Colin Craig – being gay is a choice due to child abuse

July 28th, 2012 at 11:13 am by David Farrar

3 News reports:

 Mr Craig told 3 News that people choose to be gay rather than being born that way, many as a result of being abused as children.

What an astonishing statement. I’m not sure what is more ignorant or offensive. The belief that people choose to be gay. When did Mr Craig choose to be heterosexual I wonder?

But even worse, his assertion that people choose to be gay because they were abused as a child. This is the sort of nut job statements I might expect in West Virginia, not New Zealand.

He says he has seen the impact same-sex parents have on their children but when asked if he knew any same-sex couples with children, he was cagey in his response.

“I actually do know of a couple, I don’t know them well. I wouldn’t say they were friends of mine.”

I’m sure he wouldn’t. Oh yuck, we can’t make friends with those gay people who were abused as children. They might infect us.

Another one his arguments – according to research he couldn’t remember – is that gay men have a lower life-expectancy than non-gay men.

“Does that matter? I think it does if you think of the kids they raise,” he says.

Good God. I didn’t think he could get worse. Using logic, then no Maori parents should be allowed to have children, as Maori life expectancy is lower than non-Maori.

As for the research Craig cites unnamed, it is probably the research by Paul Cameron that was so deeply flawed he got ejected from three professional bodies over it. An analysis is here, but the short version is he formed his conclusions based on obituary notices in gay newspapers, which is so far from a scientific sample as to not be funny.

He was so sure that homosexuality was a choice, he bet his own sexuality on it.

“Do you think you could choose to be gay if that is the case?,” he was asked.

“Sure. Sure I could,” he responded.

“You could choose to be gay?,” he was asked again.

“Yea, if I wanted to,’ he replied.

This fits with my theories about repression!

Let me say I could never ever be gay. Quite simply there is not one fibre of my body that wants to be intimate with men. I can’t change that – I am hopelessly addicted to falling for women. Likewise though, many (not all) gay men and women just do not find the opposite sex in any way attractive. It is not a choice. That is just the way they are.

Colin Craig may be mixing up sex with desire. He may be saying that he could have sex with a man. But sexual orientation is about attraction.

Mr Craig wants a referendum held on the issue so all of New Zealand can decide if homosexual couples can marry.

With Craig arguing on one side, I think a referendum would result in a huge vote in favour of .

Tags: , ,

293 Responses to “Colin Craig – being gay is a choice due to child abuse”

  1. Nick K (1,253 comments) says:

    He wants a referendum on everything. That’s his main policy plank. Tie the country up in referenda and have no reform.

    What a tolerant and understanding man he is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    Lol. ‘Gay people are gay because all of them got child-abused’ hahahahahahahahahaha!

    All of this crap about gay people is classic silliness from someone who obviously doesn’t spend time with any gay people. I’m even someone who thinks civil unions ended the need for gay marriage and who thinks the nuclear family is by far the best family composition for kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    Personally, I think people are “gay” for a number of reasons; however, I do not believe in the “born this way” narrative at all.
    The homosexual community came up with that for legal reasons so they could continue in their conduct –

    Until 1986, homosexuality was universally defined as same-gender sexual conduct. By extension, a homosexual was defined as anyone who engages or desires to engage in such conduct. The “gay” movement itself embraced this definition, in which the term “homosexuality” had meaning only in relation to same-gender sexual behavior.

    After 1986, the “gay” movement began to redefine homosexuality as a normal and immutable condition equivalent to heterosexuality, a state-of-being completely independent of conduct. Under the new definition, “straights” can choose same-gender sexual relations and “gays” can choose opposite-gender relations without any alteration of their true “sexual orientation.”

    Why the change in strategy?

    1986 was the year that the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, upheld the right of states to criminalize homosexual conduct. The “gay” movement had argued that homosexual sodomy should be viewed by the court as a fundamental privacy right no different than marital sexual relations. The court firmly rejected that argument in 1986, though, unfortunately, the constitutional right of states to regulate homosexual conduct was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.

    Thwarted in its goal to legitimize homosexual conduct as a fundamental right, the “gay” movement turned to the only other basis on which it could claim constitutional protection: minority status as a “suspect class.” The Supreme Court recognizes minority status only for those groups which 1) have suffered a history of discrimination, 2) are powerless to help themselves and 3) are defined by immutable characteristics.

    This is the secret to understanding why the “gay” movement now denies that homosexuality is behavior-based and instead insists that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable. It is not science. It is a legal and political strategy.

    The problem is that they can’t prove it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Redbaiter (9,503 comments) says:

    Colin Craig will get the votes of the Conservatives that National has betrayed.

    Suck it up.

    (John Key would prefer a coalition with racists and communists)

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

    Is there an Alexa traffic ranking in DPF’s sights?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. George Patton (350 comments) says:

    If Colin Craig could in theory choose to be gay, then perhaps he is bisexual at heart? He does look a bit, well, effete.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    ps, back in 2010, Professor Elizabeth Wells from Otago University did a study, interviewing 13,000 people. It turned out that those who identified as being gay or of some other “orientation” were three times as likely to have been abused as children.

    Maybe that is what Craig is referring to?

    New Zealanders who identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual, or who have had a same-sex encounter or relationship, tend to come from more disturbed backgrounds, a University of Otago researcher has found.

    Information extracted from 13,000 face-to-face interviews clearly showed those with same-sexual or bisexual orientation were more likely to have experienced negative events in childhood, Associate Prof Elisabeth Wells said yesterday.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    She said she would support further research being carried out.

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

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

    That says something doesn’t it? That if you have experienced abuse as a child, you’re THREE TIMES more likely to identify as homosexual or bisexual.
    We should be getting these people help, instead of encouraging them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    You’re three times more likely to have freckles as an adult if you were abused as a child.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    I wonder why Fletch left off the citation for his 11:22?

    Is it because he knows that Scott D Lively is an A grade arsehole?

    Lively wants public advocacy by homosexuals to be a criminal offence.

    Lively wants homosexuality to be a criminal offence and he has been instrumental in laws to that effect being passed in Uganda.

    Lively claims that homosexuals were behind the rise of NAZI’ism and the true perpetrators of the holocaust.

    And this is the authority to whom Fletch appeals!

    Fucking arseholes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    “I think a referendum would result in a huge vote in favour of same sex marriage.”

    I am not sure.
    It might or it might not.
    Just because the gay activists and supporters, facilitated by the media are the loudest and are dominating the public debate doesn’t mean they are the majority.

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

    And why does Fletch have so much info on homosexuality at his fingertips?

    You know what they say …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. DavidR (102 comments) says:

    Thanks DPF. At last, I’ve seen the light – Colin Craig IS Redbaiter!

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

    “I actually do know of a couple, I don’t know them well. I wouldn’t say they were friends of mine.”
    DPF – I’m sure he wouldn’t.

    You’re sure? Or are you making bigoted assumptions to match your prejudice? Remember, that’s what you’re mocking Craig for.

    Really DPF, your fixation with promotion of the gay agenda is perplexing. Still your place, your rules.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “With Craig arguing on one side, I think a referendum would result in a huge vote in favour of same sex marriage.”

    Then David unlike Louisa Wall and many libertarians you would support a binding referendum after this bill went through the Select Committee process and a third reading if a majority of MPs voted for it.

    That is real democracy becasue select committee members would actually take submitters seriously.

    Peter Brown included such a provision in he bill on euthanasia bill. I do not see why Lousia Wall will not as she claims that this has a majority of support. I assume she like most in Labour think National should take notice of a referendum that National has a clear mandate.

    Clearly, we cannot have a binding referendum on everything but we could where it involves a conscience vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    Luke, attacking a man for what he believes does not disprove the reasons why gays changed their strategy in 1986.
    I’m waiting for you to disprove that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    For fuck’s sake Fletch. I thought you were blind to fact, but you really DO believe homosexuals began the NAZI Party and were behind the holocaust and other atrocities! Yes, the same homosexuals who arrested 100,000 Germans for BEING homosexual, who condemned 1000’s to death in concentration camps.

    Yeah, OK, you win, Scott D Lively is an historian beyond reproach.

    /sarcasm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    Watching as the West commits suicide as it looses its collective mind and surrenders itself to sexual hedonists even while the whole financial system that underpins it collapses.

    Its woeful to watch

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Nice edit Fletch. Lying for your cause, I see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    And here comes Andrei, the repressed, to tie it all together for us. Not only did poofters cause the holocaust, now they’re destroying the economy, too.

    The easiest way to eliminate homosexuals is for straight parents to stop having gay babies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    Luke, look into the FACTS.
    There is good reason to suppose the German Workers party was rooted (lil joke there) in gay beginnings, and Roehm was DEFINITELY homosexual.

    Lively’s book is online HERE

    Read it, then discuss what you agree or disagree with.
    Then we’ll talk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    AHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhOneNZAIpoofterAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    It must all be true!

    Fletch, there’s good reason to suppose your dislike, nay your hatred, of fellow human beings is rooted in your belief in a Sky Pixie. Doesn’t make you right, though,

    Christians – repressing people for 2000 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    Luke, not just one – again, read the book….
    many of their practices apparently came from gay lore –

    In fact, the party grew out of a number of groups in Germany which were centers of homosexual activity and activism.  Many of the characteristic rituals, symbols, activities and philosophies we associate with Nazism came from these organizations or from contemporary homosexuals. The extended-arm “Sieg Heil” salute, for example, was a ritual of the Wandervoegel (“Wandering Birds” or “Rovers”), a male youth society which became the German equivalent of the Boy Scouts.  The Wandervoegel was started in the late 1800s by a group of homosexual teenagers. Its first adult leader, Karl Fischer, called himself “der Fuehrer” (“the Leader”) (Koch:25f).  Hans Blueher, a homosexual Nazi philosopher and important early member of the Wandervoegel, incited a sensation in 1912 with publication of The German Wandervoegel Movement as an Erotic Phenomenon, which told how the movement had become one in which young boys could be introduced into the homosexual lifestyle (Rector:39f). The Wandervoegel and other youth organizations were later merged into  the Hitler Youth (which itself  became known among the populace as the “Homo Youth” because of rampant homosexuality. – Rector:52).
        Many of the Nazi emblems, such as the swastika, the double lightning bolt “SS” symbol, and even the inverted triangle symbol used to identify classes of prisoners in the concentration camps, originated among homosexual occultists in Germany (some, such as the swastika, are actually quite ancient symbols which were merely revived by these homosexual groups).  
        In 1907, Jorg Lanz Von Liebenfels, a former Cistercian monk whom the church excommunicated because of his homosexual activities (Sklar:19), flew the swastika flag above his castle in Austria (Goodrick-Clarke:109).  

    Again, you may agree or disagree. I haven’t made up my mind yet, but the evidence is compelling.

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

    Fletch, facts that confirm anything other than social liberal dogma are to be ignored, and/or the presenters of said facts are to be denigrated. You know the rules!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Fletch, sorry, there is enough hatred here already with you, redbaiter, andrei, et al. I do not need any more hatred in my life.

    I am far happier being positive and bright in outlook, accepting of my fellow Man and strong enough to stand up on two legs without any means of invisible support.

    Keep your hatred in church, where it belongs. How many Ugandans have died this month because of Scott Lively? How many more deaths do you think will be needed to appease your sky pixie? How much more blood do you want on your hands for supporting this arsehole?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. duggledog (1,582 comments) says:

    ‘Colin Craig will get the votes of the Conservatives that National has betrayed’

    I’m not so sure. Nat conservatives in my view would be far more likely to be turned off by such absurd statements.

    Craig will now be summarily destroyed by Clive, Mary Wilson, Morning Report etc etc etc. in exactly the same fashion as what’s-his-name who spoke his mind about ‘womens’ problems’. Man-traps already being laid.

    The gay men and women I have known have all told me pretty much the same story: they always knew they were different even when they were very little, and when they came of age, they found not only the physical aspects of their sex attractive but they also found the behavioural traits of the opposite sex a big turn-off.

    Gay people know all about being rejected and different, so the marriage / right to have children etc thing is simply the manifestation of a continuing desire to total acceptance by mainstream society.

    This is going to be interesting to watch, Craig will get some support for his views no matter how outlandish, more likely from poor old Labour, party of the past

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. thedavincimode (6,869 comments) says:

    lol we’ve got our very own Mitt Romney.

    He really needs to ditch the fuckwit m’bator as his media adviser.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    Luke, I’m not suggesting that because the Nazis may have sprang from homosexual beginnings that gays are evil or that I hate gays – I do not – any moreso than anyone should hate the Catholic Church or it’s priests because of what some priests have done in the past.

    That would be hatred by association.

    You, yourself, seem to be quite intolerant and critical of people or organisations because of what past members have done?
    If there’s any hating being done on this forum, it seems to be by you of anything religious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    So fletch, why were so many homosexuals persecuted and killed by the NAZIs? Why homosexuality a criminal offence? They changed just about every other law to suit themselves, why not that?

    Many NAZI practices came from Christian religious lore, including a sole leader worshipped as god on earth, lots of singing and sermons, ritualised use of symbols during worship, identification of members by the wearing of a cross shaped symbol. Hitler was a Catholic. He was good buddies with the pope of the time. And only ONE NAZI was ever excommunicated by the catholic church, and that was for daring to get divorced.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    OK, Fletch, so what’s your problem with treating ALL human beings, as, well, human beings and according them the same rights and privileges?

    As far as I can see, its either because you choose to hate or because you’ve been taught to hate.

    Off to breakfast, let’s see what you can come up with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    Luke, the theory goes that although the Nazis did persecute homosexuals, the homosexuals the Nazis persecuted were almost exclusively the effeminate members of the gay community in Germany, and that much of the mistreatment was administered by masculine (“butch”) homosexuals who despised effeminacy in all its forms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    OK, Fletch, so what’s your problem with treating ALL human beings, as, well, human beings and according them the same rights and privileges?

    Luke, I do treat everyone the same. As far as “rights and privileges” who is the arbiter on what should be considered a “right”?
    You? John Key? Obama? Society rightly places limits on things that are considered immoral – such as relationships between adults and minors, father and siblings or other familial relationships such as cousins. This also includes those of the same gender.

    Tell me, should paedophiles be accorded the same “rights and privileges” as others? They are human beings with their own “orientation” as well, aren’t they?

    ps, this thread is going wildly off-track, which i think was your intent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Nick K (1,253 comments) says:

    Should pedophiles be accorded the same rights and privileges? They have a right to freedom of expression afforded to them by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (subject to the reasonable limitations in that Act). Should this be taken away?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    Oh dear Fletch, the pink Swastika bullshit?? Really? Evidence compelling?
    How desperate and fucked up do you need to be to post that here?

    If anything it is compelling evidence that you have completely lost the plot.

    But then again, you’d believe anything that is in favour of your strange and dehumanising prejudices.

    You really know no shame.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,322) Says:
    July 28th, 2012 at 11:46 am

    Watching as the West commits suicide as it looses its collective mind and surrenders itself to sexual hedonists even while the whole financial system that underpins it collapses.

    Its woeful to watch

    Same-Sex Marriage Bill Threat To Civilisation

    Says it all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    The Strange, Strange Story of the Gay Fascists

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    And people say on here that The Standard is full of haters and loonies.

    Redbaiter is certifiable – a unarguable fact.

    Fletch is just fucking stupid – his stupidity out weighs any degree of the large amount of ignorance he carries around with him

    Andrei, you qualify as plain fucking ignorant you don’t have the benefit of a stupid gene, so you are scary.

    I have a sneaky suspicion that Colin Craig has been writing on The New Zealand Conservative blog site for some time.

    For a supposed main stream politician to spout the crap that is reported above shows he does not deserve any airtime and any sort of public exposure.

    Colin Craig – fundamentalist loon- so detached from reality as to be totallty unable to function in normal society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. peterwn (3,298 comments) says:

    Why does not Colin Craig accept that a vote for his party is effectively a vote for Labour/Green? Perhaps he thinks a Labour/Green government in 2014 will give him more leverage in 2017.

    Some wealthy people are quite fickle with their party support and voting. Mr X for example supported National in 2008 and NZ First in 2011. Perhaps Mr X thinks he can make more money with a Labour/Green government in power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    Welcome to the world of thought crimes, moi druzʹya.

    And Colin Craig a criminal because he doesn’t toe the party line from party central.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. niggly (831 comments) says:

    In some respects Colin Craig and Hone Harawira seem to share the same world view!

    Now that really is frightening!

    CC & HH as 2014 Coalition partners to screw National (or Labour) over? ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    Other_Andy (1,922) Says:
    July 28th, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    The Strange, Strange Story of the Gay Fascists

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697.html

    So, an article by Johann Hari, the man known for his reputation for accurate reporting and sticking to facts, or not.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/10/independent-editor-johann-hari-scandal

    And even he says in the article, that you linked to:

    The growing awareness of the role gay men play in fascist movements has been abused by some homophobes. In an especially nutty work of revisionist history called ‘The Pink Swastika’, the ‘historian’ Scott Lively tries to blame gay people for the entire Holocaust, and describes the murder of gay men in the camps as merely “gay-on-gay violence.” A typical website commenting on the book claims absurdly, “The Pink Swastika shows that there was far more brutality, rape, torture and murder committed against innocent people by Nazi homosexuals than there even was against homosexuals themselves.”

    So there are and were gays across all the political spectrum, from far left to the far right. Proves is that homosexuality occurs through society, regardless of status, skin colour, taste in music or political conviction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    It’s extraordinary that we are not allowed to hold views that conflict with the totalitarian view, even if it’s been the prevailing view for thousands of years.

    At the end of a marriage ceremony, there is a husband and a wife. Why would we want to make our language less clear and precise?
    The words used in marriage are all sex-specific because marriage is a complementary relationship. Husbands and wives complement each other in a way that homosexual unions simply can’t. Why can’t they be happy in their civil unions? Many heterosexuals have civil unions too. It’s not as if they’re second class, after all.

    Why is it that you want to redefine marriage? That is what you 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 your unions?
    Please name one.
    If you can’t then you must admit that all your complaints are esoteric and are made purely for social engineering purposes.
    In fact, I’d have thought it was of particular interest to gays that children be socialised well and not turn out feral.
    Defending traditions such as marriage is crucial in that work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,323) Says:
    July 28th, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    Welcome to the world of thought crimes, moi druzʹya.

    And Colin Craig a criminal because he doesn’t toe the party line from party central

    Actually, he does toe to the party line, in fact, he IS the party.

    And how is it a thought crime, if he actually said these things?

    thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party.

    You posts are making less and less sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Andrei, who has ever said that what Colin Craig believes is, or should be, criminal? No one.

    Stop making shit up.

    Meanwhile, Sanal Edamaruku IS being treated as a criminal, is being pursued by the police and has been forced to leave his native land, all at the urging of the catholic church. That is FACT!

    Of course, the church will withdraw the charges if he apologises. For telling the truth.

    Colin Craig is a liar. As pointed out in the original post from Farrar, Craig has pulled his ideas out of his arse. Craig would see us return to the days when sexual acts between consenting adults were the business of the state.

    Craig would see us return to the days when a homosexual (Alan Turing)* who was one of the leaders in the fight to save Britain in WW2 would be tossed on the scrap heap and hounded to his death when the war was over. You mean he helped win the war? But he’s a poof; no medals for him, toss him to the fucking lions.

    Or for a NZ angle, Craig would see Sam Johnson not lauded for his hard work in aiding Christchurch quake victims, but thrown in jail because he prefers a man in his bed.

    Jesus, who causes more harm to society?

    Come to think of it, maybe Craig should be in jail, it would make the world a safer place.

    Why does religion warp people so?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    Harriet (362) Says:
    July 28th, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    It’s extraordinary that we are not allowed to hold views that conflict with the totalitarian view

    Irony overload!

    Who says that you are not allowed to hold that view? Or even express that view?

    And by the same token, other people are allowed to have an opinion on those views and express them.

    How is this, in any sense, totalitarian?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Colville (2,298 comments) says:

    I think Colin Craig is playing this very well. He has chosen this as a wedge issue to differentiate his party from the Nats and I would think he will comfortably pass the 5% mark.
    Will he roll out some policy crafted to attract the conservitive polynesian christians away from Labour?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    Luke Mutton#

    “…Craig would see us return to the days when sexual acts between consenting adults were the business of the state…”

    Do you really think that gays should be allowed to get Married because they ‘love’ each other?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Here is an example of the type of world Colin Craig supports. And another. And one more.

    This is the type of behaviour that is supported by Craig, redbaiter, andrei and their accolytes.

    It is abnormal. It is sub-human. It is reprehensible.

    It can only be fuelled by a warped reliogion.

    Haven’t they got so much in common with Islam?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    Excellent Mr Craig.

    The more you bring the disease of homophobia out into the blinding light, the more its ugliness is revealed.
    Keep doing exactly what you’re doing.

    You arrogant little fuck.

    Hugs and kisses;
    The left. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Harriet (363) Says:
    July 28th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
    Luke Mutton#

    “…Craig would see us return to the days when sexual acts between consenting adults were the business of the state…”

    Do you really think that gays should be allowed to get Married because they ‘love’ each other?

    Remove the scare quotes from the word love, and my answer is yes.

    I cannot think of a single argument for no that does not rely on on myth, irrationality or hatred.

    Harriet, do YOU think that sexual acts between consenting adults should be the business of the state?

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

    Luke Mutton 1:10. An explosion in a strawman factory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    Fletch is just fucking stupid – his stupidity out weighs any degree of the large amount of ignorance he carries around with him

    Pauleastbay, stupid based on what?
    I hear you calling names, but without any facts or even opinions to back up your argument. You would rather call names than debate based on any opinions as regards the subject at hand.

    It’s true that profanity is the last refuge of the truly ignorant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @eszett

    I linked to the article because Johann Hari is a gay left wing activist.
    To point out that the leadership of the Sturmabteilung and quite a few of its members were homosexuals is not some right-wing theory as some commenters think.
    I just put the article up to show that the world isn’t black and white.
    It’s a bit more complex than that.
    As you said……
    “So there are and were gays across all the political spectrum, from far left to the far right. Proves is that homosexuality occurs through society, regardless of status, skin colour, taste in music or political conviction.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Stupid for believing the Pink Swastika, for a start. Maybe you still keep a copy of the Protocols on your bookshelf as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    Luke, I didn’t say I believed it was fact, but a lot is compelling. It is a theory.

    Which parts of it exactly do you disagree with?
    Explain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    I wonder why all those so claim there is at least majority public support for this bill but reject a referendum. I do not call it democratic when 120 MPs can force their view on the majority. This was the case with the anti smacking law. If the bill went to a referendum it would probably be defeats despite most of the MSM have fallen for the crap that homosexuals are victims.

    Liberals only beleive democracy when they are almost certain they will win.

    Colin bases his opinion on research that has been posted on the blog. There is plenty more international research to support it. We know that the liberals have a weak case when the best than can do is repeat the mantra that all gays and bisexuals are born that way and resort to personal attacks.

    I would like to see a rational argument why the people should not have the final say when the bill is in its final form.

    I can see a lot more arguments for abolishing private members bills. If a party wants to promote homosexual marriage, adoption, surrogacy or euthanasia let them put it in their manifesto.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    Luke Mutton#

    LM #”…Craig would see us return to the days when sexual acts between consenting adults were the business of the state…”

    Harriet# “….Do you really think that gays should be allowed to get Married because they ‘love’ each other?…”

    LM #”….Remove the scare quotes from the word love, and my answer is yes…”

    If you love someone you should be able to marry them. Really?

    Anyone I love I can marry?

    What sentimentalist claptrap! How specious! I can marry my mum? My dog? Someone else’s husband?

    And the state – some faceless public servant – is going to define and approve what is love?

    How sinister and absurd!

    You are a FUCKEN HYPOCRATE…..the government IS only going to ALLOW gays to get Married -or in other words- the government is getting involved in LOVE -an emotion- for gays ONLY!

    LOL – you bagged out Craig….on the State and sex….yet you gays are allowing the state to get involved in ‘love’.

    Why is the gay community so immature?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Fletch

    If you were not stupid your first post today would have been something like this.

    “Personally I am not in favour of equal rights across the board for the homo’s, I know many don’t agree but that’s me. But what Colin Craig is reported as saying above is so totally fucking out there that even I cannot agree with him.. If Mr Craig continues to espouse such outlandish unproven unconsidered statements he will find himself with a constituency of only sad bastards who reside in Tauranga and thus drive away any sort of mainstream support he is hoping to garner”

    But no you didn’t – you wrote this ………………………I do not believe in the “born this way” narrative at all.
    The homosexual community came up with that for legal reasons so they could continue in their conduct . “”

    Ergo you are either Colin Craig or stupid – easy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Harriet, who pressed your buttons?

    What a load of shit, you make Fletch look reasoned and nuanced.

    You get your bitch ass back in the kitchen and make me some pie! And no licking carpet while you’re doing it.

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

    PEB – So someone who isn’t stupid thinks and writes like you do. While someone who is stupid doesn’t. Right. Got it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    David Farrar #

    C’mon David……state why you think that the government should be getting involved in ‘love’ – FOR GAYS ONLY!

    The government doesn’t get involved in sex between adults….so why ‘love’ ?

    You’ve said that you support gay Marriage….so why not answer the question…Key, Shearer, et all, haven’t as yet answered that question……so c’mon…..please tell us all why?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Sorry KK, I forgot to add you to the “old fashioned dumb” list.

    But dumbness is curable and has been since the enlightenment – the opportunity is there for you – you just have to choose that over ignorance

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    “Mr Craig told 3 News that people choose to be gay rather than being born that way, many as a result of being abused as children”
    “What an astonishing statement. I’m not sure what is more ignorant or offensive”

    Lesbian author, political commentator and former poster girl for the American Left, Tammy Bruce has specific views about this . . from her book The Death Of Right & Wrong

    “Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood – molestation by a parent or authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult. The gay community must face the truth and see sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is, instead of the “coming-of-age” experience many regard it as being”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Gulag1917 (982 comments) says:

    Dangerous to disagree with gays. Expect vicious attacks and slander as with any extreme faction.

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

    I reckon Mr Craig is onto something here. We need some honest, unbiased research into this area, particularly before any policy changes are made. It could be a very dangerous public experiment otherwise.

    Anecdotally: I had some rather gay days in Sydney during the nineties, and the common childhood experience among all my male gay friends was their first sexual experience being non-consensual homosexual.

    I’m not saying there’s necessarily a causal relationship between abuse and homosexuality, but there seems to be an association. Put it this way, based on my experience there’s no way I would leave my children alone with a gay man. Call me a bigot or a facist or whatever, but until we can get some decent research (that hasn’t been filtered by a politically motivated ethics commitee) it would be negligent of me to risk leaving my children in that environment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    Luke Mutton#

    “….What a load of shit, you make Fletch look reasoned and nuanced…’

    LOL…..you are the one who said that Craig will take us back to the State being involved in sex…….YET……you then went and supported the idea that the State SHOULD get involved in the emotion ‘love’ FOR GAYS ONLY!

    You don’t have a clue what you talk about…..or hate to admit what is CLEARLY FUCKEN TRUE!

    I’m waiting for Farrar, Key, Shearer and all the other supporters of May Garage to answer the question…..as it is the ABSOLUTE CENTER of the debate……the State being INVOLVED in LOVE!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Jimbob (641 comments) says:

    I read an article somewhere, I think it was in a magazine I picked up in a waiting room, about thirty years ago that implied that recent research indicated that being gay was in your make up when you were born. The cause came from the mother, and had something to do with the testosterone levels when the foetus was developing in the womb.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. David Garrett (7,523 comments) says:

    Well…what can I sensibly add to this “debate”?

    Over my lifetime, I have had a number of gay friends; one of more than twenty years standing is my childrens’ Godfather. I am quite certain that he would no more attempt to “mould” my children that try and get in the All Blacks. He – and others – have told me they “always knew” they were different from the other boys, and realised exactly what that difference was at puberty.

    But who can remember the furore about 10 years ago when some researcher claimed to have identified physiological differences in the brains of gay men? If that was so, I would have thought it was excellent ammunition for the “that’s the way we were born” argument. But I recall outrage at the time from gay lobbyists saying that to claim there were measurable physiological differences in gays’ brains was somehow discriminatory.

    Then again…I don’t think ALL of the “It’s down to child abuse/grooming” research is from the loony Christian right either. When I last checked, the jury was still out on the whole nature vs. nurture debate.

    Craig has certainly appealed to the Christian conserative right with this….but as has been amply proved, there are not enough of them to pass 5%. I have no idea whether this is a calculated appeal, or Colin simply speaking from the heart. If it’s the latter, I wonder whether this belief is any more or less reprehensible than that of Hone the Racist, who thinks all white people – perhaps excluding Catherine Delahunty – are inferior to Maori, and the honkies should all be driven into the sea?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    harriet, you are deranged. Too much Mug Runching, I suspect.

    The only one claiming the law will be changed to only allow gay marriage is you.

    marriage is not, and never has been, exclusively about love. It is a legal contract and has far more to do with property rights than love.

    Which is one of the main drivers for equal rights to marriage for all.

    Sally Ride’s widow gets nothing from the state except seeing her inheritance taxed at a higher rate. She will not receive any entitlement to Ride’s pension.

    It is to amend these legal, contractual and property issues that I want to see marriage extended to all who desire it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. David Garrett (7,523 comments) says:

    Jimbob: I also recall “gay gene” claims…a lot more recently than 30 years ago. That was poo poo’ed (perhaps an unfortunate choice of phrasing…) by the “that’s how we were born” gay activists also. And surely to ridicule that is even sillier than ridiculing “their brains are different” …

    If I recall from high school biology, the reason I am a short white man and not a tall black man is down to minor genetic variations. Surely gays would be delighted to have a “gay gene” identified?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    @Chuck Bird – I support the idea of a referendum on issues like this, one that allows parliament to override it – but proportional to the level of vote. For example if 55% of parliament vote for something it would take 55% from a referendum to overturn it.

    Moot point on this bill though, a referendum isn’t an option (that will happen). We first need to get the mechanism for it installed. And it would have to allow rapid referendums, otherwise things would drag out far too long.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    Luke Mutton#

    “….It is to amend these legal, contractual and property issues that I want to see marriage extended to all who desire it….’

    That is NOT a case for May Garage….and you know it!

    “…..The only one claiming the law will be changed to only allow gay marriage is you….”

    So WHO THE FUCK ELSE is it for? As I said –

    I love my mum and dad…..so will I be allowed to Marry them? No! of course I fucken won’t be allowed to….the STATE will not allow it…..the State will ONLY ALLOW GAYS TO MARRY!

    THE STATE IS FUCKEN CLEARLY GETTING INVOLVED IN ‘LOVE’ !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    TEO (25) Says:
    July 28th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
    I reckon Mr Craig is onto something here. We need some honest, unbiased research into this area, particularly before any policy changes are made. It could be a very dangerous public experiment otherwise.

    Research in to what? That gays exist? That Craig is a frootloop? Anyone who gets his morality from the bible (eg Colin Craig) has no time for honest, unbiased research.

    (…)

    I’m not saying there’s necessarily a causal relationship between abuse and homosexuality, but there seems to be an association.

    Enter proof here _____________________________________________________.

    Put it this way, based on my experience there’s no way I would leave my children alone with a gay man.

    So, you have a well defined gaydar, do you? You know, beyond doubt, that every man in your life is straight? Bullshit! I’d leave my children with a gay man I knew any day, far safer than leaving them with a priest.

    You have all the characteristics of a bigot and none of the redeeming features of a fascist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Harriet, time to put mummy’s gin bottle back in the cupboard. there’s a good little girl.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    LOL…..you are the one who said that Craig will take us back to the State being involved in sex…….YET……you then went and supported the idea that the State SHOULD get involved in the emotion ‘love’ FOR GAYS ONLY!

    THE STATE IS FUCKEN CLEARLY GETTING INVOLVED IN ‘LOVE’ !

    Harriet:

    The state is already involved in love/sex/marriage:

    The state WILL issue a straight couple a marriage license.
    The state WILL NOT issue a gay couple a marriage license.

    This discrimination should end.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    I’ve just been skimming back thru the whole thread. Far out – the stupidity is strong in this one :lol:

    Harriet:
    You are a FUCKEN HYPOCRATE…..the government IS only going to ALLOW gays to get Married -or in other words- the government is getting involved in LOVE -an emotion- for gays ONLY!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    DG #

    Could you please give us your opinion about the NZ state getting involved in the emotion ‘love'[gays want to get Married because they ‘love’ eachother].

    How can the state get involved in an ‘emotion’?

    A QLD Labour Minister earlier this year[at the Labour national congress where gay marriage was the center piece] said that governments have never got involved in ‘emotions’ and said it is a road they should never go down.He also pointed out that a driver is allowed to get angry, but the state’s only involvement is if they ‘act out on’ the ‘emotion’ – by belting someone – which is an action, not an emotion.He said that ‘civil unions’ granted gays the same legal rights as married couples, so the only matter left for gay marriage was the ‘emotion’ love.He then said that gay marriage should not then be allowed.

    Can you recall the NZ government ever getting involved in ‘emotions’ befor this gay marriage thing?

    Cheers.[btw, I live in QLD]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Gulag1917 (982 comments) says:

    Discrimination will never end, you are dreaming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “Moot point on this bill though, a referendum isn’t an option (that will happen). We first need to get the mechanism for it installed. And it would have to allow rapid referendums, otherwise things would drag out far too long.”

    Why do you say it will not happen. It could. All it would take is for one MPs to move an amendment to the affect that would be similar to Peter Brown hoped to get his death with dignity bill passed. I am sure there would be a seconder. I am also sure people would be watching closely those arrogant MPs who think they have more of a conscience than us peasants.

    This would put double pressure on MPs. Incidentally, Leighton Smith is a great fan of Voters Veto for conscience votes.

    DG – how much would there be to drawing up such an amendment that was acceptable in a legal sense?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Harriet : “btw, I live in QLD:.

    Suddenly it all becomes clear …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Gulag1917 (133) Says:
    July 28th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
    Discrimination will never end, you are dreaming.

    Well, we can end legal discriminations. And never forget, Martin Luther King once had a dream …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @RRM

    “This discrimination should end.”

    There is no difference between ‘straight’ and ‘gay’ couples?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Gulag1917 (982 comments) says:

    Sure the legal discrimination can be reduced but discrimination is a fact of life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    RRM#

    Then go tell the former QLD Labour minister that!

    All that’s left[because civil unions have been introduced] is the emotion ‘love’ in the arguement for gay marriage.

    “…..The state WILL issue a straight couple a marriage license.
    The state WILL NOT issue a gay couple a marriage license…….”

    And why do you THINK that is………….Marriage is between one man and one women……and has been the prevailing view for thousands of years.

    Act like an adult RRM!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Brian Smaller (4,024 comments) says:

    If people don’t choose their sexuality and they are born the way they are, then one cannot condemn the actions of those whose sexuality takes them into areas deemed “wrong”. If you don’t believe that then how can one rail against Pedos – they are just made that way – no more evil or bad than anyone else. What about every other disturbing sexual proclivity?

    The interesting thing about this debate is that DPF and Cam Slater both adopt the practices of the left that they frequently state that they hate – demonising those that don’t agree with them. Saying that they are mentally ill, evil, etc etc. Interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Gulag1917 (982 comments) says:

    Being born a certain way means an individual can justify all kinds of destructive actions that are detrimental to the common good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    I have absolutely no doubt that people like Andrei, Fletch, Redbaiter, krazykiwi… Will all die out by the next generation. Some of them may have kids – I bet none of their kids share their parents’ old fashioned views on homosexuality. It’s clearly visible in Churches these days too – only the pastors and sheltered suburban parents are homophobic, none of the youth groups or young adults are against homosexuality, everytime they’re asked about it they’re forced to defend their parents’ irrational views by saying: “Ohh, but the Bible just says it’s a sin, just like how lying is a sin, so it’s not like it’s the worst sin.”

    Fundamentalist Christians… Such a pathetic sight to see. 50 years ago Westboro Baptist Church would have just been an ordinary Church. Today they are on the fringes. Likewise with those who are against homosexuality. We’re still in the ‘in between’ phase where the views are transitioning but Andrei and co and die, not at peace, but in a war that they know they’re going to lose. If you can’t even stop your own kids and youth at Church from accepting homosexuals, then you have no hope of your views carrying on into the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “Martin Luther King once had a dream ”

    He did and he would roll in his grave knowing how lunatic libertarians and militant homosexuals are trying to exploit that great work he did.

    There is a good video that the homo facists tried to have banned here that explains the difference between skin colour and someone sexual preference. Its called Gay Rights/Special Rights. I must suggest to Colin that he organise a public showing or maybe get on TV if we can get this to a referendum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. thedavincimode (6,869 comments) says:

    Pedos may well be born that way, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be locked up when they break the law which, after all, is the point. Just like heterosexual rapists. They aren’t evil because of what they are (heterosexual – well, not yet anyway); they are evil because of what they do (rape).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Brian, why do you find gay sex “disturbing”? I have no desire to perform any male homosexual acts, but boy, watching 2 or more cute chicks in a porno going hard at each other makes my member rise.

    Here’s how I can accept homosexual sex as OK while still railing against paedophilia, and its so simple I don’t know how you couldn’t have reached the same conclusion.

    Although homosexuals and paedophiles may well have been born that one, one does no harm to others.

    There it is, in a nutshell, consent and harm minimisation.

    What about every other disturbing sexual proclivity?

    List them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    I forgot to add Chuck Bird to the list.

    Chuck – you are in favour of a referendum now that there are still a significant number of homophobic people out there today. I bet you wouldn’t be in favour of a binding referendum in the future, say 10 years from now, when homophobes like you are fewer in number.

    Do you support a binding referendum on whether or not premarital sex should be allowed?

    Or whether pornography should be allowed?

    Or whether contraception should be allowed?

    Or whether abortion should be allowed?

    You think you’re able to point out the hypocrisy of libertarians by saying they don’t favour referendums because they think they’ll lose – yet I can guarantee if it was an issue that was more widely accepted by the public you wouldn’t want a binding referendum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    If what you say is correct Jimmy why does Louisa Wall oppose a binding referendum?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Gulag1917 (982 comments) says:

    Jimmy,
    Some serious generalisations there. Don’t know where you get your facts from.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    Jimmy Smits

    Defending the prevailing view on marriage – is not homophobic.

    I hardly go out and say that ‘may garage supporters are tradition phobes’! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Gulag1917 (982 comments) says:

    Some people with their novel ideas throw tantrums if they do not get their own way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    I might be wrong, so please tell me if I am, but didn’t the Civil Union Act 2004 grant people equal rights to those who were married?
    So where is this ‘legal discrimination’ accusation based on?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    Chuck – I have no idea why Louisa Wall is against a binding referendum, I would be in favour of one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    OA #

    Quite right…..all that’s left is the ‘emotion’….love.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Gulag1917 (982 comments) says:

    Why is it that anyone who disagrees with the agenda of the gays is described as being homophobic?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,378) Says:
    July 28th, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    There is a good video that the homo facists tried to have banned here that explains the difference between skin colour and someone sexual preference. Its called Gay Rights/Special Rights.

    Yes, just what we need on tele, American right wing christian lunacy dressed up as a documentary. They cklaim that one cannot change one’s skin colour, but can change sexual orientation.

    the christian right always tries to paint gay rights as “special rights”, something only granted to gays, when that is patently untrue. They fought tooth and nail to prevent “sexual orientation” (being on) the list of characteristics that the Federal Employment Protection Act (FEPA) bars discrimination on.

    But they didn’t object to religion being listed, yet it is far easier to change one’s religion than one’s sexual orientation. No matter how hard I try, I could never be a homosexual, and yet I could, if I so chose, become a Christian tomorrow, a muslim next week and so on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Gulag1917 (982 comments) says:

    Not that simple

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    Gulag1917 (138) Says:
    July 28th, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    Why is it that anyone who disagrees with the agenda of the gays is described as being homophobic?

    Is is it that anyone who disagrees with the ‘agenda’ of the ‘black civil rights activists in America 50 years ago’ is described as being racist?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Jimmy, I would support a policy that would require all private members bills to have to pass a binding referendum by 50%. This would not only result in a more democratic system but better legislation in the end. Most countries do have some sort of check and balance like a second house the New Zealand abolished and/or state or provincial governments.

    I certainly would support referenda for Maryan Street’s bill on euthanasia. I have read it and determinately would not vote for it in its present forum. Unlike Peter Brown who proposed his bill with a binding referendum if it passed it third reading Street like most liberals do not beleive in democracy.

    Please note I am talking about a Voters Veto not CIR which in many cases is not practical.

    If such a system was introduced I may not like the results sometimes but I would have no trouble accepting them as part of democracy. Democracy means that you do not get your own way all the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. princetipytoe (47 comments) says:

    Willie Jackson later dismissed it as a “stupid analogy” and accused Garrett of having an “obsession” with homosexuals.
    Garrett denied he was homophobic and said the other panellists had not listened to his arguments.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10543271

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “I so chose, become a Christian tomorrow, a muslim next week and so on.”

    That does not surprise me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    Is is it that anyone who disagrees with the ‘agenda’ of the ‘civil rights activists in America 50 years ago’ is described as being racist?

    Duh Jimmy, this is NOT a human wights issue. I know you and several other mentals think it is, but it’s not, you know.

    The reason it’s not is because THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION JIMMY. FUCKING D’OH. IF YOU THINK THERE IS DISCRIMINATION, THEN WHERE THE FUCK IS IT? IF YOU SAY IT’S BECAUSE GAYS CAN’T ADOPT, THEN THAT’S A SEPARATE DEBATE, ISN’T IT. IT’S AN ADOPTION DEBATE, NOT A MARRIAGE DEBATE. APART FROM THAT, NONE OF YOU GRADE-A WHACK JOBS CAN POINT TO A SINGLE THING, CAN YOU. SO IT’S NOT A HUMAN WIGHTS ISSUE, IS IT.

    SORRY TO SHOUT, BUT THE POINT HAS BEEN MADE AD INFINITUM, AND NONE OF YOU FUCKING MENTALS EVER REPEAT EVER SEEM TO GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL, SO MAYBE SHOUTING MIGHT HELP IN THAT REGARD. LET’S FUCKING HOPE SO, JIMMY, BECAUSE IT’S ABOUT TIME YOU STOPPED LYING ABOUT WHAT THIS REALLY IS ABOUT, DON’T YOU THINK. OR DO YOU LIKE LYING? IS THAT IT? YOU’RE JUST A LIAR? WHICH ONE IS IT TO BE, JIMMY. ARE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE TO PRETEND YOU’RE AS THICK AS A WHALE OMELETTE, OR WILL YOU ADMIT YOU’RE JUST A DIRTY LITTLE LIAR.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    Reid (11,191) Says:
    July 28th, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    Is is it that anyone who disagrees with the ‘agenda’ of the ‘civil rights activists in America 50 years ago’ is described as being racist?

    Duh Jimmy, this is NOT a human wights issue. I know you and several other mentals think it is, but it’s not, you know.

    The reason it’s not is because THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION JIMMY. FUCKING D’OH. IF YOU THINK THERE IS DISCRIMINATION, THEN WHERE THE FUCK IS IT? IF YOU SAY IT’S BECAUSE GAYS CAN’T ADOPT, THEN THAT’S A SEPARATE DEBATE, ISN’T IT. IT’S AN ADOPTION DEBATE, NOT A MARRIAGE DEBATE. APART FROM THAT, NONE OF YOU GRADE-A WHACK JOBS CAN POINT TO A SINGLE THING, CAN YOU. SO IT’S NOT A HUMAN WIGHTS ISSUE, IS IT.

    SORRY TO SHOUT, BUT THE POINT HAS BEEN MADE AD INFINITUM, AND NONE OF YOU FUCKING MENTALS EVER REPEAT EVER SEEM TO GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL, SO MAYBE SHOUTING MIGHT HELP IN THAT REGARD. LET’S FUCKING HOPE SO, JIMMY.

    Ahh, the perfect representation of the love of Jesus Christ, please, anyone who is thinking about becoming a Christian and receiving God as their personal saviour and making a new life – just look to Reid as an example of what becoming a Christian entails. So much love, grace and forgiveness. So much peace. Your life will be changed forever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Reid, well said.

    Now, which village is is short an idiot and his megaphone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @Jimmy

    “Is is it that anyone who disagrees with the ‘agenda’ of the ‘black civil rights activists in America 50 years ago’ is described as being racist?”

    People comparing ‘gay rights’ with racism are not being honest.
    Compare the life of ‘blacks’ in the 50’s in the US with ‘gays’ in New Zealand today?
    There is no comparison.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    O-A, how about comparing like with like?

    Or is thinking not your strong suit?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    Ahh, the perfect representation of the love of Jesus Christ…

    Jimmy, FFS. Are you mental? Why do you dissemble? Why don’t you address the issue. You CLAIM this is a human wights issue, don’t you. Yes, you do. So go on Jimmy, pray explain precisely what human wight is at stake here. Go on, go for it.

    O-A, how about comparing like with like?

    Luke it was Jimmy who made the comparison, not O_A.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Reid, read it again it was o_a who wrote “Compare the life of ‘blacks’ in the 50′s in the US with ‘gays’ in New Zealand today?
    There is no comparison.”.

    Comprehension obviously not YOUR strong suit.

    Back to your village.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @Luke

    Sorry, I don’t waste time with the delusional, ranters and extremists.
    Don’t bother replying to my posts.
    Over and out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    Reid (11,192) Says:
    July 28th, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    Jimmy, FFS. Are you mental?

    Don’t know if you’re aware, but I think being ‘mental’ is perfectly evidenced here:

    THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION JIMMY. FUCKING D’OH. IF YOU THINK THERE IS DISCRIMINATION, THEN WHERE THE FUCK IS IT? IF YOU SAY IT’S BECAUSE GAYS CAN’T ADOPT, THEN THAT’S A SEPARATE DEBATE, ISN’T IT. IT’S AN ADOPTION DEBATE, NOT A MARRIAGE DEBATE. APART FROM THAT, NONE OF YOU GRADE-A WHACK JOBS CAN POINT TO A SINGLE THING, CAN YOU. SO IT’S NOT A HUMAN WIGHTS ISSUE, IS IT.

    SORRY TO SHOUT, BUT THE POINT HAS BEEN MADE AD INFINITUM, AND NONE OF YOU FUCKING MENTALS EVER REPEAT EVER SEEM TO GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL, SO MAYBE SHOUTING MIGHT HELP IN THAT REGARD. LET’S FUCKING HOPE SO, JIMMY, BECAUSE IT’S ABOUT TIME YOU STOPPED LYING ABOUT WHAT THIS REALLY IS ABOUT, DON’T YOU THINK. OR DO YOU LIKE LYING? IS THAT IT? YOU’RE JUST A LIAR? WHICH ONE IS IT TO BE, JIMMY. ARE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE TO PRETEND YOU’RE AS THICK AS A WHALE OMELETTE, OR WILL YOU ADMIT YOU’RE JUST A DIRTY LITTLE LIAR.

    Did you ever see Pete Hodgson when he was in Parliament? Very reminiscent of his debating style.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. dime (10,095 comments) says:

    Two things:

    1 this guy is an asshole
    2 I k ow of some girls that date women because of the abuse they have suffered at the hands of men.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    Anyone who is thinking about becoming a Christian and receiving God as their personal saviour and making a new life – just look to Reid as an example of what becoming a Christian entails.

    Indeed. Look at the fake Christians here, all lining up to throw the first stone.

    It’s nothing but a license to indulge one’s unexamined bigotry. One can see how attractive that is to those with the meanest sort of personality.
    None of these fake Christians lives a life any different from the staunchest atheist, ignoring as they do anything even slightly personally inconvenient in the Bible, whilst at the same time wallowing in the feelings of piety their creed’s judgementalism bestows.

    Ugly, ugly people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    Did you ever see Pete Hodgson when he was in Parliament? Very reminiscent of his debating style.

    Yes Jimmy, if I did that all the time, that would be a fair comment. However I don’t, and I explained why I just did it now. The fact you disingenuously chose not to include that bit of it in your quote, is typical of lefty debating tactics.

    So again Jimmy, why can’t you answer the simple question. You claim this is about human wights. Fine. So which ones? Why don’t you just tell us? It’s because you can’t, isn’t it. And that means you’re a nasty little liar, doesn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    Indeed. Look at the fake Christians here, all lining up to throw the first stone.

    wat raises a strawman. What a surprise. I’ve never raised Christianity as a reason for my objection to gay marriage, not once, ever, in all the debates on this blog over many months. So please don’t accuse me of having that reason, if you wouldn’t mind. I know your tiny mind is apt to leap to conclusions given I am a Christian, but you don’t know me and you don’t have the least idea how I think about Christianity either, so don’t make assumptions based on your massive ignorance. Cheers wat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. David Garrett (7,523 comments) says:

    Ah…Prince….the meds were in balance last night but now they have gone all out of whack…get down to the psych unit at Hawera hospital before you do something regrettable…

    On that TV programme – upon which I should never have appeared since I had been at a long lunch that day – I said that heterosexuality, homosexuality and paedophilia were sexual orientations; the difference being that whereas in 1960 the last two were both considered “disorders”, now only one is. I stand by that view, i.e that paedophilia is a sexual orientation – paedophiles are people who are sexually aroused by children, just as I am aroused by women, and gays are aroused by men.

    Chuck: Re your referendum question, the answer is it would be very easy. The big problem – as others have noted – is that the polis always think they are wiser than the hoi polloi…If conscience votes in the house needed to be affirmed by a binding referendum with – say – a 60% majority, we would never have abolished the death penalty, and very probably wouldn’t have made homosexuality legal. At least we wouldn’t have in 1986 or whenever it was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. princetipytoe (47 comments) says:

    In 1971 the peak year for adoptions, 3,976 babies were adopted out by young unmarried mothers.
    In 2009 in New Zealand there were about 181 domestic adoptions including adoption between relations.
    Very hard to adopt for straight couples let alone gays

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    wat dabney and casting stones? Does he ever read his own posts?

    far as I can see the most extreme language ,ad homs and general shittyness comes from the folk who are in the anti Craig team …….

    seem very angry about it ,for some reason or other…….hmmmm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    kowtow,

    Way to miss the point, mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. princetipytoe (47 comments) says:

    dg
    you have a gift of compressing the largest amount of words into the smallest amount of thought

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    Anybody (Ranters excluded) who can answer the question I posted at 2:50 pm?

    I might be wrong, so please tell me if I am, but didn’t the Civil Union Act 2004 grant people equal rights to those who were married?
    So where is this ‘legal discrimination’ accusation based on?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. chiz (1,164 comments) says:

    Fletch quoting from somewhere:

    Until 1986, homosexuality was universally defined as same-gender sexual conduct. By extension, a homosexual was defined as anyone who engages or desires to engage in such conduct. The “gay” movement itself embraced this definition, in which the term “homosexuality” had meaning only in relation to same-gender sexual behavior.

    Nope. The notion of sexual orientation began back in the 19th century. Speculation that it was biological began back then too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    In 1971 the peak year for adoptions, 3,976 babies were adopted out by young unmarried mothers.
    In 2009 in New Zealand there were about 181 domestic adoptions including adoption between relations.
    Very hard to adopt for straight couples let alone gays

    Yes this is because most babies are murdered aborted these days ptt. The adoption issue is only relevant in this context since it is the only repeat only issue that anyone can possibly point to as being something where gays could even faintly claim to be discriminated against and as I said, the way to deal with that is to have a separate debate about that, because the issues of gay couples raising children are quite separate to the issues as to whether gays should be allowed to claim the status of marriage, which they already have anyway, it’s just not called that, it’s called civil union.

    And the whole gay marriage argument collapses at that point. It vanishes in a puff of logic. Since the proponents cannot claim any discrimination, they are reduced to arguing, that they are making all this global fuss, this massive global uprising, for a simple name, a label, the word “marriage.” That, at the end of the day, is the ridiculous situation all the gay marriage proponents are logically forced into admitting. That’s why they won’t admit it and why they disingenuously continue to argue a complete and utter falsehood, that it’s about “human wights.” As I’ve said, what are they? They can’t and they won’t answer that.

    And that logic above is unassailable. You can’t argue with it. It is not opinion, it’s simple fact.

    And the curious thing is, that once you understand that logic, then you’re left with the question of: if this is what this whole global debate is really in fact about, a simple word, a single freakin word (which it is, no doubt about it, this IS what it is about), then you have to ask yourself if you’re a sentient being, WTF is going on then? Why all this fuss? Over a simple word. Fuck. And that’s when you realise, what it’s really all about.

    But no-one wants anyone to think it through like that, because then support would collapse. So people are encouraged, on a daily basis, to buy the meme: “it’s human wights, we’re discwiminated against, it’s tewwible, blah blah fucking blah…”

    Honestly, it’s truly pathetic, to see such an obvious campaign being executed in plain site into the heads of so many simple-minded fools and idiots. Young people you can understand, but older, mature people over thirty who’ve lived life? None of them should be sucked in but au contrare, look around and you see most of them are. The power of propaganda you see. It only works when you don’t see it, and most people have no idea what they’re being exposed to, 24/7/365.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. chiz (1,164 comments) says:

    Jimbob:I read an article somewhere, I think it was in a magazine I picked up in a waiting room, about thirty years ago that implied that recent research indicated that being gay was in your make up when you were born. The cause came from the mother, and had something to do with the testosterone levels when the foetus was developing in the womb.

    The evidence to date indicates that embryonic development differs for gay people. Hormones are one possibility but not the only one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Boglio (78 comments) says:

    As I said some days ago it is all a matter of semantics. The Gay community are hung up on the word MARRIAGE. If they want the same rights (and responsibilities) as marriage confers they can coin a new word that describes the union between two males or two females (or two words if one is not enough) and leave the word marriage coined by the church milleniums ago to describe the union between a male and female.

    If such a word could be agreed upon then a lot of unpleasant agro could be avoided. Much of the heat would go out of the debate and in this I agree with Harriet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. chiz (1,164 comments) says:

    David Garrett:I also recall “gay gene” claims…a lot more recently than 30 years ago.

    Dean Hamer claimed in the early 90’s that he had found evidence that there was a gene on the X chromosome that influenced sexual orientation but his work hasn’t held up.

    If I recall from high school biology, the reason I am a short white man and not a tall black man is down to minor genetic variations. Surely gays would be delighted to have a “gay gene” identified?

    Some gay people object to research on the cause of homosexuality because of concern that it might lead to harm. Firstly, it might lead to gay babies being aborted simply because they were gay. Secondly, it might allow some of the nastier countries to test people to see if they were gay and then punish them or kill them or whatever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    David, I still think it is worth the effort on a case by case basis. I think we could find at least one MP who would move such an amendment. It would be important to get one that is reasonably well respected and a very good speaker who could put a strong case for it. If that is successful try the same on Street’s bill if it gets drawn. After that look at the pros and cons of a general rule.

    I have yet to see to see any sort of reason why that this should not be decided by a binding referendum other than those who claim the polls are on their side are not that confident.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    DG

    You must have been well pissed to state that pedophilia was a sexual orientation the same as hetro and homosexuality.

    I might politely suggest that a quiet life on the outskirts of our biggest city is suiting you much better

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    If they want the same rights (and responsibilities) as marriage confers they can coin a new word that describes the union between two males or two females (or two words if one is not enough) and leave the word marriage coined by the church milleniums ago to describe the union between a male and female.

    If such a word could be agreed upon then a lot of unpleasant agro could be avoided. Much of the heat would go out of the debate and in this I agree with Harriet.

    Eight years ago they were given that – civil unions and as was predicted at the time this would not be enough and it would have to be marriage – and here we are.

    Truth is most “gays” don’t want either for themselves, it is all about sticking it to the straights. There is no compelling argument for any “gay” relationship to be recognized by the State, non whatsoever which is why any arguments against this novelty, “gay marriage” is met with outrage – its like toddlers having a paddy when they are told they can’t have a lollipop.

    Wise parents don’t succumb to tantrums of course, our leaders however are far from wise and this will happen.

    And after the “gays” get their bogus “marriage” it wont be enough and a new boundary will have to be broken

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Poor andrei, still struggling with his son coming out…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    Fact is though Luc, Andrei is quite right, that is exactly what will happen, and you know it. Of if you don’t know it, you’re incredibly naive.

    And notice, newsflash, that since human wights are not involved in any way shape or form, it is entirely impossible for any one of you proponents at any time, to accuse any one of those of us who are against it, of being bigoted, in any way.

    No doubt many if not most of you proponents will continue throwing your execrable lies, but recognise, they are lies for no bigotry is possible, is it, when no rights are at stake. That’s simply the way the world works. It’s not our logic, it’s the world’s logic. So either recognise it, or continue to behave like disgraceful excuses for human beings, for that’s what you all are, with your false accusations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Brian Smaller (4,024 comments) says:

    Luke Mutton

    Brian, why do you find gay sex “disturbing”?

    I personally do not think gay sex is disturbing. I never used the word “I” in that entire post you refer to. However, “I” think that while some people are homosexual by natural inclination, most who want to have sex with the same gender do so because they choose to. I have no problem with that either. I am also not opposed to gay marriage as such, but think it is a meaningless gesture that will make ZERO difference to anybody in the end. The ability to inherit, be next of kin and all those legal things are taken care of by the civil union legislation.

    My main point though is the way DPF resorts to the exact same tactics he rails against when the left use them. Demonising and casting anyone who holds a different view as, well, evil.

    [DPF: Brian you are being a fuckwit. As this thread shows, lots of people here hold a different view to me, and say so. I have never ever cast anyone who holds a different view as evil. I’m friends with many MPs who hold different views to me on this issue.

    When Colin Craig says daft things, I attack him for it. That is not an attack on everyone who disagrees with me. It is an attack on Colin Craig for being such an idiot]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Brian Smaller (4,024 comments) says:

    “I so chose, become a Christian tomorrow, a muslim next week and so on.”

    Errr? If you did that you would be an apostate and should immediately submit yourself to the nearest beheading centre.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. David Garrett (7,523 comments) says:

    PEB: You are not the sharpest tool are you former seargeant? (always have trouble with spelling that word)

    If you read my post, you will see that I stand by what I said, although on that particular evening I didn’t say it very well. Perhaps you would like to explain to those of us less erudite or wise than you why, to say that paedophilia is sexual orientation, (like homo or hetero sexuality) is wrong?

    I will spell it out…I – like DPF apparently – am exclusively heterosexual. I have never had sexual relations with men, and I am not aroused by pictures of men – no matter how well “ripped”- or of children. I am exclusively attracted to women. My childrens’ Godfather is attracted only to men – not women, and not children. I am heterosexual, he is homosexual. To save our lives, or that of a loved one, both of use could probably have sex with a partner who does not arouse us by imagining we were with someone else.

    The “kiddie fiddlers” you once arrested – those with thousands of images of naked children on their computers – are aroused by children. Some of them may be married; some of them may be gay, but they are obsessed by sexualised images of children. How is their…habit; practices; preferences (chose your adjective) NOT a “sexual orientation, just like homo and hetero sexuality?

    [DPF: Most paedophiles can not help the fact they are attracted to children. However they can choose not to act on that attraction, recognising children can not consent. Just as I can be deeply attracted to Drew Barrymore, but would never act on my attraction unless she consented. ie I choose not to be a rapist. Most (not all) people can not choose who they are attracted to, and whom they fall in love with. But they can choose whether or not they act on an attraction. When it involves two consenting adults, then no issue. If it involves children or animals or an unconsenting adult then it is an issue, and criminally wrong.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Are there many gays in less free society such as Muslim countries? I have an unsubstantiated theory. The freer a society is, the more likely that some of its citizens will grow up to be gay, which brings up the big question. If you live in a more freer environment, then your choice/s is pretty much anything that you want yourself to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Tauhei Notts (1,746 comments) says:

    Reid at 3.48 p.m.
    It is posts such as your’s that make this the best blog in our country.
    Thank you.
    I hope you have a lovely weekend. You deserve it.
    On a different tangent;
    This male marries male thing will drive a huge wedge amongst New Zealanders. To many people, such as myself, this matter is the final straw. Colin Craig’s party risks getting huge electoral support, so the trendy lefties will leave no stone unturned in their attempts to demonise the Conservative Party. This post by Mr Farrar is one of the first steps. Just watch the trendy leftist press follow up in this manner. The fudge packers of our country are deeply worried by the likes of Mr Craig.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    FF

    The freer a society is, the more likely that some of its citizens will grow up to be openly gay.

    Big difference.

    Homosexuals are murdered in Muslim countries, remember.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    Falafulu… I disagree. A more tolerant society does just that. Tolerates and sometimes even accepts. In a society were homosexualty can cost your freedom, or your life? I’m guessing you do your damnest to surpress your sexuality for safety. Not just for your sake, but for your loved ones, your family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi – I think it’s probably just that in less free societies homosexuals are much more likely to hide their sexuality for fear of consequences. In New Zealand this century they are more likely to be open – but it’s still not safe to be totally open.
    (As per wb and NW)

    Tauhei Notts – I don’t think anyone is very worried about Colin Craig. He makes for good press and blog discussions, but he has no more say in this Marriage Equality Bill than most of the rest of us here on KB.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. chiz (1,164 comments) says:

    FF:Are there many gays in less free society such as Muslim countries?

    Hard to tell empirically since many gays in such societies are in the closet for safety reasons, but …

    The freer a society is, the more likely that some of its citizens will grow up to be gay, which brings up the big question

    The probability that a right-handed man is gay increases with the number of older of brothers. Societies which have large average family sizes will tend to have more gay men than societies where the average family size tends to be smaller. Family size tends to be larger in deeply religious societies and tends to be smaller in liberal societies, so the chances are that homosexuality is probably more common in muslim societies than in western ones.

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

    I just can’t stop reading this post title as

    “Being Gay” – Colin Craig is a choice due to David Farrar

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

    It’s clearly visible in Churches these days too

    Jimmy, the miltant Christian-hating atheist citing his indepth, personal experience of what happens in churches right across NZ. Tui award.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    After Gay marriage Gay Sheep marriage. Laugh do you?

    Mark my words! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Brian Smaller (4,024 comments) says:

    After Gay marriage Gay Sheep marriage. Laugh do you?

    Mark my words! :)

    Shear and shear alike.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Will you have Baamaids instead of Bridesmaids Johnboy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. jakejakejake (138 comments) says:

    Homosexuality is mental disease just like schizophrenia and psychosis.

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

    Being Gay and having the right to marry someone of the same sex are not matters to be voted on because rights stand above any vote….they are not to be determined by a majority…the just “are”…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    Really Jake… I imagine gays believe ignorance is a mental disease too… Awaits for a cure,,,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    I’ve always found my self keen on checking out Barmaids unfortunately so has the wife! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    jjj@

    Legal expert Roger Severino wrote a telling piece about all this entitled “Or for poorer? How same-sex marriage threatens religious liberty”. In it he examined a number of past cases and potential future cases of how religious institutions suffer from the expansion of homosexual rights. He is worth quoting at length:

    “The legal definition of marriage does not exist in isolation; changing it alters many areas of the law. For example, the definition of marriage plays an important role in the law of adoption, education, employee benefits, health care, employment discrimination, government contracts and subsidies, taxation, tort law, and trusts and estates. In turn, these legal regimes directly govern the ongoing daily operations of religious organizations of all stripes, including parishes, schools, temples, hospitals, orphanages, retreat centers, soup kitchens, and universities. Moreover, current law provides no room for non-uniform definitions of marriage within a state, it is all or nothing….

    “Changes in marriage law impact religious institutions disproportionately because their role is so deeply intertwined with the public concept of marriage. . . . The specific consequences that will likely flow from legalizing same-sex marriage include both government compulsion of religious institutions to provide financial or other support for same-sex married couples and government withdrawal of public benefits from those institutions that oppose same-sex marriage. In other words, wherever religious institutions provide preferential treatment to husband-wife couples, state laws will likely require them to either extend identical benefits to same-sex married couples or withdraw the benefits altogether.”

    And the activists have made it clear that the churches will be radically impacted – if not destroyed altogether – as their social engineering agenda is fully realised. And we are now seeing that take place all around us. For another 50-plus recent examples of how this is occurring, I encourage you to read this piece: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/05/15/homosexual-marriage-everything-will-change/

    And if you are not yet convinced about the mega changes which are taking place when these types of legislative changes occur, simply study the tragic results as found in the American state of Massachusetts. Please study this very important paper: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    Thank you Tauhei, most appreciated. The annoying part is, isn’t it, that the kernels of truth simply get lost in the hurricane of lies. It happens more and more with no end in sight. Very sad. Since at some point the common sense is lost and then, it’s all over, rover.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    DG

    1. Use spell check for sergeant

    2. I am heterosexual but I hope I am not defined as a human by my sexuality i.e I contribute a bit more to society than the fact that my sex life involves sex with one particular female.

    3. The gay males and females I know are police, artists, truck drivers etc, their sexuality does not define them , they all contribute more to society as humans, who they have sex with is but a miniscule part of their lives .

    4. But I do know heterosexuals who are totally obsessed with nailing as many women as they can, homosexuals the same. This behaviour is not normal just as even fantasising about children is not normal.

    So as DPF put it rather well I strongly disagree that pedophilia is an orientation, you might as well say murdering people is an orientation because some people do it.

    And as regards cutlery, I am feeling particularly sharp tonight . And if I ever had any doubts about my sexuality they have just been dispelled by viewing the Polish team flag bearer, a little judoka, truly fantastic, I have been objectifying to the max.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Jeeze you unbelievers really piss me off! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Wahine said…
    I’m guessing you do your damnest to suppress your sexuality for safety.

    That’s true. But here is a fact, regardless if the society is more freer or not. When you have some sort of human traits or behavior that’s tolerated in a society (and protected by law for instance), then rate of spread of that/those trait/s is/are more prominent in freer society than less freer society.

