At least spell it right!

October 28th, 2012 at 11:58 am by David Farrar

Photo by Jason Dorday/HoS

I’m not sure what is funnier. The weirdness of their attempted message, or the spelling mistakes. It’s almost like a parody.

Bakshi hoped to convince MPs who earlier voted for gay marriage to change their minds, saying most ethnic MPs opposed gay marriage.

“We understand that God made us and we are firm believers (that) marriage is between a man and woman,” Bakshi told the crowd of around 250. “I tell you, the majority of the National Party MPs voted against this bill. There were only three Labour party MPs who voted against this bill. So you can understand who believes in Christianity, who believes in this bill. It is the National Party.”

Speaking to the Herald on Sunday afterwards, he conceded that most National MPs had, in fact, supported the bill.

Indeed, 30 votes in favour and 29 against.

As Bakshi sat on stage, speaker Alani Taione from the Tonga Development Society berated MPs who supported the bill and referred to the Prime Minister as “John Gay”. “That’s a personal view,” he said afterwards.

Oh dear.

Labour’s Ruth Dyson, who chairs the Parliamentary committee, said she had no objection to Bakshi participating in the protest.

Her colleague, Sio, told the crowd many people were not capable of understanding the objections to gay marriage. “Many New Zealanders will say: ‘What’s the big deal?’ You and I don’t necessarily have to defend that, because you and I have a perspective that is perhaps beyond most people’s perspective.”

One can understand an objection, but just not agree with it.

Tags:

127 Responses to “At least spell it right!”

  1. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    And Kevin Hague (who is on the select committee) has just written an illogical piece in the West Coast messenger linking not granting ‘marriage equality” to almost every evil human kind has ever dreamed up.

    Kevin Hague’s piece makes it clear to me that this is just the beginning of an entire campaign to ‘right the wrongs’ of society. It is clear as day that we can expect massive and sustained propaganda to enter our schools and workplaces which will ultimately lead to the point that people will be too afraid to offer the slightest criticism toward a homosexual for anyreason, and other cultural and religious beliefs will be forced to bow the knee to our latest popular religion.

    The Activists on this issue reveal their true intent by the words they choose to use, it is abundantly clear that this is not primarily about righting an injustice, it is about getting the green light from the state for a sustained period of social engineering.

    Bloody marvelous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. RF (1,363 comments) says:

    Don’t forget that Tim Barnett is lurking in the background and his hands will be all over this. Not something I would look forward to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (8,234 comments) says:

    Gosh DPF, picking on a culturally and racially disadvantaged minority..!!

    Over shortcomings that result from their non-NZ origins.

    Some of your National Party mates will be very disappointed at such insensitive behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. iMP (2,349 comments) says:

    It’s Tongan pigeon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Rightandleft (658 comments) says:

    “Mantally sick” could almost be an attempt at clever wordplay, but somehow I doubt it was intentional at all. The stupidity of comparing gays to animals will hurt their message with mainstream voters. If this does cost Labour votes I don’t see where they’ll go. The only party that actually voted against the bill at first reading was NZ First and that doesn’t seem like a natural home for Pacific Islanders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Don the Kiwi (1,678 comments) says:

    Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. This not hate speach – it is a statement of fact. Homosexual acts are contrary to nature.

    This means that gay marriage is instrinsically disordered, and against nature – a simple statement of fact.

    Its not being discriminatory in any way to say that 2 people of the same gender cannot marry, unless you change the definition of marriage. Why would that be done, to suit a small percentage of about 2% of the population? The majority of gay people don’t even want it – only the activist few who are full of envy and hate against those who can marry, in accordance with nature and natural law.

    Now lets hear the screams :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. ChardonnayGuy (1,195 comments) says:

    Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Gosh, Redbaiter, assuming that some of us supporters of LGBT rights don’t have inconveniently long memories and remember quite well that there were a number of shared platforms going on between the (now happily defunct) New Zealand League of Rights and Christian Right opponents of feminism, LGBT rights and reproductive freedom during the eighties and early nineties!! Over shortcomings that result from their gullibility toward avowed neofascists, anti-Semites, anti-immigrant racists etc.

    And obviously you didn’t read about the ad hominem attack made on Prime Minister Key in the course of that article. One that Mr Bakshi does not seem to have condemned, incidentally. Do feel free to complain up the food chain about this, David. The guy seems as much a liability to your side of the aisle as Sua William Sio is to the Labour Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    Gosh DPF, picking on a culturally and racially disadvantaged minority..!!

    Over shortcomings that result from their non-NZ origins.

    Exactly, that proponents of marriage redefinition go looking for such intellectually dishonest ‘proof’ of bigotry should be a red flag to anyone that has the slightest concern for legitimate debate.

    It is a disgrace and an indictment against our society when such disingenuous crap like this is able to fly without challenge.

    We no longer value integrity, just what ever it takes to ‘win’ and this is a one way street to some pretty dark shit in my opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Reid (16,174 comments) says:

    …it is abundantly clear that this is not primarily about righting an injustice, it is about getting the green light from the state for a sustained period of social engineering.

    Well it is to those of us who understand social engineering Shunda. Those who don’t which is the vast majority think it’s about human wights, which it’s not and never has been. There is no discrimination. This is what the idiots can’t answer. Where’s the discrimination? Yet even when confronted by this unanswerable question, the silly mentals continue to bray the same old meme. Fuck they’re dumb.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ChardonnayGuy (1,195 comments) says:

    Natural law theory is an archaic, premodern and prescientific theoretical construct that first appeared in the twelfth century. If it cannot be empirically validated or disproved, then Don’s statement is not ‘fact’, it is the product of a particular sectarian religious philosophy. In a liberal, pluralist and democratic society, Don is entitled to freedom of speech, belief, conscience, worship, assembly, and all the other markers of religious freedom (as well as converse freedom from religious compulsion). However, it is not conducive to good democratic practice, human rights and civil liberties to force particular sectarian and subjectively based public policy on those who do not share those particular subjective religious beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. iMP (2,349 comments) says:

    DPF criticising the spelling of others?…glasshouses and rocks I say thee.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. ChardonnayGuy (1,195 comments) says:

    “Social engineering.” Ah, cue the conspiracist rhetoric! Or, to put it in more vivid terms:

    Help! I’m being chased down darkened corridors by giant (deep breath) Maori lesbian libertarian asset sales supporter devils waving sharpened pitchforks…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Rightandleft (658 comments) says:

    You can complain all you want, call the majority of the population dumb and brainwashed, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’ve already lost this battle. The majority supports same-sex marriage, it will pass in Parliament and there isn’t a thing that can be done to stop it. Heck even if all the polls are wrong and the majority are against same-sex marriage it still doesn’t matter because it will still pass in Parliament and you know it. You can scream about it all you want and convince yourselves of the rightness of the argument here but the rest of us can always take comfort in knowing that we won where it counts, in Wellington.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    ChardonnayGuy said

    . In a liberal, pluralist and democratic society, Don is entitled to freedom of speech, belief, conscience, worship, assembly, and all the other markers of religious freedom (as well as converse freedom from religious compulsion). However, it is not conducive to good democratic practice, human rights and civil liberties to force particular sectarian and subjectively based public policy on those who do not share those particular subjective religious beliefs.

    Ha!!

    Yet that is exactly what marriage ‘redefiners’ are doing you dullard!

    Or do you think compelling the state to legislate morality is only something minority Christians are capable of?

    Separation of church and state is easy when you have a well defined ‘church’, not so easy when you have a poorly defined ‘liberal elite’ that currently dominate NZ politics.

    You are a fool if you think that isn’t whats happening.

    So where are all the homosexuals bashing on their local MP’s office door demanding to be able to marry? there aren’t any, and no injustice is evident, yet here we all are.

    This is bullshit of the highest order, it is a blatant corruption of state power, legitimacy and authority, it is the beginning of much more sinister things and I’m talking about things that have nothing to do with issues related to sexual orientation.

    The stage is being set for the state to become the sole arbiter of morality in this country, anyone that loves freedom should be thoroughly disturbed by this development.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. bc (1,360 comments) says:

    Don the Kiwi @12.39pm
    No screams, just a roll of the eyes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    The reason civil unions are not enough for our liberal would-be overlords is because civil unions don’t imply a specific state sanctioned moral endorsement.

    Marriage does.

    Remember folks, it’s all about gaining an endorsement, not a marriage license.

    Ever wondered why they want this endorsement? because this endorsement is far more useful to the goals of a much larger group of activists than just those handful of homosexuals that may want to marry.

    You wait, you just wait and see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ChardonnayGuy (1,195 comments) says:

    Not at all. Stalin banned abortion and homosexuality in the former Soviet Union when he took over from Lenin in the 1920s, Shunda. Seperation of faith and state is essential to good democratic governance- look at Bosnia’s ordeal at the hands of Serbia’s Orthodox-led butchers and their puppets in the Republica Serpska back in the nineties, or the Rwandan genocide, in which Tutsi Christians participated actively and eagerly in the slaughter of Hutus.

    And moreover, it isn’t even all Christians that *oppose* marriage equality, either- only the fundamentalist Protestants and conservative Catholics, and not even all of the latter, given that many of them seem to be more concerned about Maryan Street’s End of Life Choices Bill.

    And here we go again- “elite.” Sorry mate, I come from a working class background and through diligence, hard work and self-sacrifice, I became the first person on my dad’s side of the family to make it to university and accquire tertiary qualifications. So don’t come the ‘elite’ angle with me, it doesn’t work.

    So particular sectarian religious institutions should be in charge of things instead? There’s a word for that sort of thing- theocracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Kevin Hague (7 comments) says:

    Text of the West Coast Messenger column referred to by Shunda:

    “Messenger column October 2012
    Submissions on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill close at the end of the day this Friday 26th October.
    When my partner and I moved to the Coast, nearly ten years ago, a lot of people we knew thought we were mad, as the West Coast was well known to be populated by prejudiced rednecks who would make our lives hell. I can honestly say (though I know this isn’t true for everyone) that we have not encountered a single incident of discrimination in that time and I have spent a bit of time in the rest of the country standing up for West Coasters as fair-minded and generous. Please help prove me right by submitting on the Bill! (Help here: http://www.greens.org.nz/takeaction/submissionguides/marriage-equality-make-submission).
    Fundamentally Louisa Wall’s Bill is about not treating gay and lesbian New Zealanders as second class citizens. Marriage is both a religious institution and a status conveyed by the State. Nobody is trying to force churches to marry couples they don’t want to. That’s not what the Bill does. But when the State marries couples it should not discriminate on irrelevant criteria like sexual orientation.
    When the State discriminates, without any good reason, it sends a powerful signal to everyone else, including those who are prejudiced and those prejudiced against, that such discrimination is okay. The evidence is strong that the existence of prejudice and discrimination is associated with all sorts of adverse health and other effects for those who experience it.
    So the Bill is not only about recognising human rights, but also about reducing suicide, mental health problems, alcohol and drug abuse, violence and all sorts of other effects of discrimination.
    Some say that same-sex marriage shouldn’t be permitted because marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman. I say if we based our decisions about human rights on tradition, nothing would ever change and we would still have, for example, slavery and only men voting. Others have moral or religious objections. I point out that New Zealand is not a country where churches make the laws and suggest, kindly, that people who object to same sex marriage shouldn’t marry a person of the same sex. Some say same-sex marriage will harm others. I say show me just one person or couple who will be harmed by me being able to marry my partner of 28 years.
    Giving everyone a fair go is an important value on the West Coast. Please help prove it.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Reid (16,174 comments) says:

    Rightandleft, I knew the argument was always going to be lost, I’ve never thought otherwise. So what. This doesn’t make it right, does it.

    Chardonnayguy if you think it doesn’t exist then first research how communism worked in practice and then research the solid connections between communist social theory and the western feminist movement, of which the LGBT campaign is but a part of. I could give you links but best if you find them yourself since then you’ll trust the source. BTW being unaware of communist social engineering techniques and methods is dangerously profound ignorance in today’s world, but many don’t bother with it because even though it’s in the history books as FACTS THAT REALLY HAPPENED, you know, reality, the silly mentals think it’s some kind of “theory.” I mean, what about historical facts don’t these fools understand? What sort of fucked in the head thinking, is that? Der. That’s why I say about people like that, fuck they’re dumb. Because they are, aren’t they.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Reid (16,174 comments) says:

    So the Bill is not only about recognising human rights

    What rights? The right to use a word, marriage? Why is that a “right?” And why all this fuss over a word? Since gays already have civil unions don’t they Kev. And if they want to adopt, then let’s have a gay adoption debate, not a gay marriage debate.

    Let’s hope you can directly answer that question instead of obfuscating over it like most do, by pretending that an entire national political campaign over the right to use a single word, is entirely normal. So what’s the answer Kev, how come the right to use a single word, is a “human right?” It’s only a word. They already have all legal rights via civil union.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. ChardonnayGuy (1,195 comments) says:

    Reid, you are oversimplifying feminism and LGBT politics, given that there are a wide latitude of political philosophies within our communities. Granted, most LGBT New Zealanders seem to support the centre-left, but that’s because of a somewhat tangled political history insofar as the centre-right is concerned (although there are sterling individuals such as Katherine O’Regan, Jenny Shipley, Cam Slater and David himself who are valiant exceptions to that). However, there are also LGBT libertarians aplenty, and even some libertarian or individualist feminists.

    Moreover, communism collapsed about twenty years ago, and good riddance. Social democrats aren’t communists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Rightandleft (658 comments) says:

    I grew up in a mainsteam Protestant church in the US which began marrying gays as soon as the state I liived in made it legal. The United Church of Christ is a denomination that includes the Lutheran, Presbyterian and Congregationalist Churches in America. So the idea that certain types of Christians should have the right to define what all Christians believe on any issue, including marriage, is offensive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Reid (16,174 comments) says:

    Chardonnayguy, you aren’t addressing the issue at all. Nothing you say above addresses the points I raised. Like I said, do your research, and once you’ve done that, we can have detailed debates about this and that to do with social engineering. But until you’ve done that there is no point, because it’s like any discipline, you need first to understand it.

    although there are sterling individuals such as Katherine O’Regan, Jenny Shipley, Cam Slater and David himself who are valiant exceptions to that

    No they’re all idiots, because every single one of them thinks it’s about human wights, but none of them can point to any discrimination whatsoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Kevin Hague (7 comments) says:

    Reid – start here http://www.hrc.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Marriage-equalityand-the-right-to-form-a-family.11.7.12.final-with-images.doc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (8,234 comments) says:

    Guy is predominantly concerned with self identifying as a homosexual. (click on his name)

    That says all that needs to be said about him and his comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Reid (16,174 comments) says:

    Like I said Kevin, if you want to have a gay adoption debate, let’s have one, but let’s not conflate that issue with gay marriage. What’s happening here is gay marriage is being used as the vehicle toward gay adoption and that’s both disingenuous and insidious. So why not have a gay adoption debate? And BTW, you still haven’t answered my simple question: why is a single word considered to be discrimination and why is there an entire national political campaign over the use of a single word?

    And just because the HRC uses words such as “discrimination” doesn’t mean it’s actually happening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. jims_whare (401 comments) says:

    I’d say Colin Craig should be campaigning around South Auckland – be the easiest 5% he could pick up anywhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    How many people posting on here can spell well in other languages?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Fletch (6,226 comments) says:

    You can complain all you want, call the majority of the population dumb and brainwashed, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’ve already lost this battle. The majority supports same-sex marriage, it will pass in Parliament and there isn’t a thing that can be done to stop it. Heck even if all the polls are wrong and the majority are against same-sex marriage it still doesn’t matter because it will still pass in Parliament and you know it. You can scream about it all you want and convince yourselves of the rightness of the argument here but the rest of us can always take comfort in knowing that we won where it counts, in Wellington.

    Rightandleft, that’s not where it counts, for me.

    Just because a majority believe something is right and moral doesn’t make it so. That is an ad populum fallacy.
    As Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said –

    “Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.”

    Just so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    I would like to address some of Kevin Hague’s points here.

    Fundamentally Louisa Wall’s Bill is about not treating gay and lesbian New Zealanders as second class citizens.

    Gay and lesbian NZers are not second class citizens now, they just aren’t heterosexual.

    Marriage is both a religious institution and a status conveyed by the State. Nobody is trying to force churches to marry couples they don’t want to. That’s not what the Bill does.

    Nobody is forcing churches now Kevin, but that could change 30seconds after the bill is passed. Your own conviction on religious freedom is almost certainly not shared by a good number of your colleagues, or a lot of others with their own particular axe to grind. In short, you can not promise this won’t happen Kevin.

    But when the State marries couples it should not discriminate on irrelevant criteria like sexual orientation.

    Why is it irrelevant? why is it so inconceivable that it could actually be ok for heterosexuals (the vast majority of humanity) to have their own exclusive tradition? religious or otherwise? It is about male and female, nothing wrong with that, nothing bigoted about that.

    When the State discriminates, without any good reason, it sends a powerful signal to everyone else, including those who are prejudiced and those prejudiced against, that such discrimination is okay.

    But there is a good reason for discrimination – Male and female relationships underpin society and marriage reflects the biological ideal for raising happy, healthy young NZers. Gay is not straight, lets all accept what mother nature dealt us.

    The evidence is strong that the existence of prejudice and discrimination is associated with all sorts of adverse health and other effects for those who experience it.

    This is evidence of a whole another agenda right here.

    So the Bill is not only about recognising human rights, but also about reducing suicide, mental health problems, alcohol and drug abuse, violence and all sorts of other effects of discrimination.

    So what else is being planned Kevin? how is all this going to be accomplished by passing a law that very few homosexuals will even take advantage of? (going by recent polls) Surely these issues can be dealt with individually without redefining a long standing tradition? this is where I detect the scent of an entirely different and ill defined agenda.
    I believe others are eager to exploit this for their own ends, perhaps not Kevin Hague himself, but others almost certainly will.

    Some say that same-sex marriage shouldn’t be permitted because marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman. I say if we based our decisions about human rights on tradition, nothing would ever change and we would still have, for example, slavery and only men voting.

    Marriage is a benevolent tradition, slavery and chauvinism are not even traditions.

    Others have moral or religious objections. I point out that New Zealand is not a country where churches make the laws and suggest, kindly, that people who object to same sex marriage shouldn’t marry a person of the same sex. Some say same-sex marriage will harm others.

    Same sex marriage will not harm others, but the state becoming the sole arbiter of morality most certainly will. The State is not lolly scramble central for people that currently seem ‘nice’, the state is not supposed to meddle with tradition or the morals of it’s citizens.

    Marriage redefinition is exactly the same thing as combining church and state, it is endorsing the moral perspective of one group when no legal human rights abuses or inequality exists. Why is it that polls of gay people show a remarkable indifference to this issue? Where is the pressing need? Why is the call for change primarily driven by liberal heterosexuals?

    I say show me just one person or couple who will be harmed by me being able to marry my partner of 28 years.

    You can do that now, you can exchange rings and have a wedding. Why can’t you respect my right to be heterosexual and married? why can’t you see that male/female relationships are distinct enough to be celebrated as a valued and honored tradition in our society? Concerns about adoption can and will be addressed by your bill.

    I feel that society will lose something if marriage is redefined, male and female relationships are different to same sex relationships, and ‘different’ doesn’t necessarily = inferior, but they are different none the less, why can’t you let my wife and I keep our exclusive tradition? how does my marriage harm you and your partner?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Fairfacts Media (372 comments) says:

    David is simply highlighting the great liberal dilemma.
    Lefties are always all for masses of immigration, but look at the people who is often imported.
    For example, if, 5 million muslims arrived in New Zealand tomorrow, it is likely we would be a muslim state and shariah law would be on the cards.
    What would happen to marriage equality then?
    Indeed, what would happen to homosexual equality.
    Not to mention, women’s rights too!
    Importing people from the Third World means they bring their primitive beliefs with them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. frank tone (1 comment) says:

    It is interesting that the Herald on Sunday chose to publicise this photograph out of the many possible photo opportunities presenting themselves at the protest. Is this an attempt to mock/shoot the protestors? The organiser of the march is quoted as saying that the opinions expressed in the placards’ wording are extreme. There needs to be a proper and balanced debate on this issue and for the supporters (of the bill) not to label as bigots, those who disagree with them. A referendum must be held for the sake of democrary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Fletch (6,226 comments) says:

    The evidence is strong that the existence of prejudice and discrimination is associated with all sorts of adverse health and other effects for those who experience it. So the Bill is not only about recognising human rights, but also about reducing suicide, mental health problems, alcohol and drug abuse, violence and all sorts of other effects of discrimination.

    And yet in Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legalized for years, gays say they still experience the same ill effects.
    In their own words: –

    Over the past 10 years [Government] have contracted with experts on gay, lesbian, bisexual health to produce studies … issues affecting queer Canadians includes lower life expectancy than the average Canadian, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, inadequate access to care and HIV/AIDS… all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our community… higher rates of anal cancer in the gay male community, lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer … more GLBT people in this country who die of suicide each year than die from AIDS, there are more who die early deaths from substance abuse than die of HIV/AIDS… now that we can get married everyone assumes that we don’t have any issues … A lot of the deaths that occur in our community are hidden … Those of us who are working on the front lines see them and I’m tired of watching my community die”

    Julia Garro, [gay magazine] Xtra Tuesday, February 17, 2009

    So, it looks like having gay marriage will not solve the amounts of suicide, depression, substance abuse etc, that advocates say it will.
    It fact, it probably won’t make any difference at all. This leads me to believe that these problems have nothing whatsoever to do with society’s attitude towards gays and/or gay marriage, but that these problems are intrinsic to the gay lifestyle itself. Even if you manage to persuade others in society that your lifestyle is OK, you still have to deal with your own conscience, which tells you it is wrong.

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

    From a post by red at his blog
    ( click on his name and that says all that needs to be said about him)

    I’ve got no problem with any conflict of ideas. What is starting to annoy me more than a bit about NZ at the moment is the depth of the opposition that I observe towards Christians and Christianity…………………..It is in so many cases obsessive and pathological. Too frequently it is close to hatred……………….

    This from the most intolerant ignorant foaming at the mouth fuck wit that posts here. Red don’t you get it, what you posted on your blog is exactly what you do here.

    You are obessive, you are pathological , you spew hatred. You are a fucking clown.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ChardonnayGuy (1,195 comments) says:

    And just because a particular religious sect states that something is moral or immoral is no reason to give kneejerk approval to it, or affiliation to a particular political party. I don’t support the Labour/Green asset sales referendum because I loathe ‘citizens’ referenda and do not believe that it is a constructive political tactic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    This from the most intolerant ignorant foaming at the mouth fuck wit that posts here. Red don’t you get it, what you posted on your blog is exactly what you do here.

    You are obessive, you are pathological , you spew hatred. You are a fucking clown.

    Look who’s bloody talking!.

    You can’t exactly condemn the guy for something then proceed in the very next breath to do it yourself!

    Posting on blogs often brings out a more aggressive demeanor as body language has to be replaced by words, the temptation is just to cut to the chase and let your opponent have it.

    I am far more aggressive on blogs than I am in real life, it just goes with this form of communication. Why waste good manners and civility on strangers?

    It shouldn’t be feared and it shouldn’t necessarily mean anything conclusive about an individuals character either.

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

    The difference Shunda is I know what I’m doing, poor old Russell has no fucking idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Bob R (1,358 comments) says:

    ***David is simply highlighting the great liberal dilemma.
    Lefties are always all for masses of immigration, but look at the people who is often imported.***

    @ Fairfacts Media,

    Exactly right. In Amsterdam and Tower Hamlets in London this problem has been highlighted by attacks on gays by immigrants. Surveys of their attitudes suggest that the people liberals appear to want to bring in for cultural enrichment often hold deeply conservative social views.

    “….As you can see, Western European Muslims are much more conservative than the general population. Or, more accurately they’re much more reactionary and culturally alien. The reality is that the status quo in Western Europe is toward acceptance of homosexuality without the sort of debates we have in the United States. Interestingly you can’t even calculate a real ratio for British Muslims to the general public, not one British Muslim surveyed would admit to homosexuality being morally acceptable.”

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/admissions-of-illiberalism/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Don the Kiwi (1,678 comments) says:

    ChardonayGuy.
    12.45 pm.

    Natural law theory is an archaic, premodern and prescientific theoretical construct that first appeared in the twelfth century

    Not so – the bases of Natural Law were formulated by Aristotle, Plato and Socrates – 5th.century BC.

    However, it is not conducive to good democratic practice, human rights and civil liberties to force particular sectarian and subjectively based public policy on those who do not share those particular subjective religious beliefs.

    There is nothing particularly religious about natural law – its formulation depended on reason and conformity to nature, and the way nature is ordered. Because civilisation took on these basic tenets as a foundation ofr morality within society does not make it a religious construct.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Redbaiter (8,234 comments) says:

    “I became the first person on my dad’s side of the family to make it to university and accquire tertiary qualifications.

    ..and one of the millions of dimwitted and impressionable little sponge-brained tuggers to have their heads stuffed completely full of utterly worthless Marxist shit with nary a contrary opinion ever to be seen or permitted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Redbaiter (8,234 comments) says:

    “Look who’s bloody talking!.”

    Pigs Shunda, with only ad hominem arguments, don’t wrestle with them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Nostalgia-NZ (5,081 comments) says:

    So much to hate and so little time eh Redbaiter?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    Whether it’s storming the beaches at Normandy or Inchon, mowing down commies on the way up Heartbreak Ridge, directing fire support onto his position at Long Tan, leading the hit on bin Laden, protesting bridge tolls in Tauranga or delivering hard-hitting and incisive political comment, it’s all the same to KB’s resident hard nut; a legend in his own imagination. Done those lunch dishes Russell?

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

    Oh Red even if I could be bothered I couldn’t parody you the way you do it yourself.

    Chardonnay put a couple of decent unemotional comments and the best you could do is point out that he may or not be gay. You sir are a fucking genuis you are. – and this is what come from you……………..and one of the millions of dimwitted and impressionable little sponge-brained tuggers to have their heads stuffed completely full of utterly worthless Marxist shit with nary a contrary opinion ever to be seen or permitted……………………….

    You are a sad little man Russell, you don’t even have the excuse of being pissed when you put up your drival.

    and mate do you even know what an ad hominem argument is because by my counting all 10000 plus comments you have bored the tits off us with of yours have been ad hominem.

    Surely a man of your giant intellect should be at the forefront of New Zealands financial and social recovery- a business giant heading a company based entirely on your fool proof conservative plan to save man kind, employing thousands, saving them from the marxist scourge that is sweeping all before it- surely you are capable of this , a man with all the answers .

    But na, just a sad inadequate hate filled indivdiual with nothing but sound bite comments taken from blogs of nutters else where. Pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    eastbay

    He would be doing all that important stuff but he still hasn’t finished the washing up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Redbaiter (8,234 comments) says:

    Y’know I sometimes wish I could tell you. You dumbarses would have to eat so much crow you’d shit feathers for a year.

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

    Red

    Are you trying to tell us you have one of those business cards with just a New Zealand coat of arms on it in gold and nothing else.

    Mate I’m impressed.

    On a lesser scale, perhaps Sir John Sawers has you here as his agent in place keeping an eye on things for the Crown. Still impressive.

    And all this from Tauranga, who ever would have thunk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. chiz (1,132 comments) says:

    Don the Kiwi:Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. This not hate speach – it is a statement of fact.

    Its a statement of opinion, not fact.

    Homosexual acts are contrary to nature.

    Given that homosexuality occurs in nature, its rather difficult to see how it can be contrary to it.

    This means that gay marriage is instrinsically disordered, and against nature – a simple statement of fact.

    Again, opinion rather than fact.

    Its not being discriminatory in any way to say that 2 people of the same gender cannot marry, unless you change the definition of marriage.

    There are, broadly speaking, two ways of conceiving of marriage – the procreative and the romantic concepts. Under the romantic conception – that it is about two people in love with each other – then it is discriminatory. Polls show that the majority of the country support gay marriage and, therefore, the romantic conception of marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. chiz (1,132 comments) says:

    Shunda Barunda:Why is it that polls of gay people show a remarkable indifference to this issue?

    Can you point to any of these polls?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Reid (16,174 comments) says:

    I asked Kevin Hague at 1:31 why is a single word considered to be discrimination and why is there an entire national political campaign over the use of a single word?

    He hasn’t answered but I’ll tell you why they want it and the answer lies in the observation this is a western-global campaign which means it’s not a grassroots uprising of a real injustice it’s a campaign of some sort because hey, all countries are different and we wouldn’t all suddenly simultaneously come to the same conclusion all over the world unless it was being orchestrated, which of course it is being. Evidently. I mean every country is having the same campaign at the same time.

    So why do gays desperately want to use the word, the single word, which is all its about? It’s because this single word is like a brand is in the commercial world. And all western nations hold this common collective view of what marriage is and represents. And it represents the concepts of family: love, friendship, loyalty, devotion, childhood, etc. Through wisdom and discipline it flourishes. And it has had these qualities since the year dot, in all of our minds, as a collective concept of this thing called marriage, a.k.a. the family.

    The thing about it is, the basis of a man-woman relationship is normally family. The basis of a gay relationship is sex. This doesn’t mean love and friendship isn’t involved in equal degrees in all relationships, of course it is so please don’t think I’m alleging one sort is superior, I’m not. I’m just saying there is a differing basis for each and one is family and the other is sex. If you allege this isn’t so then feel free to point out where I’m wrong, but don’t deny it’s there, because while it might be inconvenient, it nevertheless exists as part of the conceptual framework which gives us understanding of our revered institutions in society and the family is the most revered of all.

    The significance of combining one, marriage, with the other, sex, is I hope obvious to anyone who has thought about how human societies tick and what trends, events and dynamics have happened in the past to bring about the society we see today. And more importantly, one who knows great downfalls of past civilisations because those have many useful lessons.

    Imagine for example if we’d been able to keep the general family values from the 50’s still around today, how different we would be as a people? But look since then at all the family-changing-for-the-worse events and dynamics that has bought about today’s results.

    So I’m not making any value judgement on the outcome of mixing marriage and sex over generations to come, the real effects will only begin to appear in twenty years after the first generation grows up in the new era and it takes maybe 3-5 generations of it to get up to speed, and anyone who has studied the disciplines I mentioned above can work out the consequences for themselves. I’m only saying, that’s why they’re having a global campaign on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. chiz (1,132 comments) says:

    Reid:The thing about it is, the basis of a man-woman relationship is normally family. The basis of a gay relationship is sex.

    This gets to the heart of your confusion. The basis of any relationship, as distinct from a basic hookup for sex, is love. The basis for a man-woman relationship is love, and the basis for a man-man or woman-woman relationship is also love. Two people in love often want to have sex as well but to claim that if two people are in a relationship then it is primarily about sex is wrong. To claim that a gay relationship is about sex and that a straight relationship isn’t is just confusion on your part.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Reid (16,174 comments) says:

    To claim that a gay relationship is about sex and that a straight relationship isn’t is just confusion on your part.

    A gay relationship is about sex, chiz. Do you deny that? If so, what’s your reasoning. I did explain the position of love etc in both types of relationship, in my post, perhaps you should read it again. I’m not saying a straight relationship isn’t about sex. Where did I say it wasn’t? I’m saying the basis of the relationship for a man and woman is children and the basis of the relationship for a gay couple is sex. They are. This doesn’t mean chiz there aren’t other things as well, it’s saying the foundation, the base of the relationship, is one of those two things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    Chiz doesn’t seem to understand why boys like girls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. chiz (1,132 comments) says:

    Good grief Reid, did you even read what I wrote or did you just respond to keywords in it in some pavlovian sense?

    A gay relationship is about sex, chiz. Do you deny that? If so, what’s your reasoning.

    I explained my reasoning. To claim that a gay relationship is about sex, with the implication that this is the main reason for the relationship, is misleading. If two men are in a relationship it is because they are in love with each other. That they may also want to have sex with each other, as a result of being in love with each other, does not mean that the sex is the reason for the relationship. What do you not understand about this?

    I’m saying the basis of the relationship for a man and woman is children and the basis of the relationship for a gay couple is sex.

    Nonsense. If a man and a woman are in a relationship with each other it is because they are in love with each other irrespective of whether or not they want children.

    And yes, shunda, I understand why boys like girls. Now, where are those polls you were referring to. Found them yet?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Fletch (6,226 comments) says:

    chiz, the fact is though, that two gay men or two gay women cannot ever have sex (coitus).
    It is physically impossible. Any attempts by them of having “sex” are a sad counterfeit or imitation of the real, life-giving act. It’s a striving for something they can never have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    In this day and age of acceptance, one would think that accepting inherent limitations of life and love due to sexual orientation would be a simple issue.

    But this isn’t about gaining a marriage license, it is about the over reaching of a civil rights movement beyond addressing issues of actual inequality and driving toward a specific state sanctioned moral endorsement, a compelling of the population to behave the way they feel they should with the long arm of the state behind them.

    This is an appalling corruption of true liberty and freedom.

    And like Reid said, it’s uncanny how it just so happened to become an issue all around the world at almost exactly the same time.

    Though for anyone interested, this tactic was all laid out in after the ball by Kirk and Madsen:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_the_Ball:_How_America_Will_Conquer_Its_Fear_and_Hatred_of_Gays_in_the_%2790s

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. chiz (1,132 comments) says:

    Fletch: the fact is though, that two gay men or two gay women cannot ever have sex

    Back to this nonsense then? Sex has a broad meaning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. chiz (1,132 comments) says:

    Sunda Barunda:And like Reid said, it’s uncanny how it just so happened to become an issue all around the world at almost exactly the same time.

    All around the world? Really? Even in Saudi Arabia or Sudan? Not just liberal western countries?

    May be its because these countries are culturally interconnected so that social changes in one country – divorce, gay rights, etc, often show up in other countries in a similar timeframe.

    Still waiting for those polls btw.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Reid (16,174 comments) says:

    chiz, as you know, we’ve been talking specifically about western societies, because Muslims and Asians and Africans all have different interpretations of their versions of the social concepts of “marriage” and “family” plus they’re not being targeted by the campaign, are they. Der. Shunda was only making a point. If the only point you can make against the argument are pedantic ones like that, then your counter-argument barrage is as threatening as an old granny with a zimmer frame.

    Why is it that your every point is based at the micro level? Such as what comprises individual relationships. For I’ve only ever been talking at the macro level, and you’ll never get what I’m saying unless you think at that level, which has nothing repeat nothing to do with what goes on in individual relationships.

    I have been talking about the entire collective conscious awareness across all western societies in respect of the institution most closely involved in one fundamental area of human existence: that institution that brings about the closest and deepest relationships we have. Everything I said above was with respect to that highest macro level and only that macro level. That’s why it takes generations to change.

    Sixty years – three generations – is a typical timeframe. Take a social dynamic like the family or work patterns or educational patterns or sexual liberalisation patterns or anything you want and think about it as it was sixty years ago then see how it changed and try to identify the reasons and the major events that bought about what we see in it today. This is why when thinking about it across that sort of time period in every single western society, individual aspects of the what-makes-a-good-relationship equation is a micro-level question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    The idea that homosexuals are aligned to the political left is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    In their endless search to create special “victim” groups, the left have aligned themselves with homosexuals. It may not be a case of homosexuals aligning themselves with the left.

    In response to this, many righties have gone on the attack against homosexuals. The effect is to alienate those homos who may actually be right leaning in their political beliefs. Due to concerns over the maintenance of their basic rights, they understandably side with the lefties.

    I am not convinced that a person’s sexual preferences determine their political, or wider social, beliefs. Many righties are alienating homos who could be allies.

    Personally, I think this whole issue is given too much time and consideration. I don’t care what gays do in the bedroom. I am more concerned about the sorts of beliefs they have on other issues. The right often contradict themselves by calls for less meddling in our lives by central government, then in the next breath demanding central government to meddle in peoples sex/love lives.

    Being gay does not make you a Marxist. Many of the gays I know are self employed business people and I doubt they have much time for those who want to punish the hard working and the rich. But they probably don’t want a government to attack them for who they fuck either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    Still waiting for those polls btw.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/7356494/Marriage-Gay-guys-not-interested

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    But they probably don’t want a government to attack them for who they fuck either.

    Is that what we’re talking about is it, our government attacking gay people?

    Because to me it seems more like the government attacking straight married couples and demanding we ‘hand it over’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. chiz (1,132 comments) says:

    Why is it that your every point is based at the micro level? Such as what comprises individual relationships.

    If your claim is not true about individual relationships then it will not be true in the large.

    you’ll never get what I’m saying unless you think at that level, which has nothing repeat nothing to do with what goes on in individual relationships.

    It is impossible for claims about relationships made at a “macro” level, whatever you might precisely mean by that, to be true if they are not also to some extant true of individual relationships. Your claim that gay relationships are primarily about sex cannot be true at some “macro” level if it is never ever true at the individual level.

    as you know, we’ve been talking specifically about western societies

    Its difficult at times to determine what you are talking about due to the vagueness and imprecision of your claims. I am greatly inclined to believe that your imprecision in expressing your claims reflects an imprecision in your thinking rather than just poor language skills.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Rightandleft (658 comments) says:

    Shunda that wasn’t a poll of gays’ views on marriage you just posted at all. It quoted one gay man from Christchurch saying he had no interest and in his opinion didn’t think others cared either. The opinion of one night-club owner is not any kind of proof fro what you’ve been claiming. In fact the only poll on the page you just gave shows a majority of 52% in favour of gay marriage!

    Since you seem to like citing anecdotal evidence, here’s some of my own. Every gay person I know is very interested in this debate and they all want gay marriage legalised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda, you should read your own link. Gays care much less about this than many breathless and hysterical righties do.

    The whole thing is a beat up by social agitating lefties and the right are buying into it. This is not driven by concerns, or views, held by most gays.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. chiz (1,132 comments) says:

    Shunda, that article isn’t a poll or about a poll. Its the opinions of one man who spends his time socialising with one particular segment of the gay community, the nightclubbing segement. Do you understand the difference? See this story for a fuller picture.

    By the way, here’s what you said:

    Why is it that polls of gay people show a remarkable indifference to this issue?

    You used the plural. So where are these polls?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Shunda that wasn’t a poll of gays’ views on marriage you just posted at all…

    In fact the only poll on the page you just gave shows a majority of 52% in favour of gay marriage!

    Rightandleft, the poll you referred to was a readers poll, not a “poll of gays”. It was the general public view. You contradicted yourself there.

    The poll shows most “people” think gay marriage is ok.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Reid (16,174 comments) says:

    The idea that homosexuals are aligned to the political left is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Why? Lefties promote gay rights. But sexuality isn’t political. The lefties are the more visible ones. That’s all.

    Its difficult at times to determine what you are talking about due to the vagueness and imprecision of your claims. I am greatly inclined to believe that your imprecision in expressing your claims reflects an imprecision in your thinking rather than just poor language skills.

    chiz if you read everything I’ve said here today, I’ve been specifically mentioning “western societies” as opposed to the lazier “societies,” every single time I’ve referred to the scope of my thesis. Read it and weep. The fact Shunda didn’t notice that precise deliberate distinction I deliberately drew throughout today isn’t my problem, as is the fact you didn’t notice it, either. Which says a bit about your own comprehension skills doesn’t it chiz.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Fletch (6,226 comments) says:

    In response to this, many righties have gone on the attack against homosexuals. The effect is to alienate those homos who may actually be right leaning in their political beliefs. Due to concerns over the maintenance of their basic rights, they understandably side with the lefties.

    Yet there are Conservative gay groups like GOProud, and people like Bruce Carroll who runs the Gay Patriot blog etc, who says that it is the Left who mostly use put downs –

    What kind of criticism and adversity have you faced personally being both gay and conservative.

    BC: Since I “came out” at age 25 (I’m now 44), I’ve constantly been told that the Republican Party wants to kill me, imprison me, strip me of rights and kill me. Oh, I said that last one already. Seriously, this vitriol that I’ve heard from left-leaning gays is in direct contrast to my personal experience in Republican politics since 1983. Sure, there are close-minded people — but that is not an exclusively conservative domain. My role as “GayPatriot” has been to try to bridge the gap between conservatives and gays who are pro-American and support returning our nation to its core constitutional principles.

    It seems that people, especially millennials, have this mindset that it’s impossible to be both gay and conservative. Whenever they see someone who is gay and conservative, or African American and conservative, those individuals seem to be met with some rather harsh criticism. Why do you think that is?

    BC: It think it is part ignorance, part projection. I have never been called a “faggot” either directly or indirectly by ANY conservative. But that is the first word that comes out of the left-leaning gay political types. Plus “kapo,” “quisling,” or “Jew working for Nazis.” I’ve heard it all from the liberals. I just laugh and return fire with facts about how the Democratic Party has taken gays for granted for their campaign money. After all, Barack Obama was an “anti-gay bigot” based on his views of marriage —
    until six months ago. Come on!

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/17506/goproud-and-gay-republicans-bruce-carroll-wants-to-change-the-notion-that-there-are-no-gay-conservatives

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Yes Fletch. You only have to look at the threads on Davids visit to Cambodia to see the gaping chasm between what the left promise and what they deliver.

    They don’t give a stuff about homos and are only using them to further their lust for political power.

    I am not fooled, many homos are not fooled, but sadly many on the right have been fooled.

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

    Shunda @ 7.15

    Whats “yours to hand over” FFS.

    You own marriage do you?

    I’m married and I don’t feel under any sort of threat. Be a bit secure man. If two men marry in my town how is that going to affect you in yours? Answer it won’t have any affect on you bu because of your narrow world view its giving you some sort of validation wanking on about it.

    The news is no one really cares what you think or what I think . You have your opinions I have mine but I see with yours and this is what is particuarly sad is your opinions aren’t really yours, they have been given to you by a minister or a priest who have rote learnt something from a book .

    The christians are just so fucking unchristian , its mind boogling it really is.

    And Shunda this wasn’t a Government, bill remember that so once again you are talking gibberish.

    I really don’t care who marries who, but just watching the bigotory and ignorance that manifests here everytime its brought up, I hope it passes about 120- 6.

    Flecth…………….. .Any attempts by them of having “sex” are a sad counterfeit or imitation of the real, life-giving act………….

    I went a couple of rounds this morning and I was pretty flash just quietly but there was absolutely no chance of any life giving going on, I had to make the cup of tea but apart from that it was just sex — so again you are talking gibberish, sad so sad

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

    reid

    I thesis has source notes, we’ve had screeds from you of your opinion and that is all, its not a thesis and even if you did have some notes your usual standard a la Orly Taitz leaves alot to be desired regarding credibilty

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. nasska (11,065 comments) says:

    And we’ll interrupt this boring repetitive debate with a short ad break for stud services available in Opotiki. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. chiz (1,132 comments) says:

    Reid:chiz if you read everything I’ve said here today, I’ve been specifically mentioning “western societies” as opposed to the lazier “societies,” every single time I’ve referred to the scope of my thesis.

    Perhaps you could give links, or the times, of these posts because, looking back through them, I can’t find any of yours that give explicit or specific mention of this qualification. Its possible I suppose that what you meant to say is that “you meant western societies” rather than “you mentioned western societies”.

    The fact Shunda didn’t notice that precise deliberate distinction I deliberately drew throughout today isn’t my problem, as is the fact you didn’t notice it, either. Which says a bit about your own comprehension skills doesn’t it chiz.

    I was replying to Shunda rather than you when I made that point. Perhaps that escaped your comprehension?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. wat dabney (3,748 comments) says:

    Because to me it seems more like the government attacking straight married couples and demanding we ‘hand it over’.

    I hadn’t realised that the propoal is to allow homosexuals to marry but also to ban heterosexuals from marrying.

    Thank you for opening our eyes to that overlooked fact, Shunda.

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

    If you want results nasska you’ll have to go down the AI route for next seasons replacements

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Reid (16,174 comments) says:

    The christians are just so fucking unchristian, its mind boogling it really is.

    How would you know Paul, what any Christian truly thinks on this issue? I take it you’re not even one of us, so how could you possibly know?

    Christianity is founded on compassion: God allowed a perfect dove to be killed, to break the sacrifice ritual extant up to that point.

    For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (Jo 3:16)

    But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Ro 5:8)

    The temple curtain separating the people from the Holy of Holy’s where the ark was kept, was torn asunder when Jesus passed over, to symbolise the ending of the separation of the Holy of Holies from the people, previous to which only the Priests from the tribe of Levite had been allowed to enter and tend.

    The key thing is God so loved the world that while we were yet sinners, the purist life in all of history was sacrificed to give all of us a free portal into the kingdom. And the only ticket to entry is love God with all your heart and all your mind and love your neighbours.

    Personally I seriously doubt that any Christian doesn’t already love all gays. I mean they’re our brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, cousins, nieces, nephews, uncles, aunts.

    However Christians also have a first duty, to understand and apply as best they can the precepts of God’s laws. This is where it’s critical to distinguish between the published perspectives of any particular religion and avoid conflating those, with the hallucination that this is also what their followers all believe. Lots of people make that mistake.

    And God’s law clearly states disturbing things about gays. And yet gays are clearly part of the human genome. Some Christians go down the compassion route and seem to go entirely for the humanity of the whole thing and who can blame them and some go down other routes.

    Completely IMO, I speak only for myself here, the Lot tale in Genesis is critical to understanding the issues behind going down the wrong path. When Lot was rescued, humanity took a bad turning and its never looked up since.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Fletch (6,226 comments) says:

    I went a couple of rounds this morning and I was pretty flash just quietly but there was absolutely no chance of any life giving going on, I had to make the cup of tea but apart from that it was just sex — so again you are talking gibberish, sad so sad

    That’s not the point. It’s still possible for you to have sex with a woman and conceive (barring age, contraception, etc).
    It is not possible at all for a gay couple to have sex and bear a child because it goes against all Nature. Alan Keyes puts it this way –

    Because between a man and a woman – in principle – procreation is always possible. And it is that possibility that gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place. But when it is impossible, as between two males or two females – you’re talking about something that is not just incidentally impossible, it’s impossible in principle. That means that if you are saying, ‘that is a marriage’, you are saying that marriage can be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have changed it’s definition in such a way as, in fact, to destroy the necessity for the institution, since the only reason it has existed in human societies and civilizations is to regulate, from a social point of view, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation.
    So if you start playing games in this way, you are acting as if the institution has no basis independent of your own arbitrary whim. – Alan Keyes

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Nostalgia-NZ (5,081 comments) says:

    The cool thing about those two men was that they spoke in their own voice. No spell checks, and no embarrassment. No message from superb education, or filled with references to fill their credibility. A raw truth as they see it. They spoke what others may have dared not. They help complete the debate because they haven’t chosen their words other than to single message their task. Good on them. I bet without doubt they would drink kava with supporter and opponent alike, crossed legged on the ground to discuss that on which they grow their belief.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Reid (16,174 comments) says:

    Perhaps you could give links, or the times, of these posts because, looking back through them, I can’t find any of yours that give explicit or specific mention of this qualification.

    Why certainly chiz. I must say you’re being rather childish about the whole thing. What’s the matter? Don’t you have any actual arguments?

    me at 1:31

    He hasn’t answered but I’ll tell you why they want it and the answer lies in the observation this is a western-global campaign which means it’s not a grassroots uprising of a real injustice it’s a campaign of some sort because hey, all countries are different and we wouldn’t all suddenly simultaneously come to the same conclusion all over the world unless it was being orchestrated, which of course it is being. Evidently. I mean every country is having the same campaign at the same time.

    So why do gays desperately want to use the word, the single word, which is all its about? It’s because this single word is like a brand is in the commercial world. And all western nations hold this common collective view of what marriage is and represents.

    I was replying to Shunda rather than you when I made that point. Perhaps that escaped your comprehension?

    Yes I picked that up chiz but I thought since you were quoting Shunda’s reference to my comment I thought it was a good opportunity to make yet another tremendous, match-winning point.

    It is not possible at all for a gay couple to have sex and bear a child because it goes against all Nature.

    Fletch ain’t it sad one has to explain all of this. It’s as if they’re not even mentally potty trained yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Thanks for the bible quotes Reid.

    Here is another one:

    Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

    Christianity is founded on compassion: God allowed a perfect dove to be killed, to break the sacrifice ritual extant up to that point.

    For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (Jo 3:16)

    So your god of “compassion” killed a bird and his own son. Sorry, I am not convinced about his compassion.

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

    Reid

    Fucking hell, have you re-read your 8.07,
    if not please do and then you may figure out why you have credibility issues

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    So your god of “compassion” killed a bird and his own son. Sorry, I am not convinced about his compassion.

    No Kea, you killed him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Reid (16,174 comments) says:

    if not please do and then you may figure out why you have credibility issues

    Was it the Lot reference Paul?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Harriet (4,732 comments) says:

    Gay Marriage is nothing more than an absurd act of entitlement –

    2 blokes stick something up their bums and next they think they are entitled to change the meaning of marriage and ‘marry’ what’s attached to it.

    As some well known gay activists who oppose gay marriage have said –

    “We are differant, and conforming to a conservative institution whose main characteristic is the welfare of children from natural means is not what being gay is about.”

    There is no arguement for gay marriage -even ‘love’- and governments never legislate on an emotion like ‘love’. It is a very dangerous path to go down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Griff (7,201 comments) says:

    Harry it
    Gay does not mean only two men!what is it with you conservonutters and bum sex. How many times have the concepts of homosexual and anal sex been placed on here so far this year. Fucken gay chicks lick clit and they are still homosexuals forget about catholic priests and little boys for once and realise what two adults willingly do to each other is NONE OF YOU FUCKEN BUSINESS AND THAT INCLUDES IF THEY CHOSE TO FUCKEN MARRY GOD NUTTERS and you wonder why atheists think you are all fuckwits

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    Whats “yours to hand over” FFS.

    You own marriage do you?

    Yes, in the sense we are debating here, I do, and the state bloody well doesn’t.

    I’m married and I don’t feel under any sort of threat.

    So what? for all I know you are screwing some lady on the side.

    Be a bit secure man. If two men marry in my town how is that going to affect you in yours? Answer it won’t have any affect on you bu because of your narrow world view its giving you some sort of validation wanking on about it.

    What a ridiculous position to hold. To suggest setting up the state as sole arbiter of our morality is not going to harm anyone is profoundly delusional.
    Don’t kid yourself that this is about anything else, it is the endorsement they are after, not the marriage license and by “they” I am not talking about your average NZ homo.

    The news is no one really cares what you think or what I think . You have your opinions I have mine but I see with yours and this is what is particuarly sad is your opinions aren’t really yours, they have been given to you by a minister or a priest who have rote learnt something from a book .

    I haven’t been to church for years, I have no affection for the established, organised religious ‘priesthood’, my beliefs are my own.

    The christians are just so fucking unchristian , its mind boogling it really is.

    And Shunda this wasn’t a Government, bill remember that so once again you are talking gibberish.

    Oh please, semantics again.

    I really don’t care who marries who, but just watching the bigotory and ignorance that manifests here everytime its brought up, I hope it passes about 120- 6.

    You sound like you know bigotry well.

    Shouting down your opposition doesn’t do your personal integrity any favors, but then again, that is about the only tactic the redefiners have used and it looks as though it will be successful, so I guess you should keep it up.

    You are still wrong though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Yes, in the sense we are debating here, I do, and the state bloody well doesn’t.

    So if the state does not own marriage, then why are you concerned what laws the state passes concerning marriage?

    Your going to have serious trouble answering that one … :)

    No one is suggesting a law that forces you to change your beliefs, or to change your view on marriage.

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

    Whether you agree or disagree with them, we’ll said nostalgia @ 8.21.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    Certain gay academics are suggesting that the true number of gay people in a given population is up to around 15%. Actual studies have indicated it is around 3% for men and under 2% for women.

    Once this marriage legislation is passed we can expect the way our children are taught about these issues in state institutions to change, we can also expect activism to enter the schooling system to try and ‘flush out’ the rest of the supposedly gay 15% of the population because it is suddenly ‘safe’ to do so.

    In time this will create a serious mental health crisis, as people that are actually hetero but perhaps a bit confused (or vulnerable) will be encouraged to identify as homosexual when in fact they are not.

    You can imagine the damage this could cause an individual.

    This is the danger of legislating morality, you give legitimacy to fringe nutters and social progressives that are anything but progressive.

    It is the endorsement they need, not the marriage license.
    When they get it, then she’s all go folks, mark my words.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    No one is suggesting a law that forces you to change your beliefs, or to change your view on marriage.

    Really, you seriously believe that…………. blaarrrr-deee-hell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    It may be too late for us Shunda: http://www.godhatestheworld.com/newzealand/index.html

    Oh and you “forgot” to answer my question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    So if the state does not own marriage, then why are you concerned what laws the state passes concerning marriage?

    Because they don’t own marriage, they administer it on our behalf. You seem confused (along with most others here) about what the state is actually there for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Fletch (6,226 comments) says:

    It’s well worth getting the latest issue of Investigate magazine, where Ian Wishart looks at the issues around gay marriage, including the law – Section 56 in particular, which states that’s it is against the law to state or imply that a couple are not married when they are. If the law changes to allow same-sex marriage, it will be really shutting down your rights to have an opinion on homosexuality forever.

    56 Offence to deny or impugn validity of lawful marriage

    (1)Every person commits an offence against this Act, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding 100 pounds, who—

    (a)alleges, expressly or by implication, that any persons lawfully married are not truly and sufficiently married; or

    (b)alleges, expressly or by implication, that the issue of any lawful marriage is illegitimate or born out of true wedlock.

    (2)For the purposes of this section the term alleges means making any verbal statement, or publishing or issuing any printed or written statement, or in any manner authorizing the making of any verbal statement, or in any manner authorizing or being party to the publication or issue of any printed or written statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    You have repeated your belief that the state does not own marriage. I agree with that point.

    So why are you appealing to the state to reinforce your particular beliefs ?

    You go onto say that “they administer it on our behalf”. But that is not true. What your really saying is the state should enforce your beliefs. Once again your displaying a double standard, by asking for the state to interfere in marriage, while saying that its none of the states business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    And Kea, I don’t identify with fundamentalist Christianity in the sense you seem keen to attach to me, there is little need to even mention Christianity on this debate.

    Corruption of state power and legitimacy is an issue that should concern any citizen that has even a basic knowledge of world history.

    Separation of church and state is very wise, but the intention of that principle is not really directed at religion as such, but moral compulsion from any group.
    In that sense, marriage redefinition is exactly the same as legislating on behalf of a kind of modern religious movement, all be it a movement concerned with social engineering more than issues of the afterlife.

    This is ultimately about much more than gay marriage, it is about principle and moral endorsement, it is about gaining control of a brand as a powerful tool of change, Kevin Hague admitted as much in his post up the thread.

    Be in no doubt that this is what this is about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Fletch, s56 of what Act ?

    And I fail to see how allowing homos to marry will make it against the law to have an opinion ?

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

    @ChardonnayGuy:

    the Rwandan genocide, in which Tutsi Christians participated actively and eagerly in the slaughter of Hutus.

    WTF? I’ve just been reading about the Rwandan genocide, and all the sources I’ve seen say that it was a genocide against the Tutsi, by the Hutus. I know the RPF/Tutsi rebels aren’t exactly pure as the driven snow themselves, but this seems like a pretty revisionist take on Rwandan history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Fletch (6,226 comments) says:

    Kea, of the Marriage act.

    HERE – http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1955/0092/latest/whole.html#DLM292614

    ANd, because if religious organizations or schools, or churches (who do not believe in same-sex marriage) state or say that they are not real marriages they are likely to have the law come against them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Shunda, I have said much the same thing myself, today.

    The left are “using” homosexuals to gain political power. We can agree on that much.

    There are many allies, among homos, who oppose this themselves. Being bent, sexually, does not make you a lefty by default.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    You go onto say that “they administer it on our behalf”. But that is not true. What your really saying is the state should enforce your beliefs.

    No I’m not.

    The institution of marriage was enshrined in NZ law before I was born, I am a participant of a long standing tradition that transcends the founding of this country by a very long time. No beliefs required, just an expectation that certain people should mind their own damned business and not feel threatened or inadequate because of a long standing heterosexual tradition. Lets celebrate diversity, yay! but lets leave heterosexual marriage alone as part of that diversity.

    Once again your displaying a double standard, by asking for the state to interfere in marriage, while saying that its none of the states business.

    Bloody hell :o .

    So tell me, who is asking the state to interfere in marriage again? I’ll give you a tip sunshine, it isn’t bloody well me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Reid (16,174 comments) says:

    I can’t believe you gay marriage supporters today. You were hopeless. If this was Waterloo, you were Napoleon. It’s at risk of not being such fun anymore, you were so hopeless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    I see your point now Fletch.

    I am actually strongly opposed to religious folk being forced to compromise their beliefs on this issue. My biggest fear is that churches may be prosecuted for discrimination, if they do not marry them, in contravention of the clear words of the bible.

    Religious marriage, in a christian church, is owned and created by christians, (as Shunda has pointed out). The gays can not have it both ways.

    And I say that as someone who is both an atheist and not opposed to homo marriage. It is about individual freedom for me. That includes the freedom to be a god loving conservative.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Griff (7,201 comments) says:

    Reid you have lost the war Homosexual couples will have the same rights as any other couple

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. BigFish (132 comments) says:

    I find it amusing when the same few people claim to be victims when their ability to discriminate against others is threatened.
    These same people take any criticism as a hostile attack.
    From memory schoolyard bullies were also adept at presenting themselves as victims when confronted. Some people never grow up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Reid (16,174 comments) says:

    Griff this debate was about what’s right, not about what’s going to happen. We all know what’s going to happen. Duh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Honestly Reid, excepting a view radical people, that will test any law change to its limit, there will be no big change in our society. You will be free to maintain your views. You can be sure the media will find some radical, with a chip on their shoulder, who will get lots of coverage to play on peoples worse fears, but I am sure you know not to listen to the msm too much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    I find it amusing when the same few people claim to be victims when their ability to discriminate against others is threatened.

    My wife and I would like to be left to our ‘silly’ traditions in peace, but when others intrude upon something we value we have a right to object, just like we have a right to object to someone walking into our house and stealing the television.

    Your version of discrimination seems to be a bit like mocking us for having a lockable front door on our house.

    These same people take any criticism as a hostile attack.
    From memory schoolyard bullies were also adept at presenting themselves as victims when confronted. Some people never grow up.

    And some people never stop demanding others adhere to their particular ideology less they be labeled a bully and a bigot.

    Some people need to grow up all right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Reid (16,174 comments) says:

    You can be sure the media will find some radical, with a chip on their shoulder, who will get lots of coverage to play on peoples worse fears

    I certainly hope they will Kea. We definitely need lots more of those people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. BigFish (132 comments) says:

    “Your version of discrimination seems to be a bit like mocking us for having a lockable front door on our house.”

    Nope – your version is locking selected others in theirs and holding on to the key.
    Label yourself a bigot? You poor thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    Nope – your version is locking selected others in theirs and holding on to the key.

    The only thing I am holding on to is my right to object to disingenuous legislation.

    The only thing locking anyone into anything is mother nature herself.

    Go scream at her from a hilltop if it makes you feel better, but please stop directing your anger and frustration at people like me, psychological projection is never healthy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Harriet (4,732 comments) says:

    Men and women are biologicly designed to be together.

    Gays have simply not been socialised properly. Most become gay by way of abuse or they are taken advantage of in their formative years when they are most vunerable.

    Most young men who suffered abuse by priests, say to police, courts, family and the media “I went on to become gay.”

    In other words it took their manhood.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Rightandleft (658 comments) says:

    Kea (7:31) I didn’t contradict myself. I said there was no poll of gays’ views on the page, and the only poll was in favour of gay marriage. I know that was a poll of general readers, that’s why I said there was no poll of gays’ views.

    Harriet, your views are incredibly wrong and demeaning to gays. There is no point in debating someone so obviously twisted and ignorant. Good luck convincing the general public of your views.

    To the Christians opposing gay marriage on religious grounds, what do you say to mainstream Protestant churches like the United Church of Christ which marry gay couples? Why does your sect of Christianity have the right to speak for all Christians as though they share a single common view on gay marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. pq (728 comments) says:

    we have David Farrar to thank for the most liberal blog site that ever came to NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Cactus Kate (549 comments) says:

    It was Matt McCarten who said it is not a protest without bad spelling

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,570 comments) says:

    Good grief. The Kiwiblog gene pool is such a sad bitter place. Homosexuality isn’t abnormal. It occurs in the animal kingdom. It isn’t something one can pick. Not only do I hope we bring in marriage equality, I hope they legalise gay adoption too. Humans are humans.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. ChardonnayGuy (1,195 comments) says:

    I don’t know what the fundies here are so het up about (so to speak). I mean, think about it. If the Marriage Equality Bill becomes law, then they’ll be freer to go after euthanasia law reform and try to prevent decriminalisation of abortion access. Which is what many of the more rational conservative Catholics seem to be doing anyway- engaging in prudent strategic planning beforehand and calmly and rationally stockpiling evidence-based proof against the prospect of the End of Life Choices Bill’s eventual parliamentary introduction. I must confess, I am ambivalent about euthanasia law reform personally, but I can see the wisdom inherent within its opponents strategic preparation.

    As for the marriage equality opposition, hello? Wasn’t the spin from Colin Craig and Protect Marriage supposed to be that you lot were reputedly to engage in civil, respectful and prudent discourse on the subject? What a shame Bob McCoskrie, Ian Wishart, that Bill Muehlenberg weirdo from Oz and their Tongan friends don’t seem to have read that particular caveat. I almost feel sorry for Colin Craig in this context- at least he seems committed to civility and restraint in his context. How sad that the bully pulpit seems to have seized control of their side of the debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Scott (1,759 comments) says:

    Well here is a good example from the atheists –Griff at 9:05 p.m.-“Harry it
    Gay does not mean only two men!what is it with you conservonutters and bum sex. How many times have the concepts of homosexual and anal sex been placed on here so far this year. Fucken gay chicks lick clit and they are still homosexuals forget about catholic priests and little boys for once and realise what two adults willingly do to each other is NONE OF YOU FUCKEN BUSINESS AND THAT INCLUDES IF THEY CHOSE TO FUCKEN MARRY GOD NUTTERS and you wonder why atheists think you are all fuckwits”

    I would say that the atheists on the pro-gay marriage side of the debate are more disrespectful and more vitriolic than anybody else.

    However as a Christian I would say that we need to be respectful. This is because one day we will be judged for everything we say and do. The concept I believe we should all wrestle with. Especially those on the pro-gay marriage side of the debate who so wantonly want to redefine marriage to suit their own desires.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. BigFish (132 comments) says:

    ” Go scream at her from a hilltop if it makes you feel better, but please stop directing your anger and frustration at people like me, psychological projection is never healthy.”

    There’s nobody screaming here but you. Let people live their own lives peacefully, you alone cannot control others.
    I respect that you have an opinion.
    I hope you respect that other people have opinions too, and that your opinion may or may not be that of the majority.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. chiz (1,132 comments) says:

    Reid:Why certainly chiz. I must say you’re being rather childish about the whole thing. What’s the matter? Don’t you have any actual arguments?

    That’s a bit rich coming from a commentator who regularly descends to childishness. Perhaps I should refer to you as Weid rather than Reid per your usual style of abuse? And yes I do have actual arguments. I used them in our earlier exchanges. I take it from your silence on them that either you accept I’m right, or at least don’t have rebuttals to them.

    me at 1:31

    Actually it was you at 4:58 rather 1:31…

    He hasn’t answered but I’ll tell you why they want it and the answer lies in the observation this is a western-global campaign which means it’s not a grassroots uprising of a real injustice it’s a campaign of some sort because hey, all countries are different and we wouldn’t all suddenly simultaneously come to the same conclusion all over the world unless it was being orchestrated, which of course it is being. Evidently. I mean every country is having the same campaign at the same time.

    So, lets get this straight. Its a western-global campaign. So, is it just the west or is it global. You aren’t clear here. But you go on to say all over the world rather than all over the west, and then go on to say every country rather than, say, every western country or, say, many countries.. Sounds like you are talking about a global campaign. But its hard to tell given your imprecision at things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. chiz (1,132 comments) says:

    Shunda Barunda:Certain gay academics are suggesting that the true number of gay people in a given population is up to around 15%. Actual studies have indicated it is around 3% for men and under 2% for women.

    One gay activist in the 70s claimed, based on a misunderstanding of Kinsey’s work, that 10% of people may be gay. I don’t think there is anyone who accepts that figure or anything that high, let alone 15%. Prevalence is generally thought to be around 1-4% but it varies from place to place a bit.

    In time this will create a serious mental health crisis, as people that are actually hetero but perhaps a bit confused (or vulnerable) will be encouraged to identify as homosexual when in fact they are not.

    Similar to when people who are not hetero but perhaps a bit confused ( or vulnerable) are encouraged to identify as heterosexual when in fact they are not?

    You can imagine the damage this could cause an individual.

    Yes, we’ve already seen it.

    Btw, I take it those polls don’t exist?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. ChardonnayGuy (1,195 comments) says:

    Now, I have no time whatsoever for Julia Gillard, even if she is preferable to Tony Abbott as an Australian Prime Minister (although so is Malcolm Turnbull, whose civility, restraint and moderation is sorely needed within the current federal Australian Liberal Party). However, this American-Australian Muehlenberg nutbar stated on his weird and far from wondrous website*:

    “And what of Labor’s leader? Did we really ever expect that a fornicating socialist atheist was going to really hold the line on this? Of course not; certainly not when she is in bed with our other leader, a homosexual socialist atheist. One commentator got it right.”

    *http://www.billmuehlenberg.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. ChardonnayGuy (1,195 comments) says:

    But wait, apparently the Homintern is to blame for Hurricane Sandy, too. An antigay US fundamentalist preacher is accusing gays of being behind Hurricane Sandy. On his website “Defend Proclaim the Faith”, antigay preacher John Ternan stated that the hurricane is ‘punishment’ for LGBT rights initiatives and Obama’s support for marriage equality. And apparently ever since George H.Bush presided over an Arab-Israeli peace deal in 1991, “America has been under god’s judgement!!!” Apparently, Obama also supports the Muslim Brotherhood and both Obama and Romney are progay!!!

    Oh, and we were also to blame for Hurricane Isaac earlier. The so-called American Family Association’s Buster Wilson said there seems to be a “pattern” of LGBT-inclusive areas like New Orleans and San Francisco experiencing frequent natural disasters such as hurricanes on the Gulf Coast and “the most devastating earthquakes in American history,” respectively.

    Defend & Proclaim the Faith’s Pastor John McTernan wrote on his website back in August that Hurricane Isaac’s landfall and the scheduling of Southern Decadence, a popular LGBT dance party in Atlanta, is no coincidence. “Isaac, of course, is a biblical name meaning laughter,” he wrote. “The fact the events are seven years apart is very significant as this number is biblically important. It is the number of completion: God created the universe in seven days. The church, city and nation have not repented and the homosexual agenda is far worse than it was in 2005.”

    Before Hurricane Isaac, other fundamentalists have shared the same sentiment. Reverend John Hagee used a similar argument that Hurricane Katrina was provoked by Southern Decadence back in 2005.

    Honestly, aren’t these people embarrassed to trivialise their alleged deity through depicting him as nothing more than a temperamental anthropomorphised weather deity?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    There’s nobody screaming here but you.

    I’m not screaming, I find it interesting that you equate a strong opinion with screaming irrationality.

    Let people live their own lives peacefully, you alone cannot control others.

    Exactly, leave marriage alone, celebrate diversity, but don’t homogenize society in the process.

    I respect that you have an opinion.

    Gee, your tone and ridicule kinda threw me off that path, my bad….

    I hope you respect that other people have opinions too, and that your opinion may or may not be that of the majority.

    Well you know what people say about opinions.

    I respect people that present a valid argument, I don’t respect people that present a disingenuous argument that is full of inconsistency and liberal moral ‘oughts’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    Similar to when people who are not hetero but perhaps a bit confused ( or vulnerable) are encouraged to identify as heterosexual when in fact they are not?

    That’s bad enough, now imagine that 10 times worse, because that’s what is going to happen.

    Of course, silly confused hetero’s aren’t as much of a concern as confused homo’s, correct?

    It’s going to happen, in fact, it’s already happening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Harriet (4,732 comments) says:

    “…..It’s going to happen, in fact, it’s already happening….”

    It started immediatly after they legalised homo sex, as before all social change first comes the change in language, and most young people now think that sodomy is just ‘anal sex’.

    Well it’s not, like a human hand is the natural fit to the human wrist, and a human penis is the natural fit to the human vagina, the natural fit to the human anus is human excrement.

    The thought of sodomy to most of the population is a disgusting matter.

    Sticking something up your bum is not an entitlement to anything, especially the institution of marriage. The only entitlement should be health care, mental as well as physical.

    Abuse victims and those who were taken advantage of in their formative years, take the easy option out by saying they are gay. That maybe fine to them, and that I can understand, but getting Married is not ‘mental health care’ infact most people who deal with the mental issues of others would in most cases suggest not to get Married.

    For the sake of their own mental health, gays should deal with what has happened to them in the past. Lesbians need to deal with the issue of being, and understanding themselves as ‘too emotionaly dependant on others’, John Key’s suicide report would I think, suggest the same.

    Debasing oneself so as not to lead what society calls a ‘natural life’ for a ‘natural life term’ is frought with danger.

    Being gay is simply a mindset.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. ChardonnayGuy (1,195 comments) says:

    Oh, now decriminalisation of gay male sex is the Real Problem, is it? Harriet, that happened back in 1986. And there are some forms of vaginal sex that are decidedly unnatural- like incest, pedophile assaults against female children qv Jimmy Saville, and marital/spousal rape. Thirty years ago, the Society for Promotion of Community Standards and its spokesnun Patricia Bartlett launched an utterly sick and twisted campaign against criminalisation of marital rape in New Zealand, using the euphemism ‘conjugal rights’ to mask sexual violence.

    Oh, and Harriet? Graham Capill and Jimmy Saville didn’t abuse little boys. Or don’t little girls and their right to bodily integrity and freedom from adult sexual violence matter to you?

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.