on the other hand are PUBLIC property, so I am annoyed this stupid Hero parade was allowed to go ahead and get in the way of motorists who pay for the roads those idiots clogged up.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Thanks Lee01. But perhaps it would have saved other people some time if you had come out straight away and said you are arguing from simple bigotry.
Now, does anyone have any rational opposition to gay marriage?
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 6:39 pm
There is no rational opposition to gay marriage, is there Wat?
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Lucia,
There might be, but there are also highly irrational ones based on simple prejudice and bigotry.
Lee is the shiny example of the latter, as he has amply demonstrated.
Whilst I support his right to be as irrationally prejudiced as he likes in his private life, the state must treat everyone equally. Lee is arguing for the state to act like Saudi Arabia, where the Bible is effectively banned on the pretext of public morals. I’m arguing that, no matter how nauseating that book is, the state should not have the right to ban it. And by the same token it can be prejudiced when it comes to marriage.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
“There might be, but there are also highly irrational ones based on simple prejudice and bigotry.”
Yep, that sounds like Lucia.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 6:57 pm
Lee01,
Yes, the Koran is undoubtedly worse than the Bible.
But even the Bible is still very violent.
Socialists, liberals, conservatives, warmists, marxists are all (in different ways of course) hypocritical.
They all want to control the things others do in their private lives, but not have others control their private life.
The only consistent approach to these questions I can find is Libertarianism (not to be confused with liberalism).
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Wat,
The thing is with rational arguments is that they presuppose a rational reader who can recognise them as such. These sorts of debates where things degenerate into name-calling (ie Big Bruv’s reactive response to just about anything I say) does not provide a forum where rational discourse is encouraged. An argument is made and it’s called bigoted and/or an attack on the person’s religious belief is made. Beyond that, not much of a refutation is attempted beyond comparing persons of the same sex with race, age or infertility.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Fletch-
you are the mob.
You’re the one telling others what they can and cannot do with their own bodies on their own PRIVATE property.
No. I am not the mob.
Nor do I CARE what others do on their own PRIVATE property. Really!
I only start to care when these activist groups start pushing for the government to change laws that affect not only me but what is taught to children in schools – to legitimize their perversions. When owners of businesses are forced to go against their consciences because the law says they must because of new so-called “anti-discrimination” laws – THAT is what gets my gander.
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 7:55 pm
There might be, but there are also highly irrational ones based on simple prejudice and bigotry.
I sure haven’t seen any bigoted responses. Plus, all I’ve seen on this board to counter what I see as rational arguments to homosexual conduct being legalized are the “why can’t everybody do what they like” responses. I’ve seen nothing to convince me otherwise.
Again, what is a rational reason beyond “because they want to, and it’s not fair” that persons of the same gender should be able to marry?
Vote:June 25th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Weihana
you do know what Fletch is slang for
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flech&defid=3126510
Vote:11. . fletch
“One who disses there friends for a lifestyle of gayness and gay activities. A true butt pirate whose only reason for living is to be a complete asshole and will do whatever it takes to accomplish absolutely nothing. He will do alot of homosexual experimentation to become the ultimate faggot on the planet.”
“If you were any gayer you would be Fletch.”
“Fletch is so gay, the name Fletch may one day take over the word gay.”
June 26th, 2012 at 12:11 am
Griff, you made that up.
The link you have is for Flech.
Nice to feel loved though
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 12:45 am
What pisses me off is that you pro lot are trying to use the power of the State to change something which existed thousands of years before the State came in to being.
Leave. it. alone.
It is not for the State to decide who is married – your society, community, your neighbours decide. If they agree, you are married.
You cannot use the state to force people to accept something they’re against.
Before you know it NZ will be like Quebec, and there’ll be a nice little list where Big Bruv and Eszett can have names added of all those who are “homophobic”.
And then the imprisonments begin.
Before you know it, NZ will be like Saudi Arabia. Or North Korea.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 7:50 am
Exactly Rufus. Repeal the Marriage Act and get the government out of regulating personal relationships altogether.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 7:53 am
Sorry fletch wrong link
Vote:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fletch&page=2
June 26th, 2012 at 10:58 am
Fletch (2,978) Says:
June 25th, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Anyway, their aim is to distinguish between their [homosexual] behaviour, which is morally acceptable, and paedophilia, which is not.
Weihana, morally acceptable to whom? It’s not to me. I find both just as morally unacceptable.
So you find the rape of a child to be the equivalent of two homosexual adults consenting to sex? That is a pretty big insult to rape victims who have suffered serious and long term harm as a consequence of their abuse. For you to compare it to two loving adults in a consenting relationship completely diminishes their suffering and their pain.
I suggest you do not express your ignorance to victims of child rape lest you receive a well deserved slap in the face.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 11:16 am
Lee01,
Likewise the preference of older straight men for underage girls is a historical fact. Graham Capill proves it!
See how dumb and idiotic your logic is Lee01? Please don’t reproduce and infect society with your substandard genetic code. Although I fear you may have already spilled your seed.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 11:58 am
Fletch,
Classification of psychiatric disorders requires consideration of the social context and acceptable standards of behaviour. Humans are individuals. No one is the same so the question is whether someone’s mental state constitutes part of normal variation or whether it is so abnormal that it impedes that individuals ability to function in society and to have a normal and happy life. There is no reason why homosexuals cannot function in society and lead a happy life except for assholes like yourself. You are right that the change in classification did not represent any scientific discovery as such rather it represents a shift in attitudes and an expectation that bigots like yourself can grow up and get over yourself rather than expecting homosexuals to pretend to be straight and sacrifice their own personal happiness just because people like you are pricks and wish to exclude them from society.
Paedophiles on the other hand cause actual harm to the children they abuse hence why that sexual preference is still considered a disorder because a paedophile cannot function properly in society without harming other people.
The word “disorder” means to be out of order which means one cannot function properly with their condition. Imagine we are talking about automobiles. You can have red cars, green cars, big cars, little cars, sports cars, trucks, vans, utes etc. etc. All these types of vehicles are different from each other. But are any of them dysfunctional simply because they are different? No, but on the other hand if some boy racer comes along and makes his exhaust really loud then arguably the car is now dysfunctional or has a “disorder” because the noise affects neighbouring properties and their right to quiet enjoyment of their property. Similarly if someone attached wings to their car such that it couldn’t fit in the lane it would also have a “disorder” because it would block multiple lanes.
Point is that all these things which could make a car “dysfunctional” or “disordered” are not fundamental scientific discoveries about cars, they simply represent the social context and the rules around which cars are expected to function in accordance with the norms of society. It’s an ethical discussion and the same is true when you talk about homosexuality and whether it is a “psychiatric disorder”. And as far as this ethical argument goes you are clearly losing because more and more people expect bigots like you to fuck off because most people are prepared to accept and tolerate something which is between consenting adults and which causes no harm to anyone else.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Fletch,
Again, what is a rational reason beyond “because they want to, and it’s not fair” that persons of the same gender should be able to marry?
That’s the only reason that is needed. A free society starts from the premise that individuals should be able to do what they like. If you want to restrict what someone else can do then the onus is on you to demonstrate a justification for that restriction. So far you have done a piss-poor job at that because there really isn’t any justification. Anti-homosexual bigotry is nothing more than irrational hatred. It doesn’t affect you, it doesn’t concern “society”, they are not paedophiles, so really all you have left is religious dogma.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Lee01:or example, in a just society advocates of abortion would be imprisoned for advocating the murder of children.
So do not bother coming back to me about “rights”, democracy, secularism, or anything else.
To be clear. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT SECULAR LIBERAL NOTIONS ON ANY SUBJECT.
Anyday now, he’s going to start building bombs….
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
chiz, he woould find that thought a comfortably flattering affirmation of his relevance.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Weihana opines:
“A free society starts from the premise that individuals should be able to do what they like. If you want to restrict what someone else can do then the onus is on you to demonstrate a justification for that restriction.”
You have argued many times here that certain things should be restricted, that certain kinds of speech should be banned, that the state should indoctrinate peoples children so they are “tolerant” according to your definition. In fact the first time I ever saw a post from you, you were demanding that the state moniter every child in the country to combat abuse.
Now you claim to belive in a “free society”????
Bullshit. Your a hypocrit who changes his tune every five posts to suit yourself.
“Anti-homosexual bigotry is nothing more than irrational hatred.”
Pro-homosexuality is nothing more than irrational propaganda.
“So far you have done a piss-poor job at that because there really isn’t any justification.”
No, so far you have done a piss poor job at justifying homosexual marriage on any other basis than your personal belief in the religion of secular liberalism.
“It doesn’t affect you, it doesn’t concern “society”,”
As has already been proven, yes it does.
“so really all you have left is religious dogma.”
All you have is liberal dogma.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
“Anyday now, he’s going to start building bombs”
Why? Liberals do not tend to breed, so they will die out naturally sooner or later. Its an inherently self-defeating and suicidal ideology. My only concern is that the stupid morons do not take Western civilisation with them.
Vote:June 27th, 2012 at 10:04 am
Lee01,
Speech which harms other people, yes. You beg to differ? I would say my position on free speech is about as fundamentalist as one can be. Indeed I support the right of religious whackos to stand on a street corner yelling “god hates fags” and to even picket the funerals of dead soldiers so long as they do not interfere and keep reasonable distance. I would say that’s being pretty tolerant.
The state always has a role in protecting the rights of children. The only argument is where one draws the line. Parental authority is not absolute and should be overridden when their actions are a clear violation of their child’s interests and well-being. But I start from the premise that parenting should be left to parents and the state should only get involved with clear justification based on the rights and/or welfare of the child. Obviously you disagree on what’s best for children hence your disagreement on where to draw the line.
In retrospect I concede it was an untenable position.
“You ARE a hypocrite”. FIFY
Yes I do “change my tune” when I have reason to do so. I don’t profess to be closed-minded so I am open to changing my views when I am bested by superior argument.
Vote: