Adopt a gay lifestyle today!!

August 24th, 2012 at 2:16 pm by David Farrar

Aaargh – I wanted to leave this topic alone until next week, but Colin Craig opens his mouth again. He has responded to an article by Josh Drummond in the Waikato Times:

So to help Mr Dummond out and set the record straight here are some facts.

First Fact: I do hold the view, based on research, that adopting a gay lifestyle is a choice.

Is adopting a gay lifestyle like adopting a pet? Or is it more like adopting a favourite sports team?

And can someone tell me Craig that him holding a view is not a fact!

I have absolutely no problem with people who do not agree with . I disagree with them, but respect the fact they place greater emphasis on tradition than others do.

But what I do not respect is someone who says such ignorant stupid and false stuff, such as people choose to be gay.  It reflects a detachment from reality, and is like arguing that the earth is flat.

I have said that to believe that all gays were born that way is narrowminded and ignores the facts and research.

This is a fallacious argument, and a red herring. It is not a binary choice between “born that way” and “choice”. I have constantly said that most gay people have no choice about whom they are attracted to, and fall in love with. Research shows it appears to be a combination of genetics and environmental factors at a very very early age.

One factor is how many older brothers you have. It seems the mother’s body tries to feminise a male foetus, if the previous children were all male.

Let’s finish with a quote from Cynthia Nixon (Sex in the City). ‘‘I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ’I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice’’. 

Yes, for bisexual people, it is a choice as to whether or not they partner up with men or women. But there is a difference between being gay and bisexual.

As I said earlier, one can have a legitimate view against same sex marriage on the grounds of tradition etc etc. I disagree with that view, but understand it.

But arguing being gay is a lifestyle choice is ignorant bigotry, and I detest it. I can understand people having that view 30 years ago – but not today. It is simply degrading to gays and lesbians who have never ever had the slightest degree of choice about their sexual orientation, to have insist it it.

Argue against same sex marriage on the basis of marriage is a religious ceremony, or marriage should remain in its traditional form – fine. I’ll argue back, but as they say still respect you in the morning. But if you argue against same sex marriage on the basis that all gays and lesbians can merely “choose” to stop being gay or lesbian – then you are deluded.

Tags: ,

183 Responses to “Adopt a gay lifestyle today!!”

  1. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    DPF,

    Go on, turn the comments off. I dare you

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. thedavincimode (6,877 comments) says:

    Seconded. Better still, turn the subject off!

    Anyway, do we need any more evidence that Colin Craig is a fuckwit?

    Almost ironic that this “evidence” he refers to was likely pulled out of his arse, which begs the question: how did it get in there in the first place?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    tdvm,

    Perhaps he adopted the position?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. The Baron (17 comments) says:

    Surely this is all about positioning…

    CC knows that there is at least 5% of the voting pop that is very insanely outraged by this idea, and genuinely believes that gayness is something you wake up one morning and decide to try. Cue Andrei and the other fundies, for example.

    95% of us know better, but CC doesn’t need us to get in…

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

    LMFAO at DPF’s lame attempt to insert science into it. “It seems the mother’s body tries to feminise a male foetus, if the previous children were all male”.

    Also note how instead of engaging with Colin Craig’s arguments, DPF just shouts him down. “Ignorant, Bigot, etc”.

    And, oh yeah, bisexuals are just born bisexuals. FFS. How is someone who is normally quite analytical so fucking useless in analysing this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. thedavincimode (6,877 comments) says:

    bhudson

    I imagine you aren’t suggesting it happened when he was praying given that he’s not a muslim. Even then, if it were to have been accidental, it would have required a real life Les Patterson character to lurch into the mosque and accidentally “deliver” this important research up the oriface in question

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

    For the record. I think Craig is a bit of a weirdo. But it doesn’t mean he should just be so blindly ignored. Useless he’s actually got some valid points. In that case you’d better ignore/mock him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. lyndon (325 comments) says:

    He got a reply to Steve Braunias too. It’s not published on the same page – that would show up how supremely ridiculous the idea of a rebuttal to this http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/opinion/steve-braunias/7455694/The-Secret-Diary-of-Colin-Craig is.

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

    LMFAO at DPF’s lame attempt to insert science into it. “It seems the mother’s body tries to feminise a male foetus, if the previous children were all male”.

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

    While there are debatable aspects of this particular claim (studies for and against) it’s part of a wider field of science on the Biological Basis Of Homosexuality which has definite trends.

    Discriminating against homosexuals for what they cannot change makes as much sense as discriminating on the basis of race or sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. davidp (3,588 comments) says:

    >But arguing being gay is a lifestyle choice is ignorant bigotry, and I detest it.

    What difference would it make if it was a lifestyle choice? It doesn’t hurt anyone and therefore it is no one else’s business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. berend (1,716 comments) says:

    DPF: It seems the mother’s body tries to feminise a male foetus, if the previous children were all male.

    Another female organ detected. I suppose just as known to medical science as the anti-rape organ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    And, oh yeah, bisexuals are just born bisexuals. FFS. How is someone who is normally quite analytical so fucking useless in analysing this issue.

    ***Waits for an analysis showing that you CANNOT be “born bisexual” *** :neutral:

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

    @ Matt Holloway

    A Wikipedia entry is not evidence. And, if you read it, it seems the evidence is inconclusive.

    But my comment was more around DPF’s unwillingness to genuinely debate this issue but then lobs in a random ‘scientific’ soundbite as some sort of evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    What difference would it make if it was a lifestyle choice? It doesn’t hurt anyone and therefore it is no one else’s business.

    Indeed. However there are some that believe that the only reason that it has been claimed to not be a choice is that the US Supreme Court had ruled some time ago that it would be permissible to discriminate against gays if it was a lifestyle choice.

    Some of them comment here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Colin Craig – facepalm.

    On the other hand, DPF, does seem to have mischaracterised Craig’s statement – summing it up as “people choose to be gay” but in reality, it’s not the same thing at all.

    Now, I simply have no idea as to whether homosexuality is a nature or nurture matter. I suppose it’s likely to be a bit of both in most cases – however as nobody chooses the circumstances of their formative years I would say it is completely irrelevant. Clearly, the condition of being attracted to members of the opposite sex is not a choice.

    And yet, what Craig actually said was “adopting a gay lifestyle is a choice.” To me, that sounds like the position of most of the world’s major religions – which is basically like saying, “it’s not a sin to be left-handed though it is one to write with your left hand,” which does not imply that people choose to be left handed, of course.

    Craig might personally believe that people who are gay are called to be chaste (as does, for example, the Dalai Lama). People might think that’s unrealistic and argue that it’s certainly not a matter for public policy – and they may be right about that, of course.

    Suggestion to DPF – we all know how passionate you have become lately about homosexual matters, but you seem to have developed a bit of a blind spot about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. KiwiGreg (3,260 comments) says:

    I’m pretty sure (based on no research at all) that people are born on a set of axis between very straight and very gay and between highly sexual and asexual. Asexual people might be any sexual orientation but you’ll never know. Strongly straight and strongly gay people “are what they are” however high or low their sex drive. Folk on the border (and there aren’t many, most people are heterosexual) could go either way depending on who they meet, or both ways, the higher the sex drive I suspect the more likely to go both ways.

    But the “more likely to be gay if you are the youngest of a lot of boys” is based on some actual science, I read the study.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero (992) Says:

    But my comment was more around DPF’s unwillingness to genuinely debate this issue but then lobs in a random ‘scientific’ soundbite as some sort of evidence.

    LOL, that’s quite funny coming from you.

    Look in the mirror, tell me what you see… :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. cha (4,084 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero could start with the work of Andrea Camperio Ciani.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Craig seems to have an evolving view on how much of a choice being gay is, with possibilities of much more complexity with the potential for differences. Colin Craig’s evolving ‘choice’?

    For example some people can obviously swing both ways (bi-sexual) and some live life as a hetero and switch to homo.

    But others including myself and I suspect most people are strongly hetero – I’ve never had any homo inclination. So presumably some who are homosexual are strongly that way.

    So Craig could be partly right – but does it really matter how much is pre-disposition and how much is acquired through life experiences?

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

    Of course this fellow never described himself as “gay” just sexually attracted to men

    I am sexually attracted to men yet my marriage is wonderful': Gay Mormon with a wife and three children outs himself on his blog

    Colin Craig has got a valid point – libbies heads spin

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. ISeeRed (236 comments) says:

    I think the comparison with left-handedness is a good one, as it can also be considered a behaviour, rather than some unchangeable physical or genetic trait like eye colour or race. Sure, some people can switch from left to right and back again effortlessly but they’re ambidextrous, not left-handed. Sure, at least some left handers could overcome their left-handedness – with a great deal of effort – but why should they just to please others?

    Left-handedness used to be seen as ungodly and sinful but today if any right hander said left handers were deviants and chose to be that way, flaunting their left-handed lifestyle every time they used a pen or opened a door (in front of CHILDREN, no less!), they would be mercilessly mocked and “rightly” so. The problem is we still have taboos about sex and sexuality, and the giggle factor and icky factor still rule. We need to be more adult about homosexuality and not think like children. (“Mummy, Daddy did WHAT to make a baby inside you? GROSS!”)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    Why difference would it make if it were alifestyle choice?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    After all, according to CC’s interpretation, heterosexuality would equally be a lifestyle choice

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Colin Craig has got a valid point – libbies heads spin

    Really, Andrei? Quite clearly, Josh cannot choose who he is sexually attracted to, namely men.

    He chooses to sleep with a woman, despite not being sexually attracted to her. Fine, if he is happy with that.
    But imagine that sleeping with a woman for him is probably like for you having sex with a man.

    Not sure why you would want to impose that on anyone.

    More an argument against Craig views if anything.

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

    Really, Andrei? Quite clearly, Josh cannot choose who he is sexually attracted to.

    Maybe not but he can choose what to do with it and what is really important in his life and what isn’t.

    There are good choices and bad choices and consequences for the choices we make

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    So you can’t choose who you fall in love with, but if you find yourself in love with someone of the same sex, you should choose to not act on that love?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. martybc (5 comments) says:

    I’m not sure this (gay people can chose) is actually an argument against gay marriage.

    If Gay people could chose to be gay (which I think is widely debunked), that wouldn’t change my views. They could chose to be gay, and then chose to be married. That’s the freedom of choice I expect for New Zealanders.

    That’s fine by me.

    Also, I should note that God recently sent me a message (via email). He said he wanted to update some concepts in the bible, because he made some errors in the first version. At first I was surprised, but then i remembered that god made man in his likeness, and man is fallible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    There are good choices and bad choices and consequences for the choices we make

    So what gives you the right to decide that someone choosing to live a heterosexual life is a good choice, whereas someone choosing to live a homosexual life is a bad choice?

    [Which is not to say CC’s view on what us and what is not a lifestyle choices is correct.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    He chooses to sleep with a woman, despite not being sexually attracted to her. Fine, if he is happy with that.
    But imagine that sleeping with a woman for him is probably like for you having sex with a man.

    Not sure why you would want to impose that on anyone.

    Impose it? I have trouble seeing how it’s even possible.

    EDIT: Oh, Viagra, I suppose…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. iMP (2,422 comments) says:

    There is no scientific evidence to support that homosexuality is biological.

    Charles Darwin, “…we do not even in the least know the final cause of sexuality.  The whole subject is hidden in darkness.”

    American Journal of Psychology (after examining all the evidence)…”We have examined many causes for homosexuality…both biological and social.  And although an interesting topic of debate, no one theory or experiment leads to a definitive answer.”

    DPF, to call CC stupid for arguing choice, is against objectivity and the science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Isn’t that the fundamental disconnect, though? I don’t think anyone seriously believes that anyone chooses to be gay – as in, attracted to people of the same-sex. Regardless of what you think of the morality of homosexuality, it’s a much harder life being part of such a small minority and it doesn’t make you a bigot to realise that.

    But the word ‘lifestyle’ does accurately involve choice. Traditionalists argue that gay people have the choice of chastity through self-discipline. A hard choice, yes, but there are plenty of people who cope well with chastity that is thurst upon them (ugly people, for example). If you are a Muslim or a Buddhist (for instance) then you probably see that as the virtuous response.

    You can argue back and forth as to whether self-discipline is ultimately harmful (and you would probably feel strongly about it if you see no harm in the activities being self-denied) but it is a different argument than the argument about whether some people are born or raised with a pre-disposition towards homosexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. bringbackdemocracy (428 comments) says:

    “I was born that way” is the same argument paedophile’s use. Maybe we should change the meaning of the word marriage for them to.
    Good on Colin Craig for standing up to the neo-liberal elite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Ive read the full article and I think he (Colin Craig) has given a good well considered response. . Im starting to get to like this guy.

    Hes making a hellve lot more sense than John Key saying that he thinks theres euthanasia running amock around the country – when what he really means is that there is lots of with-holding of treatment going on.

    With-holding treatment is not euthanasia

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. iMP (2,422 comments) says:

    If homosexuality is biological, then why:

    – has it ‘grown’ exponentially since 1960s?
    – why is it clustered in populated urban centers mostly in the West
    – why is it not evenly spread across all human populations and nations?
    – why are there radically larger populations of gay people in some free cities more than others?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    “I was born that way” is the same argument paedophile’s use. Maybe we should change the meaning of the word marriage for them to.
    Good on Colin Craig for standing up to the neo-liberal elite.

    The difference is that the paedophile’s inherent proclivity is towards a person who cannot consent.

    The difference is that the paedophile’s inherent proclivity is towards a person who cannot consent.

    The difference is that the paedophile’s inherent proclivity is towards a person who cannot consent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    iMP –

    Surely there are so many variables when it comes to ‘measure’ the population of homosexuals. Some nations, regions and cities might be more tolerant than others. The degree of tolerance must have an impact on how location a city must seem or not – especially given the very small numbers, of course. Other places go beyond tolerance and are very pro-gay (I can think of Wellington, for example) and there homosexuality may even seem to be more prevalent than it actually is.

    But does it really matter?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. BlairM (2,365 comments) says:

    But what I do not respect is someone who says such ignorant stupid and false stuff, such as people choose to be gay.

    Well that is just fucking stupid, and logically false.

    Nobody is born gay. People are not born sexual. Sexuality develops as we mature and reach puberty.

    To “be gay” is no more an inbred thing than liking tennis.

    Nobody holds a gun to our heads and makes us have sex with people. It is a choice we make for ourselves. It is a preference. It is not a biological thing. In fact, it is illogical to consider homosexuality to be biological. Our species reproduces through hetrosexual sex. Homosexual sex is a biological abnormality.

    None of this should mean that gay folk should be discriminated against for their choices. Nor is it to say that gay men and women could easily choose to be straight. Preferences are deeply ingrained and difficult to counter. This is true of any preference we have as sentient beings, sexual or otherwise. But it is absolutely fucking stupid to say that homosexuality is not a choice at some level. It is behaviour, and by nature, a choice. And all choices can be changed and overcome, whether that is easy or difficult.

    It fascinates me that the gay rights lobby has chosen this path of “no choice’ as opposed to choice. It leaves them very philosophically vulnerable. If they were really advocating for human rights as opposed to propagating an alternative philosophy, they would simply argue that the choice to be gay and have same sex relations is a human right and that nobody has the right to tell others how they choose to live their lives. Instead they portray homosexuals as victims of biology. They are clearly not victims of biology.

    My view is: Live how you like, but don’t tell me that you have no choice in the matter. That is bullshit, and so is DPF’s naive view on the subject.

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

    iMP:If homosexuality is biological, then why:

    – has it ‘grown’ exponentially since 1960s?

    What evidence do you have that it has grown “exponentially” since the 1960s? People are more open today about it but that doesn’t mean there is more of it.

    - why is it clustered in populated urban centers mostly in the West

    What evidence do you have that it is clustered in urban centers?

    - why is it not evenly spread across all human populations and nations?

    Why would we expect it to be spread evenly across the world? We know that homosexuality should be more common in larger families – the older brother effect – therefore we might expect it to be more common in societies that have large families. Given that there are genetic factors involved its also possible that the genes have different frequencies in different ethnic groups. We know, for example, that twinning rates sometimes vary with ethnicity?

    - why are there radically larger populations of gay people in some free cities more than others?

    Because people move.

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

    When it comes down to it, in terms of this debate does it really matter why homosexuals are homosexuals?

    If you are born with an IQ of seventy you are not likely to get married

    If you are born with an ugly misshapen head you are not likely to get married

    etc

    So even if you are born incapable of establishing a sexual union with a member of the opposite sex why should you be able to get married?

    Why should we change the meaning and fundamental purpose of marriage, which is the procreation and raising of the next generation to accommodate those who cannot by their very nature do this.

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

    iMP –

    If homosexuality is biological, then why:

    – has it ‘grown’ exponentially since 1960s?

    Has it? or has cultural acceptance increased. The science seems to indicate that homosexuality is pretty consistant percentage of the populatation.

    – why is it clustered in populated urban centers mostly in the West

    It’s more culturally acceptable in secular western democracies. One is unlikely to identify as gay when it could cost you your head.

    – why is it not evenly spread across all human populations and nations?

    It probably is, cultural acceptance isn’t. (Although I would suspect the Chinese single child policy might ultimately led to lower incidence in their population)

    – why are there radically larger populations of gay people in some free cities more than others?

    Are all “Free” cities statistically identical in every criteria? If they’re not, then your question is meaningless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    Who gives a shit if it’s a choice or not?

    It’s completely meaningless to the debate of whether gay marriage should be allowed. After all, a heterosexual can choose to not marry or choose to marry. Thus, so should a homosexual have the same choices available to them.

    For the state to deny them their choice based purely on their sexual orientation is wrong, regardless of whether that orieintation is a choice or not.

    The talk about choice is just a deliberate ploy to argue _something_ (regardless of how ridiculous it may be) as there is no valid argument for the state denying person A something that person B can have purely on the basis of their sexual orientation.

    The only reason that this idiot is getting air time is because he’s an idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Scott (1,821 comments) says:

    Thanks for your daily comment on homosexuality and gay marriage and how wonderful it all is. I almost thought you might get through a day without commenting on gay marriage. I mean you were very busy giving the New Zealand Herald the benefits of your wisdom and expertise on all things alcohol. But thank God you have been able to find time to comment again on this matter of gay marriage.

    Unfortunately your thesis about people being born gay is not able to be refuted. Some time ago I gave the example of the American actress Anne Heche who was heterosexual. Then fell in love with the American comedian and talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres. This was presumably her finding her true queer self. However that relationship broke up and she married a cameraman if I recall correctly. And he was a man. Now that relationship has broken up. I’m not sure who she is going out with at the moment and what gender.

    Now the example of Anne Heche was to refute the always gay, born gay, can’t help it, cry of the gay activists. But you said she was obviously bisexual.

    Now this is what I mean when I say your position is not open to be refuted. If she was always attracted to women then she is obviously gay and born gay. If she was attracted to men and then became attracted to women she was obviously finding her true queer self. However if she then goes back to a man she is obviously bisexual.

    So your position is not open to be refuted. She is gay and born gay. That is her true self. Which she does not have a choice over. Unless she goes back to a man in which case she is bisexual. Then she does have a choice. So no amount of examples of people going back and forth between heterosexual and homosexual relationships will change your view.

    Apparently there are a number of Hollywood woman who had had the same type of experience as Anne Heche. There is actually a name for them apparently – lesbians who go back to being heterosexual – “hasbiens”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    chiz-

    I basically think that’s correct with the important addition of the fact that gay people actually comprise such a tiny minority of the population. The reality is that with a population so small and dispersed, there are very few reliable statistics on anything to do with homosexuals in the community – which, of course, cuts both ways in terms of any debate on the subject.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    So your position is not open to be refuted. She is gay and born gay. That is her true self. Which she does not have a choice over. Unless she goes back to a man in which case she is bisexual. Then she does have a choice.

    Scott, if someone is bisexual, they do not have a choice in that.

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

    Andrei.

    So your argument is because ugly and or stupid people might not find partners, people who have found partners shouldn’t be able to form a family unit?

    By that argument you shouldn’t be able to get married simply because your name is Andrei.

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

    Scott:Now this is what I mean when I say your position is not open to be refuted. If she was always attracted to women then she is obviously gay and born gay. If she was attracted to men and then became attracted to women she was obviously finding her true queer self. However if she then goes back to a man she is obviously bisexual.

    If she was attracted to woman and not attracted to men then she was gay. If, however, she was attracted to women and also attracted to men then she was bisexual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    “So your argument is because ugly and or stupid people might not find partners, people who have found partners shouldn’t be able to form a family unit?”

    Bad faith. That’s not his argument. His argument is that the mere existence of factors beyond your control preventing you from forming a union with a member of the opposite sex doesn’t justify removing the requirement that such a relationship is an essential element of marriage.”

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

    alloytoo

    So your argument is because ugly and or stupid people might not find partners, people who have found partners shouldn’t be able to form a family unit?

    Same sex partners cannot form a family unit because they cannot conceive children without bringing in one or more people of the opposite gender to accomplish that and if they do that if is a fundamentally self centered act because it denies the child so conceived of one or more of its biological parents and knowing its real identity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    Same sex partners cannot form a family unit because they cannot conceive children without bringing in one or more people of the opposite gender to accomplish that

    Therefore, adopted children aren’t part of family units.

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

    @ Andrei

    Exactly!

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

    @ Ryan Sproull

    No you arse, you’re just trying to be contrary (or you’re thick). How many adopted children come from stable families where mum and dad are together? I’d wager none.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    No you arse, you’re just trying to be contrary (or you’re thick). How many adopted children come from stable families where mum and dad are together? I’d wager none.

    I should have been a bit clearer.

    Infertile couples who adopt are therefore not family units – “because they cannot conceive children without bringing in one or more people of the opposite gender to accomplish that.”

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

    Therefore, adopted children aren’t part of family units.

    We live in an imperfect world Ryan Sproull and in some cases there are children who do not have a family for a number of sad reasons.

    To address this and to make things as good as we possibly can for them we allow (in a more sensible age anyway) married couples to adopt them and raise them as their own.

    It is not perfect but the best we can do for them.

    And every single person I know who was adopted in later life sought out their biological parents, they were driven to do this, had a need.

    Sometimes it had a happyish outcome but in two cases I know of the results were disasterous

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    It is a little worrying how many people seem to define family by biological specifics rather than protection, nurture, love and care.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. thedavincimode (6,877 comments) says:

    Andrei advances the case for banning adoption of children by heterosexual couples ….

    To think that people could be so self-centred as to want to adopt a child and give it a safe and loving environment. But just a minute, what is it that distinguishes couples who are biological parents? What are the motives there? Could it be something else? Is the child in those circumstances just the consequence of having a root as opposed to the selfishness of wanting to care for a child as your own?

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

    @ Ryan Sproull

    Not at all. In those situations, as adoption ought to be, the needs of the child are put first, and adoption only occurs when something tragic has happened e.g. death of parents or the inability for parents to care for their kids. Adopted families are valid, but they arise for misfortune. Not social construct to affirm alternative lifestyles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Chuck Bird (4,928 comments) says:

    “It is a little worrying how many people seem to define family by biological specifics rather than protection, nurture, love and care.”

    It does not worry me at all as it is common sense.

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

    Whenever I see this topic rehashed, I quell my resentment of the use of the gay agenda as an instrument of the West’s destruction (alongside socialism feminism and the banking system) with a bit of compassion for gay folks like Elton John who do a lot of good in the world.

    “Someone Saved My Life Tonight” is about him deciding not to go ahead with a marriage record company executives were keen on which led him to a (slightly theatrical) suicide attempt. One of his mates said “Mate if you don’t want to get married don’t do it” and was immortalized in the song as “Sugarbear”.

    If gay folks want to get married, let them do it, stop talking about it and move on to more important things.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Ap66som1o

    From Wikipedia:
    Taupin’s lyric refers to a time in 1969, before John was a popular musician, when John was engaged to be married to his girlfriend, Linda Woodrow. John and Woodrow were sharing a flat with Taupin in Furlong Road in the East End of London, hence the opening line “When I think of those East End lights.” While having serious doubts about the looming marriage, John contemplated suicide. He took refuge in his friends, especially Long John Baldry, who convinced John to abandon his plans to marry in order to salvage and maintain his musical career. As a sign of his respect and gratitude for Baldry, Taupin wrote him into the song as the “someone” in the title, and also as “Sugar Bear”.[2] Some radio stations banned or altered the song, due to the use of the words “damn it” in the second verse.

    In the liner notes to the Deluxe Edition of Captain Fantastic and The Brown Dirt Cowboy, writer Paul Gambaccini related a recollection from producer Gus Dudgeon. During the recording of the song’s lead vocal, Dudgeon said he was pushing Elton for more in terms of his delivery of the vocal, not paying attention to the lyric. Also in the control room, Davey Johnstone, according to Gambaccini, leaned over and told Dudgeon, “You know he’s singing about killing himself.” Dudgeon was apparently mortified by the revelation and relented.

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

    @ TDM

    “To think that people could be so self-centred as to want to adopt a child and give it a safe and loving environment”

    I am not convinced the gay lobby is pushing for gay adoption to help children. Some are, indeed. But this about gay-normalcy first and foremost. Stories of partners locked out of hospital rooms of the other partners kids, while sad, are more side-issues to the main goal.

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

    Anyway, i’ve got better things to do than waste a good Auckland evening on, yet another, DPF gay gush post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Matthew Holloway (20 comments) says:

    Of course gay adoption is actually already legal. People are not excluded from adoption on the basis of sexuality. This new law allows gay couples to adopt, but gay individuals already could. Incidentally there are about 80 adoptions each year in New Zealand, mostly by family.

    Further, there’s been a rumour spread around that churches will be required to perform same-sex marriage or else they’ll be conflicting with the Bill Of Rights Act’s protections against sexuality discrimination. This simply isn’t true.

    The new marriage equality bill just adds same-sex rights to the marriage act, it doesn’t change the existing laws around a celebrant’s right to refuse…

    Here’s the relevant section of the Civil Unions legislation:

    “13 Licence authorises but does not oblige
    A licence authorises, but does not oblige, a civil union celebrant or an exempt body to solemnise the civil union to which the licence relates.”

    Which is mirrored in the Marriage Act,

    “29 Licence authorises but not obliges marriage celebrant to solemnise marriage
    A marriage licence shall authorise but not oblige any marriage celebrant to solemnise the marriage to which it relates.”

    Some different-sex friends of mine got a civil union but their first celebrant rejected them for not being gay, saying that she wasn’t comfortable with that. I asked the DIA what the relationship between the bill of rights act and the marriage act was and they told me that the interpretation of the law is that no celebrant is compelled to marry/union anyone.

    The right of a celebrant to choose based on their beliefs without any obligation is legally protected whether that be race/sexuality/age etc.

    And as far as businesses goes the marriage equality bill still doesn’t change things… it’s already illegal for businesses to refuse to service Civil Union ceremonies on the basis of sexuality. I assume that no one would seriously claim that business services for a marriage ceremony is different to a civil union ceremony for caterers, venues, photographers and the like so the legal obligation already exists to provide services without discriminating on sexuality.

    Yet again this bill only grants greater equality to same-sex couples but it doesn’t affect churches (who already can discriminate on sexuality), caterers, venues, etc (who already can’t discriminate on sexuality).

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

    And every single person I know who was adopted in later life sought out their biological parents, they were driven to do this, had a need.

    I know at least two who have absolutely no wish to know anything about their biological parents. “Ignorance is bliss” were the words one used. Anecdotal evidence can prove nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. thedavincimode (6,877 comments) says:

    EWS

    Your missing my point which is Andrei’s point that in the absence of biological parents, child-rearing is a fundamentally selfish act. You would readily glean from his comment at 4.33pm and his other comments regarding his patronising and bigoted world view around same sex marriage, that it is only not selfish where the child is raised by the married heterosexual biological parents.

    Having children is in fact a fundamentally selfish act in the same way that owning a cat is; although I don’t demean the desire to be a parent by in any way equating it with the desire to own a cat. It becomes even more selfish when you expect your fellow citizens to subsidise your costs of doing so because you can’t afford to support it yourselves.

    But the fact that it is a fundamentally selfish act does not mean it is wrong, nor does it mean that adoptive parents are more selfish than biological parents. How could you say that about adoptive parents who have their own children, are capable of having more, but adopt?

    Once more, Andrei reveals himself as a bigot who uses the flag of religion to justify his bigotry and in the process dumps on his Church, and your’s too in fact. I can’t understand why the rest of you God-botherers let him get away with it and don’t call him out on this bullshit. Think Andrei, think Westboro County Church. He isn’t exactly the best PR your team could hope for.

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

    East Wellington Superhero (997) Says:
    August 24th, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    LMFAO at DPF’s lame attempt to insert science into it. “It seems the mother’s body tries to feminise a male foetus, if the previous children were all male”.

    Also note how instead of engaging with Colin Craig’s arguments, DPF just shouts him down. “Ignorant, Bigot, etc”.

    And, oh yeah, bisexuals are just born bisexuals. FFS. How is someone who is normally quite analytical so fucking useless in analysing this issue.

    The most hilarious thing which discredits many Christians that post in these sorts of threads is that they are so vehemently against something, yet are always the ones with the foulest mouths. Which is also a sin in the Bible, yet they just cherry pick homosexuality and ignore the planks in their own eyes.

    Colossians 3:8 ESV / 235 helpful votes

    But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.

    Ephesians 4:29 ESV / 182 helpful votes

    Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

    Matthew 15:10-11 ESV / 171 helpful votes

    And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.”

    James 3:10 ESV / 129 helpful votes

    From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so.

    Ephesians 5:4 ESV / 102 helpful votes

    Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.

    Matthew 12:36-37 ESV / 90 helpful votes

    I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

    James 3:6-8 ESV / 64 helpful votes

    And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell. For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

    2 Timothy 2:16 ESV / 58 helpful votes

    But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,

    Proverbs 21:23 ESV / 45 helpful votes

    Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps himself out of trouble.

    James 3:11-13 ESV / 32 helpful votes

    Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water. Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom.

    Psalm 19:14 ESV / 30 helpful votes

    Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.

    Romans 12:2 ESV / 29 helpful votes

    Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

    Matthew 5:37 ESV / 28 helpful votes

    Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

    1 Corinthians 10:13 ESV / 19 helpful votes

    No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

    Luke 6:45 ESV / 19 helpful votes

    The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

    Romans 12:21 ESV / 18 helpful votes

    Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

    Colossians 4:6 ESV / 17 helpful votes

    Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.

    James 4:7 ESV / 9 helpful votes

    Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

    1 Timothy 4:12 ESV / 8 helpful votes

    Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.

    Proverbs 4:24 ESV / 8 helpful votes

    Put away from you crooked speech, and put devious talk far from you.

    Proverbs 10:31-32 ESV / 4 helpful votes

    The mouth of the righteous brings forth wisdom, but the perverse tongue will be cut off. The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable, but the mouth of the wicked, what is perverse.

    Proverbs 6:12 ESV / 4 helpful votes

    A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Bob (497 comments) says:

    I have known some homosexuals in my life. I am convinced they are that way genetically. Many years ago I worked with one. He was a very unhappy person. In the days before acceptance he went for psychiatric sessions which were no help. His sister was a normal married woman. As a normal heterosexual man I know I couldn’t choose to be homosexual. It might be that the genes affect the hormones which determine sexuality causing homosexual attitudes in some round about way making it difficult to detertmine cause.

    The problem for the religious is that if it is genetic then that is saying that God created homosexuality. Then it can hardly be condemned as sinful but must be accepted. They will fight tooth and nail never to admit it.

    As far as same sex marriage goes I couldn’t care less what homosexuals do as long as they are not hurting anyone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Scott (1,821 comments) says:

    Jimmy Smits- “yet are always the ones with the foulest mouths.”

    Really Jimmy? The Christians are the ones with the foulest mouths? That is your real opinion? Like have you ever openly insulted people on this blog? Or how about Wat Dabney or RRM?

    Come on let’s be reasonable here.

    Also Jimmy good to see you quoting the Bible. The difficulty is always applying it to ourselves. That is a difficulty of human nature I guess. Its always easy to see the faults of someone else and very difficult to see our own.

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

    Colin Craig was born a dork , he didn’t choose this, although he has honed his natural skills to Olympic levels

    Colin Craig would be a goose if he was talking about the sun setting; it’s just on these contentious issues his “goosyness” really comes to the fore and makes him a world leader in being a tosser.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Viking2 (11,574 comments) says:

    On January 9th, a group of Pekin, Illinois bikers were riding west on I-74 when they saw a girl about to jump off the Murray Baker Bridge. So they stopped.

    George, their leader, a big burly man of 53, gets off his Harley, walks through a group of gawkers, past the State Trooper, and says, “What are you doing?
    She says, “I’m going to commit suicide.”
    While he didn’t want to appear “insensitive”, he didn’t want to miss a be-a-legend opportunity either so he asked, “Well, before you jump, why don’t you give me a kiss?”
    So, with no hesitation at all, she leaned back over the railing and did just that … and it was a long, deep, lingering kiss followed immediately by another one.

    After they finished, George gets approval from his biker-buddies, the onlookers, and even the State Trooper, and says, “Wow! That was the best kiss I have ever had Honey! That’s a real talent you’re wasting Sugar Shorts. You could be famous if you rode with me. Why are you committing suicide?”

    “My parents don’t like me dressing up like a girl.”

    It’s still unclear whether she jumped or was pushed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Same sex partners cannot form a family unit because they cannot conceive children without bringing in one or more people of the opposite gender to accomplish

    Marriage is not a requirement to conceive children. That being so, any argument trying to associate the privilege of marriage with the conceiving or raising of children is specious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Manolo (14,078 comments) says:

    Some obsessions and fixations last long, very long.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. SGA (1,144 comments) says:

    @Viking2 – LOL literally. Thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. wreck1080 (3,972 comments) says:

    CC is nuts — to say being gay is a choice is so wrong on many levels. Firstly, noone in their right mind would choose to be gay as it invites persecution and precludes having a family.

    I find the thought of gay male sex as disgusting — no heterosexual male in their right mind could ever choose to be ‘gay’.

    When I say gay male sex is disgusting — I mean the act itself — I separate the ‘act’ from the person .

    A parallel to this is I don’t understand why some people like to eat oysters– just the thought of eating oysters makes me sick, but, I hold no dislike of people who might enjoy oysters.

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

    For the bulk of the last 20 years, the left-wing media have trumpeted the news that researchers have found proof that homosexuality is innate, genetic and normal behaviour within a sizable percentage of the population. In particular, the findings of researchers like Simon LeVay & Dean Hamer were held up as irrefutable proof that homosexuality was innate and inborn. News reports only confirmed what homosexual activists had been saying for years and proved at last that anyone who objects to homosexuality is bigoted, ignorant and a danger to society. In the wake of all the sensationalism, researchers at Yale, MIT, Columbia and Washington University School Of medicine pointed out the errors in leVay’s and Hamer’s findings, denying that any of the data or accompanying analysis could substantiate their claim of a so called “gay gene”.

    The holy grail of the homosexual movement is the finding of a biological/genetic basis so that they can be considered “a people”. Therefore the homosexual community and the sycophantic media will celebrate the most fragmentary evidence that homosexuals are “born that way”, to the point where we arrive at the place where “born that way” is considered the ultimate truth without a shred of credible supporting evidence.

    IMHO, male homosexuality and lesbianism are manifestations of two completely different emotional disturbances generally fomented during childhood and/or adolescence (for males in particular). Homosexuals are not “born that way”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Reid (16,634 comments) says:

    I don’t understand how being gay at least for a man, could be a choice. Apparently, 60% of women are not averse to sexual contact with other women. One woman told me “nobody knows a woman’s body like a woman” and when you think about all the lousy sex they must get from all those groping, self-interested males, well who can blame them? I don’t personally look at that as being gay BTW, that’s just a woman enjoying sex with someone of the same sex. I don’t see that as gay in the same sense of a lesbian couple and hopefully everyone knows what I mean. If not then the bellwether is that if people involved in the former wanted to tape themselves and put it on the interweb then I wouldn’t mind at all but if people involved in the latter than I wouldn’t be at all interested… Probably.

    Anyhoo, if you’re a guy, then one knows that if you’re a straight guy, the thought of bumming someone or vice versa, does nothing whatsoever to one’s titilating faculty. i.e. it’s not, in any way. Unlike 60% of straight women, 0% of straight guys think it would be a turn-on to “experiment.” At least that’s my experience as a straight guy and if any straight guy wants to contradict, then go ahead, but be prepared to be cross-examined as to the possibility you’re a closet gay disguised as a metrosexual lefty who just tried it because you knew your gay lefty mates would tease you if you didn’t. (But you really wanted to all along, anyway.)

    But seriously, being gay vs straight immediately puts you into a minority. Why the fuck would anyone want to voluntarily enter into a minority if they didn’t have to? Sure, these days, with the twisted reverse discrimination the lefty social engineering feminists have foisted upon society, being gay is growing to be considered cool, just like young ladies acting like sluts and getting pissed and having one night stands is considered cool and no doubt there’s some idiots already out there who are naturally straight who are already bumming away, simply because they want to be “cool.” But tell ya mate, there won’t be many of em, that’s for real.

    I also have intimate acquaintance with someone who is gay, and he’s told me stories that indicate that his sexuality was already set for him at a time when you’re a kid. In other words, when you’re having thoughts that just well up, without behavioural prompting or anything else. When I was his age and thinking about girls, he was thinking about boys. I can’t see it’s a choice, personally.

    But here’s the thing. So what? This issue only becomes a valid point in the logical framework of the gay marriage debate if you buy into the lie that it’s about human rights. And it’s not. Simple as that.

    While the disingenuous evil people lead the useful idiot fools into the land of discwimination and human wights, don’t be fooled.

    It certainly sounds to me on this issue that people like DPF and Whale have been fooled alongside people like Hamnida and also, unusually, or perhaps not depending on whether you consider his background, people like Ryan Sproull.

    Lots of you fooled on this issue.

    Sad.

    Let’s hope it doesn’t happen twice. Course for people like Hamnida it already has but for you others, if it happens again, then it’s shame on you, isn’t it. Or is it as one memorable fool put it … … er.. “you can’t get fooled again.”

    Let’s hope not.

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

    Marriage is not a requirement to conceive children. That being so, any argument trying to associate the privilege of marriage with the conceiving or raising of children is specious.

    A statement which shows how far down the rabbit hole you have fallen.

    Children conceived and raised outside of marriage generally do not prosper while those that are conceived within marriage generally do

    This is why we have marriage because it is the best way of raising well socialized individuals who will in adulthood become a useful members of society.

    Cultures that have not fried their brains with drugs and fallen into self absorbed hedonism understand this because millennia of human experience has shown it to be so and encourage marriage and discourage sex outside of its bounds, in the case of Islamic countries extremely severely.

    We don’t want to be like that, none of us do but if you rewrite the fundamental raison d’etre for marriage you undermine the process of procreation which is suicide

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Matthew Flannagan (77 comments) says:

    David, if people don’t choose to engage in homosexual sex why do liberals defend it by saying it occurs between consenting adults?

    Moreover, while sexual orientation may be genetically based ( there is no consensus on this though this is one major theory) so are many features which we hold people responsible for, alcoholism for example is genetically based yet that does not stop the government running adds encouraging people to choose not to drink to excess. The issue of responsibility for actions is different to the issue of wether one has a genetic or environmental predisposition towards it. Genetics do not determine behaviour, one indicator of this is the people who have an identical twin brother who is a homosexual are not always homosexuals themselves despite growing up in a similar environment and having the same genetics. Having a homosexual identical twin increases the chance of one being a homosexual but it does not determine it.

    As to homosexual conduct the evidence suggests most people who engage in homosexual sex and form homosexual unions can choose the opposite, because they do. From memory Kinsey found a scale between exclusive homosexuality and heterosexuality that many people moved back and forth across it at different stages in their lives.

    The study by Fay et al, found that 20% of people had engaged in homosexual sex since puberty , only 3.3 had engaged in it often since age 19, and 1.6 had engaged in it during the last year. The number of people found to have engaged in it exclusively in last 10 years according to most studies is less than 1%. That suggests that the majority of people who at some stage enter into a same sex union in fact can and do choose to not do at latter stages in their lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Steve (North Shore) (4,591 comments) says:

    6.18 bhudson

    “Marriage is not a requirement to conceive children. ”

    Correct, as proven by Helen Clark and Peter Davis. Marriage is for making yourself look good to your faith – family – or poltical gain.
    So all of the rainbows just want a life paid for by others, and they have no intention of continuing the species

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

    Matthew Flannagan

    I notice your blog states that you have a Phd, lovely, then I read your opening sentence on your comment at 6.38 and just wonder, firstly about NZ’s educational standards and

    secondly,, if any sexual act between either hetrosexualists or homosexualists is not consensual, its a crime. No one defending anything its just your question is rubbish

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Matthew Flannagan (77 comments) says:

    Paul, once again the response is an insult as opposed to address my argument and then the suggestion I am uneducated, perhaps you should educate yourself about what counts as a valid rejoinder.

    “if any sexual act between either hetrosexualists or homosexualists is not consensual, its a crime. No one defending anything its just your question is rubbish”

    Not sure how this refutes my point it actually confirms it, you saying that sexual acts between “homosexualists” is consensual, great, so the claim they don’t choose to do it is false, right.

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

    Until such time as the legal institution of marriage becomes defined as being based entirely on the promulgation and raising of children, rather than the legal recognition of two people’s commitment to each other, you’ve got no business denying two people who wish to legally commit to one another the right to do so within *the legal institution of marriage*, just because they are not doing it in order to have babies. I don’t see how people are even arguing otherwise. You don’t have to let them do it in your church, FFS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Children conceived and raised outside of marriage generally do not prosper while those that are conceived within marriage generally do

    As I pointed out: specious. Your statement only says, Andrei, that children may prosper to a greater extent if their parents are married. It does not equate to marriage being equired to conceive or to raise children.

    The fact that children may be better off with their parents being married in no way undermines the idea of same sex marriages. Unless, of course, you can prove that same sex marriage results in the children of other married parents prospering less…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Matthew Flannagan (77 comments) says:

    “. You don’t have to let them do it in your church, FFS.”

    Actually thats not true, if a church rents its hall or altar out for weddings ( a common enough situation) then by law they will have to this, the law allows ministers to choose not to do it but that different to saying one does not have to let it be done in onces church. Unless churches refuse to provide there churches for marriages to the general public they will be required to have same sex marriages in there churches.

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

    Not an insult Matthew, just an observation. And you again load the gun with the last sentence of your 6.53, –

    If sexual relations with your wife were not consensual you would be breaking the law., you would be a rapist.

    Consent has nothing to do with orientation

    You do not have a point , your attempted point is gibberish

    I’m way over of arguing this issue with “born agains” and ” fundamentalists.”

    Any religious beliefs I may still hold are being totally and rapidly eroded by the unchristian behaviour of the so-called christians.

    I will say again however, Colin Craig is an idiot, being ignorant does not excuse the vacuous comments he continues to utter on this matter.

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

    I’m way over of arguing this issue with “born agains” and ” fundamentalists.”

    Nobody has used religious arguments in this debate anywhere on this thread – nobody!

    Marriage, as we have received it is of such fundamental importance to the well being and future prosperity of society that it has taken on religious overtones.

    If you are a believer, as I am, you might understand this in terms of it being God given because it leads to beneficial outcomes and future prosperity.

    If you are a Richard Dawkin’s adherent you could see this as an evolutionary process – societies that are very good at raising their offspring continue and overwhelm those societies that are not as good at it.

    This isn’t that hard

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Shunda barunda (2,985 comments) says:

    Matthew makes some very good points.

    I suspect if we relived the last 50 years several times over and debated this issue, we would end up with a different conclusion every time.

    But actual human rights issues would always get the same result, racism would always be found wrong, as would sexism and male chauvinism.

    The issue of redefining marriage will be concluded on how the game was played, but it won’t be based on logic.

    This is a poor reflection on society, and an indicator of how shallow it has become, people don’t respect philosophical positions on most anything any longer.

    I suspect that the argument to retain marriage as it is, is a lost cause, but don’t for a second kid yourselves in thinking it is based on the strength of your argument, because the reality is you won this like a pack of shit faced football hooligans beating up a group of nerds.

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

    A quick question Andrei:

    If God cursed the snake to crawl on its belly, what had it walked on before?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. mara (796 comments) says:

    Homosexuals born or made? What a useful red-herring in the marriage debate. If somebody is born without legs or loses them later in life, he is still disabled. It alters the usual order of things. A decent society helps him but a sensible society does not then refer to everyone as disabled to make him feel better. A bit of common sense please. If you like, give him all legal protection to avoid undue hardship but he has it already with, in this case, civil union. No need to call it marriage. That’s just silly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Reid (16,634 comments) says:

    If God cursed the snake to crawl on its belly, what had it walked on before?

    Its hooves Paul.

    Snake is a very good analogy don’t you think, for something like Satan, the Slanderer and Deceiver. Boy he’s good at what he does. That’s for sure.

    No need to call it marriage. That’s just silly.

    Well you’d think so wouldn’t you mara, but what if marriage was really just a stand in for family. What are they asking for then? And what if they didn’t want to come out and ask for that, but disguise it? Could that possibli be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Matthew Flannagan (28) Says:
    August 24th, 2012 at 6:38 pm

    David, if people don’t choose to engage in homosexual sex why do liberals defend it by saying it occurs between consenting adults?

    That’s just such ignorant rubbish, it is hard to believe that you actually are trying that line.

    Choosing who you have sex with is completely different to what sex you are attracted to.
    Or would you say that catholic priest are asexual because they live in celibacy?

    You (under the assumption that you consider yourself straight) could choose to have sex with a man, but that would not make you gay.
    Similarly, the story Andrei posted about the gay mormon, he is gay, yet he choose to have sex with with a woman. That doesn’t make him straight.

    It is astonishing to see that most opponents of gay marriage quickly move the discussion form marriage to homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality. Kind of relveals the true motivation, namely that they are not against gay marriage, but they are homosexuality entirely.

    However, regardless of the merit (or rather lack thereof) of the argument of homosexuality being a “lifestyle” choice or not, it has no merit whatsoever on whether we should allow gay marriage or not.

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

    Reid I don’t think many gays want marriage at all, this is being driven by the political elites and the gays are going along because they enjoy the attention and sticking it to the “straights” and in particular those who have strong religious convictions.

    I asked my mate who is gay if he wanted to be married and he laughed and told me if he got “married” then he could also get “divorced” and then the matrimonial property act would kick in and he’d loose big time.

    The real target is to undermine the traditional family and strong family bonds based on blood to produce a population more dependent on Government largess and thus compliant with Government goals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. wat dabney (3,812 comments) says:

    Craig’s comments are precisely on a par with those of that Republican who informed us this week that women can turn of the reproductive process if they are “legitimately” raped.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Reid I don’t think many gays want marriage at all, this is being driven by the political elites and the gays are going along because they enjoy the attention

    lol, Andrei, now you are coming up with conspiracy theories.

    I just love “political elites”. As opposed to what, “political fuckwits”?

    It’s just another term which people use when they have run out of anything sensible to say.

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

    It’s just another term which people use when they have run out of anything sensible to say.

    OK bright boy, can you present a rational and well reasoned argument as to why the venerable institution of marriage as it has been known for millennia suddenly needs to be altered and what benefits this will bring to my children and to New Zealand society as a whole?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    Do not have the interest or the time to read the above comments..

    If they want to push poo.. so be it..

    Please do not make it compulsory ( With so many Queers now in Parliament it is a possibility )..

    Just do not expect the Tax Payer to shell out for the medical problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Shunda barunda (2,985 comments) says:

    eszett, Andrei isn’t all that far from the truth, the reality is that the power structures of our society are shifting away from traditional ideals and there are people about that are keen to hasten this process.

    Both sides believe they are right in doing what they are doing, but pretending that feminists, post modernists, and social progressives don’t have any motive to remove the traditional role of the heterosexual family is absolutely absurd.

    What disturbs the crap out of me is how they are so damned quick to pick up the worst aspects/tactics that they supposedly identified within organised religion as a bad thing.

    I’ve been through enough of that to know it when I see it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Shunda, the political elites as Andrei calls them are merely following the lead of what is happening in society. Gay Marriage is a reality, it is happening right now. All the politicians are doing is recognising it. There is a significant support with society and only a tiny tiny vocal minority is bothered by it. There are some in-between that are opposed, but hardly see it earth shattering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    I asked my mate who is gay if he wanted to be married and he laughed and told me if he got “married” then he could also get “divorced” and then the matrimonial property act would kick in and he’d loose big time.

    Andrei, I’m afraid you and your mate are operating under a delusion, as the Relationship (Property) Act applies to de facto relationships also. What is more, the Act explicitly provides for same sex relationships to be de fact relationships.

    You and your mate will have to find a different reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    to produce a population more dependent on Government largess and thus compliant with Government goals.

    Where is the largess Andrei? I don’t see anyone proposing that same sex marriage come with a govt benefit like some sort of Happy Meal toy.

    Equal rights are just that. That which is a right cannot be gifted

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Reid (16,634 comments) says:

    Reid I don’t think many gays want marriage at all, this is being driven by the political elites and the gays are going along because they enjoy the attention and sticking it to the “straights” and in particular those who have strong religious convictions.

    Andrei I’ve been saying what you just said in your 7:52 since day one. It’s obvious to anyone who understands social engineering.

    In addition to the group you point to “because they enjoy the attention and sticking it to the “straights”” an increasing number of other gays however genuinely buy the discrimination argument, as the MSM grinds into action and the peer groups take their cues from that.

    It’s a textbook classic, social engineering faux campaign straight from the lefty play book. It is and it always has been. It may as well have been announced as such in flaming letters a million feet high for all the subtlety that it engendered.

    Quite why a very significant proportion of the normally astute conservative players fail to see this but to the contrary, have been sucked into the “human wights” argument is beyond me Andrei. Perhaps they’ve all gone mental.

    I’ve accepted a long time ago it’s a fait accompli. The only reason I’ve been vocal about it is to try to shift some of the ignorant. As usual there are few of those prepared to admit it and as usual the whole guilt issue, like white guilt, gets rolled out by the proponents. They’re the most disgusting creatures of the lot, the ones who try to pretend you should feel guilty for opposing it, they’re the lowest scum in the pile of scum who support this desecration of the family unit.

    Equal rights are just that.

    Why is this about rights? What does that have to do with it? What rights don’t gays have? Pray enumerate. Don’t bother mentioning adoption, because if adoption is all you can enumerate, then let’s have an adoption debate. Notice BTW that unless you’re a moron or have an agenda, an adoption debate is NOT a marriage debate. So go for it, enumerate away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,426) Says:
    August 24th, 2012 at 8:14 pm

    It’s just another term which people use when they have run out of anything sensible to say.

    OK bright boy, can you present a rational and well reasoned argument as to why the venerable institution of marriage as it has been known for millennia suddenly needs to be altered and what benefits this will bring to my children and to New Zealand society as a whole?

    Andrei, homosexuals are and have been a part of our society, just like heterosexuals, they have been loving and living their lives, creating relationships and families. Marriage, contrary to your narrow-minded definition has nowhere been a institution unchanged for millenia, but has undergone significant change during that time. Nor is there any natural law what marriage is.

    Marriage should reflect what society believes it to be and should reflect the families that are living in that society. Gay families are a reality. Gay marriage is a reality. All this law is doing is recognising that

    Enabling gay marriage will only strengthen the institution by making it more relevant to todays society. It will allow your children to live in fair society. It will strengthen famalies and encourage more people to get married.

    And should they or your grandchildren turn out to be gay, they too will benefit from it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Politically, Colin Craig and the Conservatives present a real problem for you Neolibs.

    For example, the 2014 election result could be National 45%, Conservatives 4.3%, and a couple of Maori Party seats. So what happens? Form a Government with the Conservatives? What portfolios and concessions would they want? I am pretty sure there will not be much gay or Maori friendly legislation.

    There would be three years of Colin Craig (and god knows who is on the list) making crazy comments.

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

    Equal rights are just that. That which is a right cannot be gifted

    See the discussion is all about rights which is “me me me I am entitled to whatever I want”

    Marriage is not about me me me – it is about duty, it is about responsibility to others. In particular to the next generation, the people to come.

    But it doesn’t really matter the self centered, self absorbed children of the sixties have just about squandered the wealth their far more illustrious and worthy forbears built up and the wake up is not that far off and when it comes it is not going to be pretty.

    Enjoy the party while it lasts you banal, empty headed cretins.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    @Hamnida, aside from being off topic, I think it’s way too early to make that speculation.

    The conservative party will not be able to ride on this topic alone.
    Assuming the law will pass the three readings and become law, it’s going to be the most boring topic ever.
    If Colin Craig tries to this it will be more to his detriment than to his advantage.

    So even with ACT dead as a dodo, the Conservative Party will have to find more to run on than just moral conservatism to make it past 4%.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Marriage is not about me me me – it is about duty, it is about responsibility to others. In particular to the next generation, the people to come.

    So, just how is this an argument against gay marriage?

    Please don’t bring up your idiotic argument about bearing children. Nowhere is it defined that you must bear children when you are married. You are just insulting all the people who can’t or wont have children for whatever reason.

    If anything, this argument is about me, me,me
    My definition of marriage is the only valid one.

    It’s not all about you, Andrei.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    I think they’ll get 4%, but wouldn’t get 5%.

    They are the type of party no one says they are voting for, then all of sudden they get circa 4.3% on election night.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    And how is it off topic? Colin Craig, the Conservatives, and politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. elscorcho (155 comments) says:

    I am personally sick of the anti-gay bullshit that gets promulgated

    Many of the anti-gays talk about “real men”. Many of the anti-gays are fat, ugly, and slow.

    I used to take delight as an openly gay sportsman when I rocked some homophobe on his arse, just like Ian Roberts used to do.

    If you are going to be anti-gay, that’s fine. But you better be an absolutely perfect specimen of masculinity with 3% body fat or else you are a total hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    Shunda

    Andrei

    Hamnida

    eszett

    wat dabney

    Reid

    bhudson

    You all have much to say…

    Which one of you is ” GAY” ??

    Come on .. Yes or no.. Speak up or be defined as one standing at the side lines.. All mouth and no experience..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. elscorcho (155 comments) says:

    And if the straightists want to reinforce marriage they should be out there with shotguns shooting divorcees

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    What rights don’t gays have

    The right to the status of marriage in their State-sanctioned union

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. jims_whare (404 comments) says:

    Born that way = Climate Change.

    Both are fundamentalist dogma to the ‘enlightened’ progressive liberal – woe betide anyone with a contrary opinion.

    And yet the same are the first to mock anyone with fundamentalist religious beliefs.

    Surely this leads to a conclusion that liberalism is as much a religion as Islam/Christianity?

    And the proponents of such are hypocrites of the 1st magnitude.

    They hide their prejudices behind flowery pc words designed to denigrate anyone to the contrary opinion however they are desperate to project that they preach nothing but tolerance and inclusiveness.

    DPF is a prime example and so is this post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    adam2314,

    No, but the question was irrelevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    jims_whare (272) Says:
    August 24th, 2012 at 9:05 pm

    Hahahahaa.. Total agreement..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. MH (817 comments) says:

    practitioners of same sex marriage can be changed by reading various manuals on the subject or by inserting calming sutures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    blhudson.. No it is not..

    Now go away and stamp your foot !1.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    I am a heterosexual male (90% sure).

    I don’t have anything against gay people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    Calming sutures ??? Very painful in the correct place i would think :-)0

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    Are you sure Hamida where your other 10% is against :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    90% sure, every now and then I see an attractive man, but I think it would feel weird kissing them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    Definitely a Queer !! :-)0

    Next objector please..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. mara (796 comments) says:

    Jeez this is getting boring but, as a last gasp, what about polygamy? They all consent and love each other. Why should they not all marry?
    Farmer Jack and his sheep love one another; or at least they seem to as there is no force. Consent? Well, the sheep does not consent to being slaughtered for food either but we do it anyway. When the old traditional rules break down where does that leave us? I’d say generally buggered. No pun intended. The illiberal liberals seem to have media control right now. I’m watching events like a train crash in motion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. nasska (11,813 comments) says:

    Hamnida

    …”I am a heterosexual male (90% sure). “…..

    Well go & spend a night at a gay nightclub…..by the next morning you’ll be certain one way or the other. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    Who’s this “Farmer Jack” fellow mara? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    mara,

    Current marriage law is between two consenting adults. The proposal for same sex marriage doesn’t call for a change in that; merely a removal of requirement that they be of different sex.

    You might think the goat loves you, but the law does not look through your rose tinted spectacles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    nasska 9:21

    Speaking from experience are we ??

    Gay one day.. Or should that be the night :-))

    Hooray the next !!

    One more of of the list :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Matthew Flannagan (77 comments) says:

    Eszett wrote “That’s just such ignorant rubbish, it is hard to believe that you actually are trying that line.
    Choosing who you have sex with is completely different to what sex you are attracted to.
    Or would you say that catholic priest are asexual because they live in celibacy?”

    Actually I agree, if you read what I said above I stated that you’ll see in the next paragraph (the one you snipped) I drew a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual conduct. Note the topic of David’s post is wether the Gay “lifestyle” is choosen a life style refers to conduct, that is choosing who you will have sex with.

    There seems to be a pattern from some defenders of same sex marriage in here, ignore what people actually write, invent a straw man an then call people names. Its not exactly a rational way to defend your position. The same pattern is repeated on whale oil an on Niki Kaye’s facebook page.

    You write: “It is astonishing to see that most opponents of gay marriage quickly move the discussion form marriage to homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality. Kind of relveals the true motivation, namely that they are not against gay marriage, but they are homosexuality entirely.”

    No actually it reveals the topic of the post which was about wether people choose “the gay lifestyle” that was the topic David wrote, I was simply responding to the topic he raised. It’s you who has tried to change the subject to Gay marriage. Again ignoring what has been written so you can invent straw men to then attack peoples character is not a rational response.

    You write: “However, regardless of the merit (or rather lack thereof) of the argument of homosexuality being a “lifestyle” choice or not, it has no merit whatsoever on whether we should allow gay marriage or not.”

    I agree but again, nowhere did I argue it did, I was responding to David who was attacking the claim you can’t choose a “Gay lifestyle” . I did not claim this constituted an argument against homosexual marriage nor have I done so anywhere else.

    Again inventing straw men so you can attribute a dumb argument to people that they did not make is neither rational nor honest.

    There is an unfortunate propaganda tactic of trying to smear anyone who disagrees with same sex marriage as a stupid moron by ignoring what they say, caricaturing it and then character assanating. One wonders if this is because the arguments for same sex marriage are so weak that intellectual dishonesty is more effective.
    The other posts responding to me tried to suggest I claimed sex with my wife was not consensual ( a ridiculous straw man) and used that to suggest I am poorly educated, whats the obsession with defenders of same sex marriage with misrepresentation and slander, is it really that hard to defend your position with a remotely non fallacious argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. mara (796 comments) says:

    Johnboy, he was the chap going “205, 206, 207, hello darling, 209, 210 ” when counting his sheep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. nasska (11,813 comments) says:

    adam2314

    Whatever blows your dress up! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    Do you have his address mara? As long as he was counting ewes and not rams he sounds like a fellow I could get to like! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Matthew Flannagan (77 comments) says:

    “Current marriage law is between two consenting adults. The proposal for same sex marriage doesn’t call for a change in that; merely a removal of requirement that they be of different sex.

    You might think the goat loves you, but the law does not look through your rose tinted spectacles.”

    I agree but note what follows, your suggesting you can discriminate against some unions, those where one party did not consent, hence strictly speaking discrimination *is* legitimate, and not “all people” are entitled to marry, only those who fufill certain requirements such as “not with non consenting animals” if this is granted the claim “everyone has an equal right to marry” is false, everyone does not some do some do not and it depends on whether they meet certain moral requirements.

    So proponents need to argue what requirements they think are acceptable and why that’s a better alternative to the conjucal understanding of marriage rather than simply chant slogans about and “equal right to marry” . This is what they have consistently not done.

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

    DPF said “One factor is how many older brothers you have. It seems the mother’s body tries to feminise a male foetus, if the previous children were all male.”

    Thanks largely to the heavy hammer of political correctness and the carefully sanitized portrayal of homosexual characters in popular media and entertainment forums (The character Sean Tully on Coro Street, for example) many people believe that male homosexuals are really women trapped in men’s bodies . . they’re wrong. To truly characterize a gay male, take an extreme tomcat-like straight male, multiply his libido by 1000%, factor in a huge dose of narcissism, party drug use, and a willingness to engage in a plethora of increasingly divergent and potentially life threatening sexual behaviours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    Stamping a front leg once is taken as a “yes” in Wainui Matthew! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. nasska (11,813 comments) says:

    JB

    Thank God….finally someone who knows the codes.

    What does two stamps left foot, one stamp right signify?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    August 24th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
    adam2314

    Whatever blows your dress up!

    Always looking at mens legs are you :-))

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    @Matthew,

    I think you are guilty of your own charge.

    DPF has clearly interpreted CC’s statement on gay lifestyle as referring to a person’s sexual orientation, not specifically them acting upon that orientation (or not.) That is extremely obvious given his comments around the quotes in the post.

    Instead of acknowledging his mis-interpretation of what CC was actually trying to position, you ignore what he is actually claiming and instead focus on trying to refute his argument based on an argument he is not making (your straw man).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Tim Online (1 comment) says:

    Well I clicked the link and read what Colin Craig actually said in response to the original opinion piece. DPF appears to have missed a lot of the actual content of what he said

    Having given this a lot of thought I agree with CC on this. I do belive that environment does play a role in sexuality. Hell it did for me.

    Doesn’t mean I’ll vote for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    A Wainui sheep that has been watching Piri practice his goal kicking nasska! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. nasska (11,813 comments) says:

    adam2314

    You’ll need panty hose & bloomers at least…where’s your sense of modesty man? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. nasska (11,813 comments) says:

    JB

    Very good!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    bhudson – I think people get the picture – Colin Craig is a conservative who does not like gay people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    Hope you don’t shave Adam, nasska likes wooly legs like me!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    So proponents need to argue what requirements they think are acceptable

    Opponents need to do that too, Matt. Why do you think it is acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals. Homosexuality is perfectly legal, as is heterosexuality.

    The argument that since we are discriminating against other people (e.g. where consent is not given), therefore we might as well discriminate against homosexuals (where consent is given) is not a very strong argument.

    Truth is there is no good reason not to allow same sex marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    The proposal for same sex marriage doesn’t call for a change in that; merely a removal of requirement that they be of different sex.

    So… They want a complete change to the NORNAL law.. ??..

    Tell me more..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. mara (796 comments) says:

    bhudson, whatever the goat and I feel today, I expect the experiernce will be be more creatively satisfying when the act is legalised in the near future. Then Billy and I won’t have to hide behind bushes and will be able to proclaim our love publically and qualify for public housing and the like. After all, his job prospects not being good, we’d likely be unemployed. But in love.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    The worst thing about the proliferation of poofs is that they have stopped girls being called by that lovely name Gaye.

    I once knew a lovely lady who was reduced to introducing herself by saying “Hi, I’m Gaye, with an E”.

    I think she eventually changed her name to simplify things! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. nasska (11,813 comments) says:

    mara

    As the ancient records say…”let he is joined with his goat before Sagitarius, let no man draw asunder”.

    Peace be with you & your live in lawnmower. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Matthew,

    No one has claimed that this is about marriage with no legal restrictions. Proponents for same sex marriage have not been campaigning for marriage to children, animals or close relatives. They are simply proposing that the restriction that discriminates against same sex couples, otherwise meeting the same conditions as for heterosexual couples, marrying.

    There is absolutely zero requirement for them to comment on any part of the marriage laws and restrictions that they are not seeking to change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    Dear Aunt nasska: I’m actually a Capricorn not an Aries. Do you think I may have been misguided in my affections all these years??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. nasska (11,813 comments) says:

    I’ll have to do a bit of revision before I next check my horoscope JB……it’s all so confusing. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    Your bloody confused!!! How the hell can I explain to Flossy that I mistook her for Blossom last night cause they all look the same?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. MH (817 comments) says:

    the new marriage/gayriage vow has been changed from ‘Let no man put asunder” to “let no woman (still a contesticle term) put us under”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    jims_whare (272) Says:
    August 24th, 2012 at 9:05 pm

    Thanks Jim, the truth teller speaks, that was clear and clean.

    As I posted before, the core issue isn’t babies or sex but gender.

    Marriage is made between a man and a woman, because that is what a marriage is, a man and a woman bringing their two lives together.
    If they don’t have children then the marriage is incomplete in that sense, but they still have a marriage.

    Now the overarching purpose of marriage is for a safe environment to bring forth children and nuture and grown them through example and education into fruition as men and women and ultimately fathers and mothers.
    For this to properly occur one needs a man and a woman.

    Because they are different from each other, the man brings all the masculine things seen and unseen to the environment the children are brought up in and the woman brings all her things which are different from the man.
    two blokes do not cut the mustard.
    They never have and they never will and visa versa for two girls too.

    A man and a woman are different in their dynamic than two of the same gender.
    Even if one allows for the good graces of two very well intentioned people of the same gender.
    They just don’t cut the mustard and never will.

    This is so basic I really don’t understand why people don’t get this instead of getting hung up on sex.

    Also basic is that hundreds of scientists worldwide have been trying for longer than I’ve been alive, to find “proof” homosexuality is hardwired in the genes, they have failed except those who crooked the books or methodology.
    Sadly the biology is against you and is glaring right in your faces every morning when you take a pee!
    It shows what the norm is, though so many here close their eyes to this, a man is made /designed for a woman and visa versa.
    There is no getting round that.

    At http://www.narth.org there are a number of studies on this and some background to the battle about the suborning of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in the 70-80’s.

    Before you go all toxic you might read the articles by the APA on Adult – child sex not being so bad for kids!

    Same gender marriage is an oxymoron.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Sofia (869 comments) says:

    One factor is how many older brothers you have. It seems the mother’s body tries to feminise a male foetus, if the previous children were all male.

    Hey – that’s a new one
    What happens if a woman has an uninterrupted string of daughters?
    And does a mother’s body naturally abhor an inbalance implicit in what so many claim is the basis for marriage between man and woman and no other combinations

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. The Peanut Monster (19 comments) says:

    Yes – lets be careful there, next thing we might be claiming that women’s bodies have the power to reject legitimate rape babies. It would be interesting to read this research (any link?) and perhaps more importantly, to find out who commissioned it…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. wat dabney (3,812 comments) says:

    Born that way = Climate Change. Both are fundamentalist dogma to the ‘enlightened’ progressive liberal – woe betide anyone with a contrary opinion.

    Can you remember that day you chose to be heterosexual? How old were you?

    What were the arguments for and against?

    How often do you revisit that decision and ask yourself if you will continue to be straight, or might choose to be gay for a a few months?

    Because choosing whether to be straight or gay is like buying a hat, isn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Marriage is made between a man and a woman, because that is what a marriage is, a man and a woman bringing their two lives together.

    Marriage is a construct, a human construct and is defined by society and not some narrowminded definition. Two men or two women can bring their lives together just the same way.


    If they don’t have children then the marriage is incomplete in that sense, but they still have a marriage.

    That is just moronic, sanctimonious garbage of the highest order.
    You insult and demean all the couples who can’t have children by saying their marriage is “incomplete”? I’d really like to see you dare say that into their faces


    This is so basic I really don’t understand why people don’t get this instead of getting hung up on sex.

    It’s only the opponents of gay marriage who get hung up on sex (mind you not all opponents do).
    Those who do, it’s mostly because it is not gay marriage that really gets them upset but gay sex.

    Also basic is that hundreds of scientists worldwide have been trying for longer than I’ve been alive, to find “proof” homosexuality is hardwired in the genes, they have failed except those who crooked the books or methodology.
    Sadly the biology is against you and is glaring right in your faces every morning when you take a pee!
    It shows what the norm is, though so many here close their eyes to this, a man is made /designed for a woman and visa versa.
    There is no getting round that.

    You are neither very knowledgeable in those studies nor do you know much about biology to make silly statements like that.
    Homosexual behaviour is found in various species and there are various hypothesis around how homosexuality actually evolved and may be beneficial to the survival of the species. In any case, homosexuality has persisted throughout human history.

    Your 2 cents are actually not worth it.

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

    Marriage is the realm of parenting.Nothing else really compares.

    Other than those with medical conditions, virtualy all those who marry have children.Yes there is a miniscule amount who choose not to have children but they are an aberration when one looks at the statistics.

    Therefor Marriage is not a natural progression for gays as it offers nothing of any natural progression. If it does, I fail too see it, and no gay has pointed one out that I’ve been made aware of.

    I cannot see Marriage offering a gay couple any purpose whatsoever above what they already have – just themselves.

    Other than ‘victors justice’ – just two words – “We won” being chanted in a drug induced haze in gay nite-clubs across the country, the novalty will soon where off, and gays will move on to the ‘next big thing’ to seek out personal acceptance of themselves, as society already does accept gays and has done so for 20 odd yrs now. Gays would be the first to let us know if we didn’t accept them.It is gays who kill themselves and it is mostly the gay community whom they associate with intimitly, it is not the straight community.

    Nothing will change in gayland, they will still have to face the same problem each and every day that every human has had to face since time immortal – maturity.

    You may be able to con some of the public – but conning yourself is really what matters!

    Defying the allegation made by parents and others that ‘one is not born homosexual’ does not then mean you are born homosexual!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Other than those with medical conditions, virtualy all those who marry have children…Therefor Marriage is not a natural progression for gays as it offers nothing of any natural progression.

    While it may be true, Harriet, that most people that get married do have children, being married is no requirement to have, or to raise, children. Your argument is specious.

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

    Harriet

    you’re conning yourself that you have brains.

    Your 4.52 puts the fact that you don’t beyond all doubt.

    Stop offering your sad opinion as fact…..Therefore marriage……..a lot of old wank.

    I particularly love…no gay…. whats a gay? What species is a ‘gay’.? I am presuming that you are referring to someone whose sex life is homosexual.

    And lastly, again presuming you have a sex life and may in fact have bred ( oh dear), would you not get sick of being referred to as Harriet the hetrosexual. Apart from professionals for, most of us humans our sex life is but a very small part of our humanity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Manolo (14,078 comments) says:

    Your argument is specious.

    The word specious seems to be trendy with National Party, aka Labour lite, stalwarts. Long live Chairman Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Manolo,

    I think Harriet’s argument meets the criteria of ‘apparently good, but lacking in merit’ which is the definition of specious

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

    “….would you not get sick of being referred to as Harriet the hetrosexual….’

    Of course I would…..but no one says that about any hetrosexual……..but then I’ve never ever heard someone on TV annouce that ‘I’m hetrosexual’. Gays on the other hand have this need to publicise their sexuality.On TV regulary they announce ‘I’m gay’. And Queen st annualy has grown male men running about ‘all sexed up’ when as children most 3 yld boys are told to ‘put it away’ and go outside and climb trees or something instead.

    Gays are immature. But some have ‘serious’ jobs and ‘act’ ‘professionaly’ ‘at all times’. I don’t understand gays – some straight people too.

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

    bhudson

    but even calling it an argument is pushing the boundaries of ordinary common sense.

    An series of nonsensical statements don’t qualify as an argument

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Reid (16,634 comments) says:

    Actually Paul I think Harriet has some good points there, if one interprets she is talking about the gay movement and not a particular instance of the phenomena.

    Most young gays would be forgiven for thinking this is a human wights issue, most of them don’t care about marriage it’s not on their minds but injustice is, perceived or real, most have no idea of the ramifications of what they plaintively demand, in precisely the same way most young women in the sixties had no idea of the ramifications of what they were asking for, either. There’s a lot going on in Harriet’s comment.

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

    Harriet, you are gold and to tp it I find out that your world view is apparently formed by TV.

    I have worked in Queen Street off and on for 30 years and last walked up it last Saturday night with my daughter and much to both our astonishment we saw no one “sexed up”, we saw drunks and happy people and sad people and violent people but this sexing up part was lacking.

    You just make shit up but you do make me laugh

    Sorry reid

    There is nothing on with Harriets comment except stuff that makes me grin – its rubbish like a Carry on movie- enjoyable but there’s nothing there

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

    I said ‘annualy’ as in yearly – you know – the ‘hero’ parade.Then again maybe they no longer have it, as i do live in Aust – but sydney has the gay mardi gras. you know well what i mean.

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

    You must be in red neck heaven in Queensland then Harriet. The Arkansas of Australia -you will be a local no worries

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

    ‘….You must be in red neck heaven in Queensland then Harriet.The Arkansas of Australia….”

    But Paul…..gays in the worlds most gay friendly city – San Francisco – kill themselves at the same rates as gays in most other western cities do.

    What’s the go with that then Paul? It’s not ‘our’ fault – obviously.

    It says a lot about the gay ‘lifestyle’ – if you could call it that.

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

    Child parenting models call for a mother and father preferrably Married.

    None call for two straight guys……..gay guys or girls either.

    Marriage has nothing to offer gays.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Harriet,

    What’s the go with that then Paul?

    I’d say that it shows that SF is the same as any other city.

    Marriage has nothing to offer gays.

    If that is the case, it has nothing to offer heterosexuals either.

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

    …………………kill themselves at the same rates as gays in most other western cities do.

    What’s the go with that then Paul? It’s not ‘our’ fault – obviously………………………………………..

    You’re right Harriet, I don’t recall ever seeing figures that show ignorance by some causes’ suicide in others

    On average someone in China kills themselves every 2 minutes, whats the go with that then?

    2000 people kill themselves world wide every day, whats the go with that then?

    .While there is a common perception that suicide rates are highest among the young, the elderly, in fact, have the highest suicide rates, whats the go with that then?

    I’m off to have a bath and watch the test, whats the go with that then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Chuck Bird (4,928 comments) says:

    Phone app link to gay syphilis epidemic

    A new smartphone application is fanning a syphilis epidemic outbreak among Canterbury’s young gay men, a doctor says.

    Christchurch Sexual Health Clinic senior clinician Heather Young said gay men would usually contract syphilis after meeting at venues such as clubs, saunas or brothels but this year there had been an increase in men meeting electronically.

    “In 2011, sex-on-site venues were associated with 50 per cent of syphilis cases but in 2012 it is more commonly found after use of internet dating sites or the Grindr app,” she said.

    Grindr is a free social networking app for gay men. The app uses GPS to notify members when there is another gay man nearby.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/7545561/Phone-app-link-to-gay-syphilis-epidemic

    This is one of the reasons I oppose this legislation which really about normalising a homosexual lifestyle that they really do not want the general public to know about. There is no way this legislation will change the behaviour of many if any homosexuals.

    The Rainbow Youth who promote this lifestyle do not tell the adolescents the true health risk of this lifestyle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Church Bird,

    Given the very strong anecdotal evidence that online acting sites are widely used for heterosexual to hook up for sex, then, either the institution of marriage is no longer a commitment to sexual exclusivity for anyone, or it is every bit as likely to represent that commitment to exclusivity for a same sex couple as for a heterosexual couple.

    If anything it is a solution to reduce the prevalence of STDs in the gay community.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Chuck Bird (4,928 comments) says:

    “If anything it is a solution to reduce the prevalence of STDs in the gay community.”

    Can I sell you the harbour bridge?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Chuck,

    I’m only sorry that you no longer see the institute of marriage as an effective measure for sexual exclusivity in couples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. nasska (11,813 comments) says:

    bhudson

    I’ve been told of instances where the institution of marriage has been totally effective in initiating absence of sexual activity between couples. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Manolo (14,078 comments) says:

    At this pace DPF’s creation will soon be renamed PINKiwiblog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    nasska,

    :-) Perhaps Chuck and co should be demanding same sex marriage!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,571 comments) says:

    How old are you Chuck? You sound like somebody near the end of your life. As a younger law abiding citizen I am opposed to the lifestyle habits of people your age. Your habits of smelling like wee and walking around slower than us, while spreading your 18th century morality upon us disgusts me. You choose to be old and irrelevant and I do not support this choice.

    Legislation should be bought in immediately to protect us from people like you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Chuck Bird (4,928 comments) says:

    Liberal Minded Kiwi, you and other libertarians demonstrate the weakness of your argument by constant personal attacks. You ask about me but you cowardly hid behind a pseudonym. Are you ashamed of your viewpoint? You do make me sick.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    Chuck
    They are the ones who are the true hypocrites and liars.
    Good for you.

    Never give in to the bastards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,571 comments) says:

    Chucky – Considered euthanasia lately?

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