    By the way, my uncle used to give a stick to 2 of my cousins back in the village when we were young if he noted that some of us kids spoke with high pitch voices (some sort of sign to growing up to be gay) or acting like a girl (fakaleiti). Well, what he was doing was abuse (its illegal to do that though) but that’s the way of life in the Island. It is the norm (giving a stick to misbehaved kids). I had the big stick too from my parents when I misbehaved, but I loved them to bits till the day they died. As I said it was and still is the norm. This is the reason why some Island parents are being arrested & prosecuted in this country for doing the same thing here as in the Island in disciplining their children , because most of them are not aware (and if they do, it is no big deal to them) that if you do that here, the law will step in and arrest you and we’ve seen many examples of this in this country over the years.

    But hey, look, I’m not gay, simply because I got the stick (its abuse in this society’s views) when I misbehaved as a youngster in the Island.

    I have a few cousins in South Auckland who are gay and I can tell you that my uncle was no way near them when they were young because their parents didn’t allow my uncle to do what he did to his kids and dad’s (my siblings) children, in giving them a stick if he ever heard someone speaking with high pitched voice or simply acting/walking like a girl. Every time I see those gay cousins of mine in family gatherings I told them, that if our uncle delivered them the stick they wouldn’t have been turned gay today. Anyway, they don’t believe that would have made any difference to them in their sexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    Every time I see those gay cousins of mine in family gatherings I told them, that if our uncle delivered them the stick they wouldn’t have been turned gay today.

    Wow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Maybe Uncle gave them the stick and turned the poor little buggers that way?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    Reid:
    The reason it’s not is because THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION JIMMY. FUCKING D’OH. IF YOU THINK THERE IS DISCRIMINATION, THEN WHERE THE FUCK IS IT?

    The state WILL give a straight couple a marriage license if they apply for one.
    The state WILL NOT give a gay couple a marriage license if they apply for one.

    If you need any further help with this issue, please don’t hesitate to ask. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    The rest of us, who tend to shag creatures of the opposite sex, await with baited breath RRM, the result of the current debate! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    RRM#

    “…..The state WILL issue a straight couple a marriage license.
    The state WILL NOT issue a gay couple a marriage license…….”

    And why do you THINK that is………….Marriage is between one man and one women……and has been the prevailing view for thousands of years.

    What don’t you get RRM?

    Tell me where exactly the discrimination is?

    Or are you saying that gays don’t know what Marriage is?

    What IS happening RRM is that gays WANT SOCIETY to RE-DEFINE Marriage. But they CAN’T come up with a PLAUSABLE REASON for society to do so!

    Go on RRM……………….give us at LEAST ONE PLAUSABLE REASON…….just ONE!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    The state WILL NOT give a brother and sister a marriage license if they apply for one.

    The state WILL NOT give a mother and son a marriage license if they apply for one.

    The state WILL NOT give a step father and step daughter a marriage license if they apply for one.

    etc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    Falafulu… Many had uncles such as yours and they did what they did because they believed it was the right thing to do. Not many would argue that. However these same cousins, may have married, had kids… doesn’t change their sexual preference. And I’m guessing sexual satisfaction was never mentioned by either husband or wife, such things were never discussed. To force someone to be what they are not is a waste of a life, in my opinion.

    i have gay friends and whanau, male and female. Some if my whanau I get on with, others are just bloody annoying. Pretty much the same as my straight whanau.

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

    RRM – You forgot a few. The state WILL NOT give a man a marriage license if he wishes to marry his:
    -Grandmother
    -Grandfather’s wife
    -Wife’s grandmother
    -Father’s sister
    -Mother’s sister
    -Mother
    -Stepmother
    -Wife’s mother
    -Daughter
    -Wife’s daughter
    -Sons’ wife
    -Sister
    -Son’s daughter
    -Daughter’s daughter
    -Son’s son’s wife
    -Daughter’s son’s wife
    -Wife’s son’s daughter
    -Wife’s daughter’s daughter
    -Brother’s daughter
    -Sister’s daughter.

    Such discrimination. It’s breathtaking!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    The state WILL give a straight couple a marriage license if they apply for one.
    The state WILL NOT give a gay couple a marriage license if they apply for one.

    Why is that discrimination?

    Why?

    Gays can get a civil union license. What’s wrong with that? Why is it necessary to give gays the same label? It’s only a label, isn’t it? If not, then what else is it, apart from a label? So why, precisely, aren’t gays happy with getting a civil union license? They said that would be fine, seven or so years ago. How come it’s changed since then. How come now, they require it to be called: “marriage.” The onus is on them to explain. Perhaps you’d like to do so on their behalf, RRM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    Andrei#

    Which brings us to what the state IS going to do -issue licences to GAYS ONLY – even though others ,like you suggest, love eachother.

    And the gays are the VERY SAME PEOPLE who call everyone else bigots and phobes.

    The so called ‘discriminated against gays’ support the discrimination of others……and why……to simply justify their own lifestyles.

    If Marriage is going to be re-defined to END DISCRIMINATION then we should be allowed to marry anything and anyone!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    Marriage is between one man and one women

    :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    Reid@

    “…..Gays can get a civil union license….’

    And it’s not as though they are second class citizens as PLENTY of hetros get civil unions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Thank God KK. Man and ewe seem to be OK ! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    Go on RRM……………….give us at LEAST ONE PLAUSABLE REASON…….just ONE!

    I know 3x gay couples who could provide every bit as good and nurturing a home life for a child, as my my wife and I can.

    I therefore see no valid reason why gay couples in general should not be granted marriage licenses as straight couples are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    RRM#

    That’s not discrimination.

    It is substance.It is what it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    Why is that discrimination?

    Why?

    Gays can get a civil union license. What’s wrong with that?

    Seriously?

    that’s like saying “why is it discrimination to make blacks sit at the back of the bus? It’s still the same bus. What’s wrong with that?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    “I know 3x gay couples who could provide every bit as good and nurturing a home life for a child, as my my wife and I can.”

    Course they would have had a slightly bigger hurdle than you and the missus getting in on the ground floor really! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    Tell me why, RRM, the relationship between Alison Mau and her girlfriend is a matter of interest for the State.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    “…..I know 3x gay couples who could provide every bit as good and nurturing a home life for a child, as my my wife and I can….’

    Sure……gays can nuture, love, care and support a child but unlike the gay parents – the child only gets half the parenting experiance.

    Child ‘modeling’ calls for a child to have a mother and father, preferably married – while no modelling calls for gay parents.

    Young girls need a mother during the years of pubety – not gay males.Or two straight males either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Only for State Television Andrei! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Time it was fucking sold really eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    RRM#

    “why is it discrimination to make blacks sit at the back of the bus? It’s still the same bus. What’s wrong with that?”

    Yeah – but the fact is RRM – gays and idiots – like yourself – are wanting to call the bus a fucken lear jet! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Most of the buses I’ve been on have a black at the front of the bus.

    He’s called “The Driver”. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    JB#

    Classic! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Louisa Wall’s wish to avoid a binding referendum seems obvious to me. If the referendum were unfavourable to her bill, and the result was binding, the ‘start again’ would be many years away probably. To this point civil unions have been the base for the advance towards gay marriage, a binding referendum against the proposed legislation could possibly see the ‘progress’ stall whereas a non-binding decision would probably keep things boiling along.

    Someone, far above in this thread, pointed out the changes in the attitudes of the young on this issue. That’s possibly the key here, the fact also that the issue can be so broadly discussed, a bill before Parliament also, shows to me the die is already cast. Something amusing for me, is the ‘fear’ that surrounds the idea that the country would somehow be ‘changed’ over night if the legislation was made law. I think there would literally be little noticeable effect towards more tolerance.

    Colville pointed out that the tactic of Colin Craig is likely deliberate. The hope of attracting away some of the conservative vote from the right and perhaps a number of the PI vote. I’m not so sure about the PI vote but who knows.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,326) Says:
    July 28th, 2012 at 7:07 pm

    Tell me why, RRM, the relationship between Alison Mau and her girlfriend is a matter of interest for the State.

    You tell me, Andrei.

    I’m confused about why the state feels entitled to refuse to acknowledge their relationship too..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Scott1 (575 comments) says:

    So I read DPF’s post and then fletch’s comment and Im thinking, fletch has a good point – it is a bit of a strategy and it isnt entirely true, it may even be true that negitive experiences during ones youth might tend to lead to certain outcomes more than others in areas including sexuality…

    and then he starts to loose me when he leaps to the conclusion that they therefore need help, And makes me wonder if he is the one who needs help when he starts talking about nazis and so forth…

    Craig similarly sounds reasonable enough and sometimes makes those interviewing him sound like the ones in the wrong.. but one does have to wonder if just beneath the surface is a set of beliefs that are just a bit creepy…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Quite right RRM! As long as we, the taxpayer, don’t have to pick up the tab for their offspring I see no reason why the State should be concerned! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    RRM there is no reason for the State to acknowledge their relationship anymore than there is for the State to acknowledge my relationship with my tennis partner, priest, podiatrist or cat.

    No reason at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Dunno andrei, all I do know is that anything that gets you religious nut jobs so wound up has got to be good.

    I see the Scots are allowing marriage for all and next step will be to chase the papists back to Rome. Bloody good thing,. too. We don’t need buggering priests in NZ either.

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

    @ Harriet
    I’m trying to decide whether your just stupid or an ignorant hillbilly…perhaps a combination of the two.

    It doesn’t really matter why gays are gay whether it is nature or nurture, the end result is that they are. The difference between being gay and being a pedo? Being gay is between consenting adults and is nobody’s business but their own, a pedo takes advantage of innocent young children that can not give informed consent – ie – abuse and rape of minors.

    The arguement you are using of if gays marry, why can’t I marry my mum/dad/pet goat is ridiculous as you are well aware. Personally, I think you can shag your dad all you want, you prob do in your redneck village – as long as you are consenting adults and don’t have children – I don’t need to explain potential genetic abnormalities do I?

    Why does it matter so much to you that any gay – male or female, uses the word marriage when they enter into a legal contract with their spouse?
    It doesn’t have any effect on a straight person’s marriage or right to marry, it doesn’t erode your rights in any way so why is it so important to you?

    At the end of the day you are nothing but a sad bigot

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Scots are hardly a good example to follow Luke. The buggers haven’t worn nickers under their kilts for two thousand years waiting for this very moment! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    We don’t need buggering priests in NZ either.

    Of course, most offending priests seem to be homosexual as regards the gender they molest.
    This is not strange, as research shows that (any) gay men prefer younger boys.

    As I have pointed out before, there is a link between homosexuality and the molestation of children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ #

    “….Someone, far above in this thread, pointed out the changes in the attitudes of the young on this issue. That’s possibly the key here,….”

    We bring up children to be the next generations adults……themselves parents to the next generation again…..we are already seeing the backward outcomes of moral and cultural ‘relevance’ against past ‘standards’ and ‘norms’…..just look at what England has become in just 40 yrs -only 2 generations- as to what it once was: civil!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. big bruv (14,132 comments) says:

    Another gay rights thread and another example of how small minded and bigoted most sky fairy followers are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @mmmm

    “Why does it matter so much to you that any gay – male or female, uses the word marriage when they enter into a legal contract with their spouse?”

    And your answer is?

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

    @ Fletch – Strongly believe if catholic church allowed priests to have normal adult sexual relationships that molesting would decrease as abstaining from sex no matter what your sexual orientation is not normal for years at a stretch.

    Not sure if the fact that the majority of priest molested kids are boys says anything about the priests sexuality and may have more to do with easier access to boys esp back in the day – alter boys/choir boys etc

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

    @ Fletch. Link or it didn’t happen.

    Just let Colin talk the rest takes care of it’s self.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Thank the straight guy you’re here to bring balance to the equation BB!

    Go the Ories!! :)

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

    @ OA
    It matters because it is a term that straight people can use that gays can’t – to me that is legal descrimination and for no good reason other than a bunch of bigots getting their panties in a twist such as yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. niggly (831 comments) says:

    Good points NNZ.

    Johnboy, you’re in fine form tonight …. now do you know where I can take me ewe to get married before the authorities find out and add it to KK’s list? Those bloody discriminators out there :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    Talking of the state picking up the tab,this is an example of the state of play in rights obsessed and tax payer funded every thing in Europe.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0728/1224320928699.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    There once was a priest named Bings.
    Who spoke of God and such things
    But his secret desire, was a lad in the choir.
    With an arse like jelly on springs! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    actually, bb, I think you’ve been influenced by peer pressure and what the media and liberals are spouting.
    I think that anyone who honestly sat down and thought about it would see that “marriage” between persons of the same gender is patently absurd – in fact, only a few years ago it was probably a skit on some comedy show that people actually laughed at.

    The argument seems to be all about “fairness”.
    Well, what about the paedophile? Is it “fair” to them that they have to rein in and not act on their desires?
    I put it to you that the homosexual indoctrination of children in schools, normalizing homosexuality and gay sexual conduct, is almost as harmful to children as a paedophile would be. To have them be taught that a homosexual lifestyle and sexual activity is equal to that of normal sexual intercourse is harmful – it promotes behaviour that is dangerous and dysfunctional. Don’t believe me? See what a leading gay says in the Canadian Gay newspaper Xtra, dated Tuesday, February 17, 2009.

    Over the past 10 years [Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada] have contracted with experts on gay, lesbian, bisexual health to produce studies [using public health care dollars] on the many health issues that are endemic to our community and ask for recommendations how to address those issues,… The report’s list of health issues affecting queer Canadians includes lower life expectancy than the average Canadian, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, inadequate access to care and HIV/AIDS… There are all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our community…We have higher rates of anal cancer in the gay male community, lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer …the reality is there is more GLBT people in this country who die of suicide each year than die from AIDS, there are more who die early deaths from substance abuse than die of HIV/AIDS….It seems that… now that we can get married everyone assumes that we don’t have any issues any more. A lot of the deaths that occur in our community are hidden, we don’t see them. Those of us who are working on the front lines see them and I’m tired of watching my community die”

    Still think it is harmless for children to be told this lifestyle is normal? It’s definitely not safe. Some more stats –

    Life expectancy of gay/bisexual men in Canada is 20 years less than the average; that is 55 years.
    GLB people commit suicide at rates from 2 to 13.9 times more often than average.
    GLB people have smoking rates 1.3 to 3 times higher than average.
    GLB people have rates of alcoholism 1.4 to 7 times higher than average.
    GLB people have rates of illicit drug use 1.6 to 19 times higher than average.
    GLB people show rates of depression 1.8 to 3 times higher than average.
    Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 76.1% of AIDS cases.
    Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 54% of new HIV infections each year.
    If one uses Statistics Canada figure of 1.7% of GLB becoming infected, that is 26 times higher than average.
    GLB people are at a higher risk for anal cancers.

    For the exact quotes, please see pages 3 and 4 of the HRC complaint.
    Click HERE for the whole original HRC complaint document.

    So, tell me again that same-sex conduct is harmless to society in general and children in particular.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    mmmmmmmm

    “….The arguement you are using of if gays marry, why can’t I marry my mum/dad/pet goat is ridiculous as you are well aware….’

    No it’s not.

    We know what Marriage is – so too does every gay.And it’s been that way as long as the world has had homesexuals.

    anyway….it’s now 2012…..Gays simply ‘want’ the label, and to get that, they are calling for it to be re-defined.

    well….if that’s the case…..then why don’t we instead just call it something else altogether then?

    That is what I’d prefer! And I’m NOT gay! I’m Married!

    Can you now see how immature the so called ‘liberals’ really are ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    No sweat niggly, Bring her to Johnboys hitching post.
    After I have given her a good checking out
    She will lose all interest in marrying you! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @mmmm

    Just arrived and being rude allready.

    1. The reason why gays can’t use this term is because it doesn’t fit the definition.
    2. It is not legal discrimination, its common sense.

    Don’t call everybody who doesn’t agree with everything you say a bigot, its incorrect and tiring left-wing rethoric.
    And…
    I am not the one getting my panties in a twist.

    The Civil Union Act 2004 grant people equal rights to those who were married. So why are you getting your panties in a twist?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. nasska (11,788 comments) says:

    Sing a song of anal sex,
    an asshole full of cum,
    4 times 20 penises going up your bum.
    When the orgies over your ass begins to sting.
    Wasn’t it a silly thing to take it up the ring!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    Oh Fletch, you just love that stuff.

    Ever heard that correlation is not causation?

    Let’s discriminate and constantly rally against them, make their lives hell and then say: “look, their stats are far worse than ours”
    Never occured to you that you may may contributing to this, did you?

    Cynical, dehumanising bullshit is what I call what you are doing.

    Willful ignorance meets religious dogma free of any rationality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Harriet 7.41

    I agree about the next generation. That’s why I’ve for many years thought it very important not to pass on my own bias. Whether or not my anxieties about various things could contribute benefits to the next generation don’t seem seem worth contending, but fairness, honesty, tolerance and standing your own ground are not bound on the other hand and are not, I’m sure you agree, controversial in any way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. niggly (831 comments) says:

    Lol jb, mind ewe ewe might be doing me a favour, just met the mother in law the other day, boy does she have hairy arm pits, all four of them, my future flashed before my eyes and it wasn’t pleasant …. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. big bruv (14,132 comments) says:

    “actually, bb, I think you’ve been influenced by peer pressure and what the media and liberals are spouting.
    I think that anyone who honestly sat down and thought about it would see that “marriage” between persons of the same gender is patently absurd – in fact, only a few years ago it was probably a skit on some comedy show that people actually laughed at.”

    Actually Fletch…I think you sound like a sky fairy bigot.

    I take very little notice of liberals and even less of the far left. However this issues is all about human rights and all about telling sky fairy followers to fuck off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Confucious say: Always check through hair in Mother-in-laws armpits for share certificates before marrying daughter niggly! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    Nostalgia#

    “……That’s why I’ve for many years thought it very important not to pass on my own bias…..tolerance…”

    Tolerance is not much better than ignorance, stupidity or dangerous.

    “In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.” ——- Dorothy L. Sayers

    Fairness and honesty are good virtues though.Cheers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    nasska shares his personal regrets at 8.02.

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

    @ OA
    Maybe newly arrived but have been lurking for awhile…
    Completely wrong on the left wing front though, that was actually fairly insulting..

    Yes, gays have civil unions but why not marriage? Why is it so threatening for you to have marriage redefined? The world is constantly evolving – why not marriage? Why is so important to you that gays can’t use the term marriage?

    @ Harriet – I’m married too.. I’m also 5 foot 3,…so what??

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

    @ Harriet
    “Fairness and honesty are good virtues though.Cheers”

    Yet you won’t be fair to gays…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    However this issues is all about human rights

    bb, that’s just it – IT’S NOT ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS AT ALL.
    In fact, a European court ruled earlier this year that same-sex marriage is not a human right.

    And if you think about it, how can it be?
    Based on what?

    Same-sex marriages are not a human right, European judges have ruled.

    Their decision shreds the claim by ministers that gay marriage is a universal human right and that same-sex couples have a right to marry because their mutual commitment is just as strong as that of husbands and wives.

    The ruling was made by judges of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg following a case involving a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who complained the French courts would not allow them to adopt a child as a couple.

    […]

    Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said: ‘For too long campaigners have been using the language of rights in an attempt to add moral force to what are nothing more than personal desires.

    ‘In many cases they have bypassed the democratic process and succeeded in imposing their views on the rest of the population by force of law.

    ‘We are seeing the same principle at work in the Government’s sham of a consultation on same-sex marriage.’

    He added: ‘The ruling from the ECHR will embolden those whose concerns about same-sex marriage and adoption are not inspired by personal hatred and animosity, but by a genuine concern for the well-being of children and the welfare of society.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117920/Gay-marriage-human-right-European-ruling-torpedoes-Coalition-stance.html#ixzz21u4Eypxr

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    How tall is your Wife mmmm?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Just trying to catch a bit of a visual picture you understand! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    mmmmmmmm

    C’mon ……if you lot think we NEED to re-define marriage………..then why arn’t you calling for it to be called something else altogether then….

    You and the rest of the so-called liberal gays are full of shit mmmmmmmmmm……

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

    @ johnboy – I am the wife, happy to report husband is far taller!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “Yet you won’t be fair to gays…”

    SADs are not fair to adolescent boys. If they can’t diddle with their diddles they diddle with their minds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Thank God for that mmmm.

    The visuals had me very worried! :)

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

    @ Harriet
    Just because I believe gays should have the same rights to use the term marriage doesn’t mean I’m gay myself..you get that right? And guess what…I also think they should be allowed to adopt! Shock-horror!

    No more full of shit then you are my dear

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

    Glad I could clear that one up for you johnboy :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    Fletch (3,133) Says:
    July 28th, 2012 at 8:18 pm

    However this issues is all about human rights

    bb, that’s just it – IT’S NOT ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS AT ALL.
    In fact, a European court ruled earlier this year that same-sex marriage is not a human right.

    lol, funny how you suddenly found your love and respect for the european court all of a sudden.

    How many courts did rule that inter-racial marriage was not a human right?
    You are hanging off one ruling.

    It is about human rights, no matter how much you jump up and down about it.
    More to the point, it is about human decency.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. niggly (831 comments) says:

    How on earth do you get your visuals past the Chief Censor, johnboy? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. big bruv (14,132 comments) says:

    Fletch

    Why the hell would I take notice of what happens in a European court?

    This is our country and as far as I can see the majority of people could not give a shit if poofs or kipper licker’s want to get married.

    Seriously, what business is it of yours what they do?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    What are you doing tomorrow night mmmm?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    mmmmmmmmmmm

    It’s common sense.

    For thousands of years the prevailing FACT is that Marriage is between a man and a woman.

    If it is now going to include a couple of boys or a couple of girls……then it SHOULD be called something else.

    May Garage sounds fair.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Dress them in sheep’s clothing niggly! :)

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

    Harriet, that is not common sense, just because it’s been around for thousands of years does not make it right, if we went off that logic then you and I shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

    Oooh Johnboy, what do you have in mind? Another stimulating debate on KB? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. orewa1 (410 comments) says:

    There is a vast, vast gap between tolerance of gays, and accepting them as equal partners in bringing up the next generation. I absolutely support gay rights, but absolutely oppose the notion that gays are “the same.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    @orewa1, the same as what?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Not at all mmmm. I only come here for the humour you all generate! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    @Harriet,

    For thousands of years the prevailing FACT is that Marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race.
    Therefore interracial marriage should be called something else.

    See how absurd such an argument.

    Marriage has changed throughout history, a inconvenient fact when trying to argue that marriage today is the same what it was centuries ago. It isn’t.

    Marriage is what society defines it to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    Here’s Big Bruv out on his beloved Canterbury plain –

    http://dailybilly.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/hillbillies-unite-its-story-time.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    “newly arrived but have been lurking for awhile…”

    Lurking eh…

    “Completely wrong on the left wing front though, that was actually fairly insulting..”

    Well, you started it. Don’t call people bigots just because they disagree with you.

    “Yes, gays have civil unions but why not marriage? Why is it so threatening for you to have marriage redefined? The world is constantly evolving – why not marriage?”

    Nothing threatening about it. Just think it is silly to change an existing term for something new. It also pisses me off that people aren’t honest about things. When the ‘gay movement’ wanted ‘civil union’ they told everybody it was about equal rights. I supported that (And always have). Now they (and some of the commenters here) say that ‘gay marriage’ is all about equal rights.

    “Why is so important to you that gays can’t use the term marriage?”

    I call a spade a spade.
    You give different things different names.
    This whole campaign smells of Alinskyism complete with Chomskyan linguistics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    “I’m just a backwoods Barbie in a push-up bra and heels.”

    Gee Harriet your my kinda Woman!!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Well you’ve cleared that one up Other_Andy. Your objection is that you don’t like the ‘double sell’ tactics that may or may not have existed at the time of the Civil Union legislation becoming law. Somehow the results are different by virtue of the wording enacted into the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    “For thousands of years the prevailing FACT is that Marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race.
    Therefore interracial marriage should be called something else. ”

    Say what?
    Can you find me a definition of the word marriage that includes the word race?

    Marriage (n) – the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
    While the number of man or women involved can differ (Polygamy-Polyandry or even polyamory). The common theme is that it ALWAYS involve men and a women. While, in the past and present, people object to marrying outside their race, ethnicity, culture and religion doesn’t change the fact that it ALWAYS involves an man and a woman (or men and women).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Harriet and I could get married then OA?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia-NZ

    “Well you’ve cleared that one up Other_Andy. Your objection is that you don’t like the ‘double sell’ tactics that may or may not have existed at the time of the Civil Union legislation becoming law.

    Thats one of the things I don’t like about this ‘debate’.

    “Somehow the results are different by virtue of the wording enacted into the law.”

    Not sure I understand what you are saying.
    Can you explain?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    I’d have to ask my sheep if it was OK of course! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @Johnboy

    “Harriet and I could get married then OA?”

    Does Harriet have a say in this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    I do love the deeply intellectual level that Kiwiblog always tends to sink to after a while! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    I’m sure she loves me OA. All women do! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    JB #

    “I’m just a backwoods Barbie in a push-up bra and heels.”

    http://images.ebaumsworld.com/thumbs/groups/2308/logo-1231969781.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @Johnboy

    “I’m sure she loves me OA. All women do!”

    Handsome well spoken AND modest.
    I can see why you’re irresistable to all sexes AND all species.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Told you so OA! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Just cause women don’t spread for you is no reason to get uppity OA! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. big bruv (14,132 comments) says:

    Harriet

    Are you a sheep molester (aka a Crusaders fan) ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. thedavincimode (6,869 comments) says:

    … are the stars out tonight

    I don’t know if it’s cloudy or bright

    But I only have eyes

    For …

    Ewe … eewwww

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    Harriet:

    Ok! You’ve ALMOST convinced me. I’m not sure if I’d support gay marriage or not now.

    I might have to flip a coin, or spin the wheel to decide…

    http://www.meatspin.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    That’s disgusting RRM.

    This is much nicer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Dazzaman (1,144 comments) says:

    Of course Craig is right, homo’s are degenerate by choice…more pompous shock & horror by the uber social liberal Farrar. I see the queen Chauvel is up to painting opposition to the fag marriage thingy as “nasty”…that from a bitchy homo!?!

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

    RRM – 

    I know 3x gay couples who could provide every bit as good and nurturing a home life for a child, as my my wife and I can.

    Well there’s a loving guy in Queensland who married his dog, so by your logic any man-dog couples would provide a good and nurturing home life for a child?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Ah but what position will Chris Finlayson adopt on this topic?

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

    Harriet 8:58 – You’re more likely to find bruv here, or at a similar gathering of ‘warriors’ where they complain about traditional values and then dress up in leather and chains and pretend to behead each other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    I dont like the idea that I’m only straight because I haven’t chosen otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Sofia (862 comments) says:

    New Zealand is a “beacon to the rest of the world” in the fight to allow same sex couples to marry, says the founder of the marriage equality movement in the United States.

    Speaking today at a panel discussion on the issue, Freedom to Marry president Evan Wolfson said he hoped New Zealand would become the 15th country in the world to allow marriage for same-sex couples.

    A ‘beacon to the rest of the world’ – and we might be FIFTEENTH?

    Huebner was the first openly gay ambassador to be sworn in by the Obama administration and serves as a general council to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation organisation.

    Wolfson, who is in the country on holiday with his husband Cheng He, said it was “wonderful to be here” for such a significant leap forward …

    “And those who oppose have to remember it take no rights away from anyone. The only direction it takes us in is forward,” he said.

    Wolfson told the group of about 50 equal rights proponents that New Zealand now held the attention of gay rights advocates throughout the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Well there’s a loving guy in Queensland who married his dog, so by your logic any man-dog couples would provide a good and nurturing home life for a child?

    I dont see how that logic works at all. Let me see if I can show you where you went wrong.

    By YOUR logic, a serial killer priest and an emotionally abusive meth-whore would provide a good nurturing home life for a child.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. pq (728 comments) says:

    you at one time farrar had a good column, but those days are past.
    Nat party queen,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. BlairM (2,364 comments) says:

    I’m more disgusted by Craig’s refusal to allow foreign investment in New Zealand than anything he says about gay people. But it is embarrassing to have him say ignorant things, when there is a very real debate needed on this issue.

    It is ridiculous to suggest people are born gay. Heterosexual sexuality is the biological norm across all species. It’s possible that genetic flaws may lead to predispositions, but sex by its very nature is a learned and developed preference as one grows up. Saying one is “born gay” is as ludicrous as saying one woman is born to “spit” and another is born to “swallow”. Children are by their nature asexual.

    Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you have sex with another man. Nobody is born to have sex. It is a choice that you make. Discrimination is one thing, but let’s not pretend that people don’t have any free will in what they do with their sexual organs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. mikenmild (11,662 comments) says:

    Colin Craig is very probably a closet homosexual himself. I’m guessing it is only a matter of time before he is outed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. big bruv (14,132 comments) says:

    mnm

    I have wondered about that myself. It is a bit like some of the more vociferous defenders of heterosexual marriage on this site, sometimes I think that a few of them do protest a little to aggressively.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. Redbaiter (9,503 comments) says:

    Lies and cowardly smears- aint that typical of two of Kiwiblog’s most disgusting left wing cowards?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    it does seem to be the case, the more obsessed someone is about such topics the more likely it is they are hiding some deviant secret of their own. Graham Capill being a prime example of that sort of thing.

    here’s some Daniel Tosh, to lighten the tone of this otherwise earnest discussion,

    http://tosh.comedycentral.com/video-clips/eat-da-poo-poo

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. big bruv (14,132 comments) says:

    Redbaiter

    As one who has constantly said he is not religious (as it happens I think you are not telling the truth) how do you reconcile that with your support for a man who thinks that we should all be forced to live by rules set down in a work of fiction?

    It does not exactly allow for any personal freedom does it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. Redbaiter (9,503 comments) says:

    I have said I am an agnostic you tiresome blustering moron.

    Here’s and idea-

    Why don’t you get an education and a brain before you come here attempting to discuss anything?

    Edit- and if you could get a spine implanted that would probably help as much as the other two additions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Big Bruv > Redbaiter

    As one who has constantly said he is not religious…

    RB > I have said I am an agnostic…

    A religious agnostic, eh?

    Thus proving BB’s >as it happens I think you are not telling the truth

    Unless you’re an Anglican. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. big bruv (14,132 comments) says:

    Classic Redbaiter.

    If he cannot answer the question (clearly he is unable) then he goes into Alinsky mode and abuses the person asking the question.

    The fact that you have said you are agnostic is irrelevant, you have also claimed “many victories” against the tide of communism sweeping the nation yet when asked to point out one victory you cannot do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. Redbaiter (9,503 comments) says:

    Sorry Bigot Bruv, I have no time to deal with brainless spineless liars.

    You just keep lying.

    Its all you’ve ever got.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    And that’s the end of Redbaiter as he disappears to don his cape and continue is quixotic campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. big bruv (14,132 comments) says:

    Clearly you have the time Redbaiter, you spend most of it pushing religious nut bar policies all over the internet.

    The real reason you will not answer is because deep down you just cannot bring yourself to admit that your ten year battle against the left (well anybody who does not support the bible, guns and Sarah Palin) has been a complete and utter waste of time.

    You cannot point to one victory at all can you.

    Tell you what, if you can point to one victory you have had then I will apologise to you and to all the other religious right moon bats, I will even stop pointing out the evils of the Catholic church.

    So…how about it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. Redbaiter (9,503 comments) says:

    Read the previous post moron.

    You and your constantly falsely premised “questions” aren’t worth shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. big bruv (14,132 comments) says:

    Not even worth pointing out where I might be wrong Redbaiter?

    Come on, just tell me one victory you have had in over ten years of fighting. After all, you are the one who has made the claim that you have had many victories, all I am asking you to do is name one of them.

    Look, I can understand why it might be hard to admit that you have been a failure, it is OK to admit that you might have stretched the truth a bit. I am sure that everybody here will accept that you are a passionate defender of the fucked up policies of the religious right and as a result of that passion you might have told the odd lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. Redbaiter (9,503 comments) says:

    “Not even worth pointing out where I might be wrong Redbaiter?”

    Now you’re getting it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. big bruv (14,132 comments) says:

    That’s really sad Redbaiter.

    After ten long years you still cannot point to a single victory despite claiming that you have had many.

    I fear it is going to be a tough year for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. big bruv (14,132 comments) says:

    If any of you were in doubt about CCCP then perhaps it might be worth pointing out that our old pal D4J has said over at Lucia’s hate filled blog that he intends to vote for them come the next election.

    http://nzconservative.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/colin-craig-is-being-set-upon-by.html

    That really tells you all you need to know about CCCP. The party for Redbaiter and D4J.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Firstly, it shouldn’t matter whether gay people chose their sexually or not. The government should not be worried about what consenting adults do to each other in their bedrooms.

    But… I don’t get Colin Craig. Any normal heterosexual knows that being straight isn’t something they have to consciously force themselves to do, which is what Craig seems to be doing.

    I remember at the later years of primary school and having an attraction to watch Aerobics Oz Style which ran before I left for school, and also enjoying looking at pictures of pretty women in the Women’s Weekly/Day. This unexplained attraction just happened, it wasn’t really consciously caused by anything – sure boys used to talk about sex and listen to rude songs on tapes, but my development of heterosexuality occurred without requiring intervention.

    It doesn’t take too much of a stretch to imagine that some people instead of being attracted to smooth skin, curves and feminine faces (faces not faeces) when puberty starts, they’re attracted to narrow-hipped, hairy-bodied, muscly stinking men. Most of these people who are attracted to masculine features are female, some are male.

    The weirdos are actually those who don’t have any natural development of a sexuality, so have to force it based on some boring rambling old book. Any straight guy knows he couldn’t chose to be gay (unless he was already a bit bi).

    But anyway we all know how NZ’s last fundamentalist Christian Party ended up. Capill hated gays too, that arsehole probably still blames the young girls for seducing him. I wonder how many of his supporters took him seriously and helped pray for a lighter sentence. Oh well, that’s religion for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    I’m more disgusted by Craig’s refusal to allow foreign investment in New Zealand than anything he says about gay people. But it is embarrassing to have him say ignorant things, when there is a very real debate needed on this issue.
    It is ridiculous to suggest people are born gay. Heterosexual sexuality is the biological norm across all species. It’s possible that genetic flaws may lead to predispositions, but sex by its very nature is a learned and developed preference as one grows up. Saying one is “born gay” is as ludicrous as saying one woman is born to “spit” and another is born to “swallow”. Children are by their nature asexual.

    Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you have sex with another man. Nobody is born to have sex. It is a choice that you make. Discrimination is one thing, but let’s not pretend that people don’t have any free will in what they do with their sexual organs.

    Excellent post Blair except for one thing. Craig cannot refuse to allow foreign investment in New Zealand. He should also realise that. Whatever his own view is he should keep it to himself. If he plays his cards right the Conservative Party could make it into Parliament focusing mainly on moral issues and the right of voters to exercise their conscience rather that trusting most of the MPs to have a conscience.

    If National perceives that a minor party may have bottom lines on major issues relating to the economy they will not want them as a coalition partner. I certainly cannot imagine Labour ever wanting them as a coalition partner.

    On the issue of predispositions I fully agree with you. A person may have a predisposition toward schizophrenia but never be a schizophrenic. However, if they are a heavy user of cannabis that may be the catalyst that makes them a schizophrenic.

    The same likely applies to homosexuality. If the predisposition is there sexual abuse can be the trigger that makes them a homosexual for life. That seem to be the case with James Peron, the libertarian that many liberations still think should be allowed in New Zealand.

    I am not saying or implying that adolescent who is abused by a homosexual will be come a homosexual. That depends on predisposition as well as other factors. Nor am I a saying that all homosexuals were sexually abuse by a homosexual in their youth. However, the libertarian bigots are claiming ALL homosexuals and ALL bisexuals are born that way. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. mikenmild (11,662 comments) says:

    I’m just wondering what sort of horrific childhood abuse would turn an innocent child into Colin Craig.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “I’m just wondering what sort of horrific childhood abuse would turn an innocent child into Colin Craig.”

    At least he is a man and does not hide behind a pseudonym.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. mikenmild (11,662 comments) says:

    Next you’ll be claiming Chuck Bird is not a pseudonym

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Are you serious?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. cha (4,078 comments) says:

    He’s real Mike.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. Lucia Maria (2,609 comments) says:

    The only person who has a hate blog is Big Bruv. Two posts this year about how evil and sick I am – he has an obsession.

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

    “What an astonishing statement. I’m not sure what is more ignorant or offensive.”

    Social liberalism being advocated in what was once a reliably conservative political party is ignorant and offensive.

    “The belief that people choose to be gay. When did Mr Craig choose to be heterosexual I wonder?” – DPF

    He didn’t, because “heterosexuality” is just the natural order, and homosexuality is a chosen behaviour based on compulsions resulting from a psycho-sexual disorder.

    “But even worse, his assertion that people choose to be gay because they were abused as a child. This is the sort of nut job statements I might expect in West Virginia, not New Zealand.”

    Yes. We don’t like politically incorrect truths in NZ.

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

    “I’m just wondering what sort of horrific childhood abuse would turn an innocent child into Colin Craig.” – MM

    Feminism? Liberalism? State education? Being told that having sex in toilets and chasing naked teens down the street (Labour MP) is a “lifestyle choice”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Good post Lee. Have you signed the petition yet? http://www.protectmarriage.org.nz/petition

    The dishonesty of many liberals never ceases to amaze me. On 3 News Saturday night Charles Chauval claimed that two thirds of New Zealanders support homosexual marriage. If he was genuine in his belief why do him and Wall oppose a binding referendum?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. alephnaught (18 comments) says:

    Yeahhh, I think the nature vs nurture thing is interesting here. Many (if not most) human traits are influenced by both and I can’t imagine sexuality is any different in that regard. I suspect both sides over-simplify the issue there for political reasons. I don’t really understand why other LGBT rights activists push that barrow so hard, because in my view, it doesn’t particularly matter – even if we imagine that being gay was purely a matter of choice, how would that change anything? If somebody has made the ‘choice’ to have a loving relationship with someone of the same gender, shouldn’t they still be entitled to the same rights and privileges as the rest of us?

    Personally I suspect it varies a lot from person to person – I never considered myself to be anything but straight until my late university years when certain experiences led me to reevaluate that, though my primary attraction to the opposite sex hasn’t changed. Having said that, I recently discovered that my father had doubts about his sexuality when he was younger, so I suspect there’s a genetic predisposition there as well.

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

    “This is the sort of nut job statements I might expect in West Virginia, not New Zealand.”

    Ahh, the bigotry of urban latte liberals :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    What a load of ill-informed garbage. One has to wonder where Mr Craig gets his information from.

    It is my experience that whilst many males that are molested as children have problems later in life with anger, – in fact many of them had a problem even ‘hugging’ another male and many had an ingrained distrust of some men, forcing them to have females as confidants (if their abuser was male which in a vast majority of cases it is).

    Clearly he didn’t think that one through. I suspect he is drawing on the information that some people that are sexually abused as children become child abusers as well – resorting to taught coping mechanism through their own childhood abuse.

    However, someone needs to tell Mr Craig that sexual molestation of a child (an immature body) is pedophilia and not homosexuality. It is the immature (child) that turns them on – not the particular adult mature body.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. ShawnLH (5,661 comments) says:

    “What an astonishing statement. I’m not sure what is more ignorant or offensive.”

    Your Cultural Marxism is showing.

    There is a wealth of evidence that “homosexuality” is indeed caused by factors in a child’s early life. Not necessarily child abuse, but in the case of men, often a lack of a strong father or father figure.

    And people do not need to choose to be “heterosexual” because heterosexual is natural, while homosexuality is not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. ShawnLH (5,661 comments) says:

    Get used to Colin. He will be in coalition with National after the election. Hopefully he will be able to help the Nats find their conservative soul again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote