The age divide on same sex marriage

December 27th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Michael Dickison at NZ Herald reports:

Pensioners are holding out in a dwindling minority opposing gay marriage – as 2013 looks possibly to be the year for it to become reality.

A Herald-DigiPoll survey into same-sex marriages found a stark generational divide: 60 per cent of respondents older than 65 said marriage should remain only between a man and a woman. But 70 per cent of people under 40 said the law should be changed to allow same-sex marriages.

Labour MP Louisa Wall, who is behind the bill to legalise gay marriage, said studies out of universities had found even stronger support among young people, above 80 per cent.

And If you are under 40, you were aged 14 or younger when homosexual law reform occurred in 1986. In 25 years times (or less), will be as uncontroversial as homosexual law reform itself now is.

“For older people, homosexuality was foreign; it meant things like mental illnesses. It was illegal. People could go to jail – so, of course, they can’t relate to it.

“Older New Zealanders wouldn’t have seen two same-sex people who love each other.”

I think this is very true for many. Most people under 40 know several same sex couples and don’t distinguish between those relationships, and their own ones.

Gay marriage would become an increasingly contested fight through 2013 and the Government should not be rushing through the process to avoid it becoming an election issue in 2014, he said.

There is no rushing of process. In fact it is impossible for the Government to rush the process. It is a private members’ bill, and the select committee hearing submissions is chaired by an Opposition MP.

The committee will report to Parliament on February 28, with a second reading scheduled for March 20. A third and final reading could happen in May.

This is the standard timings under Standing Orders. The first reading was 29 August 2012, and the select committee has six months to report back.

Tags:

259 Responses to “The age divide on same sex marriage”

  1. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    The historical antipathy against homosexuality was based on disease, an aspect of the discussion which is completely taboo these days. How quickly we have managed to put aside the memory of millions who died of HIV/AIDS, which no matter how much people conveniently deny it now, was/is a gay disease. Disease will come back to haunt again, and it will make HIV/AIDS look like a Sunday school picnic

    [DPF: Oh what crap. Antipathy to homosexuality has existed for around 2,000 or more years and AIDS was only discovered in the 1970s.

    And you really need to understand the difference between sodomy and homosexuality.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    But sshhh. We can’t talk about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Mother Nature has this nasty little way of dealing with people who mess with her.

    [DPF: 20 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    HIV/AIDS is but one disease of gay men. But how would we know?. Ssshhhhh. Can’t talk about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Bareback rider, anyone?

    [DPF: 20 more demerits. Stop trolling]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    The propaganda machine in full swing – if you think that homposexual marriage is wrong you are an old fuddy duddy and cool people think it is the best thing since sliced bread. Get with the program if you are hip

    Foolishness and stupidity but then again most people are sheep whowillingly let themselves be dragged over the cliff.

    We will get homosexual “marriage” but it never will be real marriage just a bogus thing and another example of lefty newspeak as they drag us all to perdition

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    I think the latest count from HIV/AIDS (32,000,000 from memory)
    now exceeds the toll from WWII (25,000,000 from memory).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    But sshhhh, can’t talk about it … …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Yes, I am older. But I watched people dropping like flies.
    And so it will happen again, when we cheat Mother Nature.
    Bareback rider, anyone?

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

    What a load of twaddle, Dotcom (351). HIV/AIDS affects men, women and children and most commonly in heterosexual communities. But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your homophobic bigotry. Marriage is about two people in love making a commitment to share their lives. If you want an example of the world being lead to your religious ‘perdition’ Andrei, check out the numbers of people who have died over the past 2000 years in an attempt to prove that one prophet is more godly than some other prophet. HIV/AIDS is NOT a gay disease.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Dotcom,

    Except that most of those infections occur in third world countries where it is a result of a combination of factors notably religion, ignorance, poverty but not homosexuality. Moreover, amongst the homosexual community in the west it is males who are at most risk. Yet idiots like Andrei and yourself would surely make no allowance for lesbian couples.

    If “mother nature” punishes anything it is promiscuity, not homosexuality.

    And yes you can talk about it all you like. But whether anyone wants to give a grumpy old fart like yourself any attention is another matter entirely. At least I’ve been silly enough to take the bait and respond to your mad ravings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    “We will get homosexual “marriage” but it never will be real marriage just a bogus thing…”

    Surely a mystic like yourself shouldn’t be talking about what is and isn’t real.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Dotcom.

    HIV stats started from 1981, yes, there have been 34 million deaths from HIV since then, so about 1.1 million deaths per year, as opposed to 4.1 million per year over WW2. (yes, I can manipulate stats as well). How many of the HIV deaths were through heterosexual contact? I would say that the fact that treatment in western countries can and do lead to near normal life expectancy, and that the lack of treatment in poorer countries where HIV is mostly transmitted through heterosexual contact, one could conclude that quoting HIV infection rates as part of an argument against gay marriage is about as relevant as quoting fish consumption figures in a discussion about salmonella poisoning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Dotcom is trolling, DPF, some warnings warranted no?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

    Of the 34 million people living with HIV/AIDS in 2010, 22.9 million are from sub-Saharan Africa. Y’know that bastion of gay pride as Dotcom would have you believe. Or perhaps, more plausibly, a fact that has not entered his pea-sized brain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    The Herald headed their poll question with ‘Gay Marriage’. That’s not what the proposed legislation is for, it is proposing marriage equality – ie the same marriage law for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. That’s quite a difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Azeraph (604 comments) says:

    Regardless, it won’t be enough for some and it will be those that will lead the blind clickons to want to go further as suddenly they want the book to be rewritten to suit, Don’t come at me i got seven in the family. Most activists only know one or two couples or have one in the family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    From the Pope’s speech he gave to the Curia on Dec 21st.
    Very good about man and sexuality etc. Excerpt –

    First of all there is the question of the human capacity to make a commitment or to avoid commitment.

    Can one bind oneself for a lifetime? Does this correspond to man’s nature? Does it not contradict his freedom and the scope of his self-realization? Does man become himself by living for himself alone and only entering into relationships with others when he can break them off again at any time? Is lifelong commitment antithetical to freedom? Is commitment also worth suffering for? Man’s refusal to make any commitment – which is becoming increasingly widespread as a result of a false understanding of freedom and self-realization as well as the desire to escape suffering – means that man remains closed in on himself and keeps his “I” ultimately for himself, without really rising above it. Yet only in self-giving does man find himself, and only by opening himself to the other, to others, to children, to the family, only by letting himself be changed through suffering, does he discover the breadth of his humanity. When such commitment is repudiated, the key figures of human existence likewise vanish: father, mother, child – essential elements of the experience of being human are lost.

    The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, made up of father, mother, and child, goes much deeper. While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question. He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient).

    These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature.

    This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation.

    Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Yes, Of course I’m trolling. Anything said against homosexuality falls into the definition of trolling, surely!

    Weihana, anything said against homosexuality falls into the definition of mad ravings, surely.

    Surely you people wouldn’t want to inferfere with my right to express an opinion, would you? No, Gays wouldn’t ever do such a thing.

    Interfering with Mother Nature can be done in two ways:
    (a) By bareback riding; and
    (b) By implementing cures for the diseases that results

    The cure(s) themselves interfere with Mother Nature in three ways:
    (a) By the cure itself being a potential runaway disease in its own right;
    (b) By introducing unnecessary and unnatural immunity to (natural) cures for something else;
    (c) by interfering with Darwin’s theories which in the past had gay men die early.

    Mother nature does not like being messed with for very long.

    Someone said that the number of deaths from AIDS is confined mainly to poorer countries. So what eh? What, don’t deaths of poor people count or something? Jeesus!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    second (b) should have said “loss of immunity”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Fletch, who’s this “the pope” thing that you cite at length? And what does this “pope” thing know about anything?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. bringbackdemocracy (427 comments) says:

    This issue should be decided by referendum, not by a backdoor private members bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    BBC, absolutely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    BBD, not BBC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Dotcom,

    Someone said that the number of deaths from AIDS is confined mainly to poorer countries. So what eh? What, don’t deaths of poor people count or something? Jeesus!

    So it contradicts your assertion that HIV/AIDs is a homosexual disease. The infections in these countries are primarily heterosexual and particularly in sub-Saharan Africa homosexuality is not often tolerated, if at all. If anyone was not counting these people it was you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    Weihana – its basic, the birds and the bees.

    Because all living things are mortal they have to reproduce and if they don’t then their species become extinct.

    Do you deny the truth of this?

    Does this not apply to people?

    Because raising new generations of people is both time consuming and expensive human beings have developed, evolved or been given by God cultural institutions which support and encourage this fundamental human activity. The major cultural institution we have is called MARRIAGE and it works because it bonds a man with a woman to jointly raise their offspring. And as is well attested those children who are raised within this type of family structure are far more likely to prosper through life than those who are not raised in such a manner. And learning from their parents those thus raised raise their own children in this manner in their turn.

    Cultures that are good at raising children who will be good at raising children in their turn will persist while those who are not will go the way of the Dodo, replaced by those cultures that do it better – that is elementary my friend.

    Gay “marriage” and the rewriting of the fundamental purpose of marriage is cultural suicide and what comes next is a world which you will not like

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    It was all hard going but here is the close to Fletch’s post:

    When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being.

    The defence of the family is about man himself.

    And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears.

    Whoever defends God is defending man.

    That sounds like patch protecting arrogance to me. More than that, I find it quite offensive.

    It seems to be saying that if I don’t bow in obeyance at the feet of some pissy wee pope dude I have no human dignity. If that’s what he thinks he can get stuffed, big time.

    Dignity doesn’t come self proclaiming anc claiming while living the holier than high life in a grotesquely hypocritical environment of ponce and privilege.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Dotcom (357) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    Yes, Of course I’m trolling. Anything said against homosexuality falls into the definition of trolling, surely!

    It’s a far more generous explanation for your stupidity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Slightlyrightly, see you can’t even talk about it.

    It’s HIV/AIDS, not HIV. Whatever we do, don’t talk about AIDS.

    Ssshhhhh. Can’t talk about gay diseases. Not PC you know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Weihana, what my talking about a disease that has killed 32,000,000 human beings, and currently infects 34,000,000 more is something you call “stupidiy”? Give the world a break.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    Gay “marriage” and the rewriting of the fundamental purpose of marriage is cultural suicide and what comes next is a world which you will not like

    And threatening societal apocalypse if you don’t buy into their bullshit of brimstone is bollocks.

    How many people’s lives have been ruined because they been brainwashed by eternal damnation and subsequently haven’t coped with being normal fallible human beings?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    A supporter of Andrei’s line of thought –
    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1356&dat=19820127&id=5bVPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kAYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6384,6213433

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    The Herald headed their poll question with ‘Gay Marriage’. That’s not what the proposed legislation is for, it is proposing marriage equality – ie the same marriage law for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. That’s quite a difference.

    Pete George you silly sheeple that is sophistry – there is no such thing as “marriage equality” because neither a male/male pairing nor a female/female pairing is equal to a male/female one and never will be.

    See a male bonded with a female can do something that the other two pairings cannot.

    Do you know what that is?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Weihana at 1:33 pm
    Dotcom, …. infections in these countries are primarily heterosexual …
    _____________________________

    See, the topic here is the difference in age perceptions.

    I’m older. I REMEMBER where HIV?AIDS came from.
    But today sshhhh, in a PC world, we can’t talk about it.
    So the kids of today might have heard of HIV/AIDS, but they have no memory, as you apparently haven’t Weihana, of where is originated from. Bareback rider, anyone?

    (And I will never resort in my post to caling people idiots, trolls, vipers or anything of the kind. Unlike you and your ilk, I ALWAYS respect a person’s right to have an opinion)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    Andrei – read the article Rodders linked to.

    Do you know what that is?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Pete George (15,665) at 1:40 pm
    … How many people’s lives have been ruined …. ?
    ________________________________

    About 66,000,000 and countning. Pay attention.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    I’ve had my say, thanks, now I will not abuse David Farrar’s hospitality further and risk any demerits. Someone else’s turn. I’ll leave it here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,544) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    Weihana – its basic, the birds and the bees.

    Because all living things are mortal they have to reproduce and if they don’t then their species become extinct.

    Do you deny the truth of this?

    Does this not apply to people?

    That some humans have to reproduce in order for a species to live on does not imply that each and every individual must reproduce. Do you see the fallacy in your argument now? Probably not but I live in hope.

    I’m not worried about extinction. If anything we are at risk of overpopulation, not underpopulation. Population levels are at unprecedented levels and whilst technological advancement probably means we’ll find news ways to sustain our ever increasing populations, there is certainly no rational reason to fear extinction.

    In truth it is a dishonest and pathetic argument from people who do not genuinely fear the extinction of the human race, but use it as an idiotic and absurd theoretical argument premised on the notion that if no one reproduced (because we’ve all caught “gayness”) then human civilization is over.

    Because raising new generations of people is both time consuming and expensive human beings have developed, evolved or been given by God cultural institutions which support and encourage this fundamental human activity. The major cultural institution we have is called MARRIAGE and it works because it bonds a man with a woman to jointly raise their offspring.

    And yet married men are just as capable as bashing their women and abusing their children. I would argue that a relationship depends upon far more than gender and the ability to biologically reproduce. It depends on joint partnership and an equitable distribution of rights and responsibilities. It is this distribution of rights and responsibilities which is at the heart of laws which regulate marital relationships and which go much further than just the raising of children. For gays who might have adopted children or who have children from prior relationships, it is an important protection that they deserve as much as any other couple. Moreover, they deserve it just as much as a straight couple which, for whatever reason, does not have children.

    There is no justification for treating gays differently to other couples over and above the differences that nature already imposes upon them. Furthermore, you have not shown any evidence that extending the benefits of marriage to their relationship which have a deleterious effect on children or human society in general, notwithstanding your absurd paranoia about the extinction of the human race.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Azeraph (604 comments) says:

    They should pass a law that sexual cue’s and behavior in public gym restrooms can be a public offense and result in arrest. Especially when these cues are directed at hetero gym members.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    Andrei – read the article Rodders linked to.

    I did – it is correct, to be valid a marriage must be able to be consumated – because marriage is all about orderly procreation!

    Life is not fair and even with made up things like “gay marriage” there will still be people who would like to get married that will not be able to and no amount of fiddling with words will change that thing.

    Gay “marriage” is a middle class vanity, nothing more

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

    Glad you’re free to have an opinion Dotcom. That’s a given. The fact that you are completely wrong about the beginnings of HIV/AIDS and whether it’s a gay disease seems to have passed you by. It’s a disease that is contracted through the sharing of a range of bodily fluids and therefore everyone who has unprotected sex or shares intravenous needles without cleaning them thoroughly is at risk. Everyone, not just gay men. And it didn’t start with gay men, it was merely sensationalised as being a ‘gay’ disease by the media. You allude to other gay diseases but you don’t elaborate. I call you on that. Put up, or shut up. The vast majority of HIV infections are heterosexually transmitted between heterosexual people. The vast majority of deaths from AIDS related illnesses are in the heterosexual demographic. HIV infected people develop AIDS but they don’t die from AIDS but from illnesses that result from a severely damaged immune system. You need to do some serious research before initiating a discussion of this nature because you run the risk of appearing like a homophobic bigot.

    The thread is about marriage equality which is a more expansive concept than ‘gay’ marriage which is only a small part of the picture. The bill clarifies a range of issues for a range of minority groups and as such has to be a good thing. Marriage predates Christianity so any suggestion that the concept is owned by the church is nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Dotcom,

    I’m older. I REMEMBER where HIV?AIDS came from.

    Obviously not because you seem blissfully unaware that HIV originated in Africa and is closely related to a virus found in Chimpanzees.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    it is correct, to be valid a marriage must be able to be consumated – because marriage is all about orderly procreation!

    That would rule out all any menopausal women and anyone who has had a hysterectomy, vasectomy or any other medical sterilisation whether through choice, disease or misadventure, as well as any couples who chose not to have children.

    As dictated by a bunch of heartless soulless old duffers residing in an exclusive boys only club (supposedly) who try to lecture the masses about dignity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Dotcom,

    (And I will never resort in my post to caling people idiots, trolls, vipers or anything of the kind. Unlike you and your ilk, I ALWAYS respect a person’s right to have an opinion)

    I respect your right to an opinion. That does not imply that the opinion itself deserves respect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    Life is not fair…

    Indeed. That your vote is the equivalent of mine is the most terrible injustice. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    That sounds like patch protecting arrogance to me. More than that, I find it quite offensive.

    It seems to be saying that if I don’t bow in obeyance at the feet of some pissy wee pope dude I have no human dignity. If that’s what he thinks he can get stuffed, big time.

    Dignity doesn’t come self proclaiming anc claiming while living the holier than high life in a grotesquely hypocritical environment of ponce and privilege.

    Personally I find your self-righteous arrogance offensive. In that many of you morons think it’s a human wight and that’s why you support it, but in your towering ignorance none of you yes none of you are able to point to a single thing that’s discriminatory. You morons are willing to throw away an institution that’s been in place since humans started farming, for nothing. That’s right. That’s precisely what you’re doing.

    Sorry Pete but that’s just fucking mental and there’s no other way to put it. Talk about whose “living the holier than high life in a grotesquely hypocritical environment of ponce and privilege.” That precisely describes all of you morons who support this because you think there’s discrimination. Well fine. Tell us where it is then. Go on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Azeraph says:

    They should pass a law that sexual cue’s and behavior in public gym restrooms can be a public offense and result in arrest. Especially when these cues are directed at hetero gym members.

    I think you’ll find that overt sexual harrassement, whether intra- or inter-gender, is already illegal. If someone is making you uncomfortable, speak to the gym management or, if it’s aggressive, the police.

    Personally, when I was a member of a gym it was the people trying very hard to assert their masculinity who made me uncomfortable. No, I did not watch the rugby last night and even if I did, I do not want to spend time discussing it with you while we’re both wearing nothing more than a towel. Nor am I interested in how much you bench pressed in there or in sharing how much I can do. Especially when I don’t know you from Adam. I want to face the wall and get changed as quickly and discreetly as possible. I’m told sports club changing rooms are even worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    Reid – I’m not being ‘self-righteous’ suggesting that others should have the same right to marry the person of their choice that I do.

    There’s a vast difference between promoting universal rights and insisting everyone should adhere to some narrow religious rules that even many Christians would disagree with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. backster (2,172 comments) says:

    I agree with Dotcom. I fail to see why DPF should state an issue to stimulate debate and then penalise some-one who states his point of view in an orderly and cogent manner. It’s almost as bad as the Standard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    dykiegirl points out:

    The thread is about marriage equality which is a more expansive concept than ‘gay’ marriage which is only a small part of the picture.

    Which is why the “Marriage Equality” Bill is mis-named. It does not, for instance, legalise polygamy, which is practiced by people some of whom would claim to have the same right as a gay couple to recognition of their union (though as with the gay community, opinions are divided as to whether such a law change is needed or even desirable).

    Whether or not one agrees with the intent of the Bill, it’s hard to avoid believing that the title has been deliberately concocted so as to try to render its contents more acceptable to a greater number of people (those not paying close attention). After all, who wants to say they’re against equality?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Dotcom.

    HIV is a Virus, AIDS as a syndrome, and refers to the condtion of the immune system when the t cell count falls below a certain level.

    We can talk about it, but we do have the responsibility to talk about it correctly, and not manipulate statistics to fit your viewpoint by stating causal links that frankly do not exist outside your own mind. You can rail out against fags as much as you want. I have no idea where this opinion of yours springs from, but I do know that I was once ignorant enough to share your beliefs, even signing the petition against the homosexual law reform bill.

    Frankly, your position on this issue seems to spring from either fear, ignorance, intolerance or all 3 in unison.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    ” The vast majority of HIV infections are heterosexually transmitted between heterosexual people.”

    Not in New Zealand. Homosexual men are greatly overrepresented in HIV and and AIDS statistics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    I was tempted to ask Dotcom where he thinks HIV comes from and why it is a “gay” disease, but there’s a limit to how much stupidity and ignorance one can stand.

    Reid,

    none of you yes none of you are able to point to a single thing that’s discriminatory.

    Apart from the fact that gays are treated differently by the state in that they can’t marry? The very issue in question, you mean?

    But this has been pointed out to you many times, yet you still repeat your old and obviously dishonest canard.

    You morons are willing to throw away an institution that’s been in place since humans started farming, for nothing.

    Heterosexual marriages are totally unaffected by such legislation so, again, you are talking complete rubbish.

    We can infer from your collection of feeble and dishonest arguments that there is no valid case against gay marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    backster – the first five comments on this thread were all from Dotcom and were all pretty much off topic, so I don’t see how that is stating his point of view “in an orderly and cogent manner”. It was trolling, and nothing like The Standard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird,

    So lesbians can get married? Or is this whole HIV/AIDS thing irrelevant?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    See, my point is proved. I talk about homosexuality, and link it to mens’ health. And I get 60 demerits.

    I told you it’s “ssshhhhh, we can’t talk about it”

    David Farrar just proved beyond doubt that I am patently correct.

    I did nothing that a thousand other commenters here haven’t done. But because of a homosexual/disease connection, which David does not deny exists, and which Gay Pride, and Rainbow network don’t deny exists, I get 60 demerits. They can talk about this very real problem, so long as I don’t.

    David makes the mistake in his very first demerit, of thinking that the only disease gay men ever contributed to communities was HIV/AIDS. Is David not aware of the historical statistical gay connection with syphilis and other venerial diseases, or with hepatisis, or gay bowel syndrome and a whole lot more. These are just the communicable ones?

    Ssshhh, don’t talk about the sexual health of male homosexuals. Don’t discuss 66,000,000 human beings and counting.
    Put most of the deaths aside because they are in Africa, and African deaths apparently don’t count.

    Ssshhhh, don’t talk about the War.

    [DPF: First of all this is a thread on the marriage equality bill. You want to turn it into a thread on sodomy. No one is proposing making it compulsory. I agree gay men have worse health stats than other men - one more reason why no one would choose to be gay I suspect.

    You got demerits not for the topic, but the way you expressed yourself. you did five comments in a row before anyone else even commented. That comes over as obsessional and trolling. One comment merely said "bareback rider, anyone?". That is not a contribution to a debate on the marriage act. Again that is just being a troll.

    The other demerit was for your suggestion that gay men deserve nasty ends because they are unnatural.

    No one has ever got demerits for expressing unpopular views - only offensive ones. Argue all you like that same sex marriage is bad because it undermines traditional marriage. I'll disagree, but no problems. But behave as you have above and you'll get demerits. It's simple]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    This debate is full of misnomers. It’s nothing to do with “marriage equality” (semantic propaganda) it’s the Redefinition of Marriage Bill.

    It has nothing to do with your sexuality. Gay people can marry like anyone else, just not to someone of the same gender. Heterosexuals can’t marry people of the same gender either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    Reid – I’m not being ‘self-righteous’ suggesting that others should have the same right to marry the person of their choice that I do.

    There’s a vast difference between promoting universal rights and insisting everyone should adhere to some narrow religious rules that even many Christians would disagree with.

    Pete yes you are. You are self-righteously assuming there is a wrong that needs to be corrected but you can’t explain what the wrong is. Gays already have ALL the rights straights have. What about this don’t you understand?

    Apart from the fact that gays are treated differently by the state in that they can’t marry? The very issue in question, you mean?

    wat they have ALL the rights we have. Der. If you claim they don’t, pray tell which ones they don’t have. And if you want to claim it’s the right to adopt, then let’s have a gay adoption debate.

    Heterosexual marriages are totally unaffected by such legislation so, again, you are talking complete rubbish.

    Yes they are, as has been explained ad infinitum and which none of you has ever been able to refute. Giving gays the marriage label changes the social concept of the institution over time. This is precisely, der, why they have got a global movement going to get it. Again, what about that, don’t you understand?

    So none of your arguments stack up and yet none of you, despite this clear and present no-brainer factual logic that even the village idiot could understand, show any signs of changing your profoundly idiotic and damaging position. Der times eleventy gajillion doesn’t even begin to explain your profound idiocy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    I’m not being ‘self-righteous’ suggesting that others should have the same right to marry the person of their choice that I do.

    Yes you are – everybody has the same “right” to get married within the parameters of the institution ie be of age, not closely related to your potential opposite sex spouse, not be already arried and so forth.

    Why do the rules about who you can marry exist Pete George? Is it because they realted. to reproductive fitness – why yes indeed they do relate to just that thing they relate to.

    That is why I could not marry any of my sisters and guess what neith me nor they feel our “rights” have been infinged upon or denied by this rule. Indeed we all married other people outside of our immediate blood relatives and got to work raising children with them, just as our ancestors did before us.

    You see the findamental economic activity that any culture, any society undertakes is the raising of children and the investment in the future that that is.

    And if you fuck that up, it is sayonara and a more dynamic culture will take the place of the one we know.

    We like living in a live and let live society, where people are free, where Nigel can shack up with Timothy and be left in peace to do whatever they want to with each other but if you are irresponsible with freedom you will loose it!

    And Gay marriage is fucking irresponsible, the product of an over priveldged self indulgent elite who are essentially clueless as to what is really important.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Nick K (1,244 comments) says:

    Dotcom – what has gay marriage got to do with AIDS?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    Andrei, thank you for your speech from the throne.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    DPF, I have three Q.s for you. If this is truly about “marriage equality” why then will the state discriminate against:

    a) polygamous unions or
    b) incestous relationships between consenting adults or
    c) marriage as a relationship between three or more people?

    It’s the same logic being used to promote the bill – sexuality equality, and these are all real sexualities.

    [DPF: I don't think it is about labels. I approach it from the perspective of whether there is a case to prevent two consenting adults of the same sex from marrying each other? I don't think there is any reason the state should prevent two consenting adults who love each other and wish to commit to each other from being able to marry.

    I'm not aware of any desire for polygamous marriage. If there ever is, I'd ask the same question.

    As for incest, the prohibition is on sex as well as marriage, as it is deemed unhealthy for family members to bonk each other. Again if ever there is a serious demand for siblings to be able to marry, then I'd apply the same test]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    “So lesbians can get married? Or is this whole HIV/AIDS thing irrelevant? ”

    The HIV/AIDS thing is not irrelevant and neither is the either head in the sand attitude or deliberate lies of homosexual activists like dykiegirl.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    Gays already have ALL the rights straights have.

    No they don’t. Being able to marry the type of person YOU think they should marry is not a right for them.

    Giving gays the marriage label changes the social concept of the institution over time.

    a) it doesn’t change the social concept of the institution for me.
    b) the social concept of the institution has changed considerably over my lifetime, as it has done prior.

    This is precisely, der, why they have got a global movement going to get it.

    I don’t agree. The ones I’ve seen talking about it want considerable change to their own rights but don’t want to change them for the rest of us.

    It’s not a satanic conspiracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    Anyone who thinks AIDS is not linked to promiscuous male to male sex in the late 1970s, spread to heterosexual wives and partners thereafter, and spread by rape and immorality in Africa, including child sex and rape, during civil wars and unrest, hasn’t read history. AIDS began as a disease spread by promiscuous sexual activity. In the West this hit the gay community hard, as they were very promiscuous (for many years it was called the gay-disease, and the gay community got special funding in NZ to prevent its spread in this sub culture of NZ). It hit other nations hard where indiscriminate promiscuous sex was occurring. It’s not about homo or hetero. It’s both.

    AIDS is a HUMAN disease about a lack of sexual boundaries. And viruses love liberality.

    [DPF: Viruses love liberality???? Jesus weeps]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Sofia (857 comments) says:

    There’s Andrew
    Not bad looking
    He’s married to Margaret
    So, who’s that other guy
    Mike – he’s married as well
    Oh
    To John
    Oh a gay marriage – why didn’t you say so
    Well, that’s it … gay marriage … same sex marriage … you got a new word for it yet?

    Hardly “the rewriting of the fundamental purpose of marriage is cultural suicide and what comes next is a world which you will not like”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. nasska (11,525 comments) says:

    Reid

    I accept that many marriages are celebrated at churches but the registration & recording of that ‘agreement’ falls to the Registrar of Births Deaths & Marriage. Therefore the concept is now secular, not necessarily involving God or his helpers any more than buying a second hand car on HP.

    If someone is gay they are not absolved from paying tax…..nor are they treated any differently when it comes to the road code or filing for bankruptcy.

    The state is secular….how then can it discriminate against its own citizens?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    DPF, “liberality” as in being open, freely transactional and giving without safe guards (ie the context of the sentence before it), as in “germs spread liberally” and don’t like gloves or ihibiting chemicals that block their freedom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    So imp, you are supporting condom use then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    Best 2 min.s I’ve seen on this debate in ages, from the Iona Institute in Ireland (love the accents). http://youtu.be/zaRK-0W5HQI

    Two more thoughts: so, in the UK the Islamic community and the communities of the Anglican Church or England and Wales are all seeking legal exemptions to same-sex marriages (acknowledging/supporting/participating). The Sikh community (and probably the Samoan as well) communities will probably seek this in NZ.

    What then? Diff. tiers of “marriage”? Will make an ass of a law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    Rodders – of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    No they don’t. Being able to marry the type of person YOU think they should marry is not a right for them.

    Yes they do have all the rights Pete, if they want to get hitched they can get a civil union. That gives them all the rights. Please don’t keep claiming they are discriminated against in any way. They aren’t, and you know it.

    a) it doesn’t change the social concept of the institution for me.
    b) the social concept of the institution has changed considerably over my lifetime, as it has done prior.

    …I don’t agree. The ones I’ve seen talking about it want considerable change to their own rights but don’t want to change them for the rest of us.

    Pete the definition of a social concept is that its collective so what any particular individual thinks about it is irrelevant. This is not about your mind it’s about the collective concept held by westerners of what marriage means, in sixty years time. Three generations is enough to change the concept from being about family to being about sex and that’s why gays want it. Just because you can’t wrap your head around how a social concept works doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and it doesn’t mean others are as incapable as you are in this particular regard.

    And of course most gays are in favour of it. Not all are, BTW, I know several who aren’t myself, I’m sure there are others. But so what? They have as much say as their % of the population. But newsflash Pete, just because the majority of people think a particular thing, this doesn’t make it correct. History is littered with examples where the majority of people stood by while disaster occurred, just think about the lead up to most wars.

    And it is a satanic conspiracy, you fool. Why the hell do you think he’s called The Slanderer and the The Deceiver? He’s slandering the family by changing the definition of the human institution that’s generated it since time immemorial and he’s managed to deceive millions of you drop-dead mentals into believing a fantasy that (a) it’s about a human right (which you idiots can’t even name) and (b) that it won’t change the institution of marriage.

    It’s really no wonder wars and other calamities happen, with idiots like you around.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Dotcom.

    You scold us for not caring about the 66 million persons infected with or dead from HIV/AIDS. Your argument makes no sense. Citing HIV/AIDS statistics in a gay marriage debate is false reasoning of the highest order and serves only to highlight your own misguided practices.

    HIV/AIDS, is generally agreed by the scientific community to have originated in Sub Saharan African among primates and transferred to the human population in the late 19th or early 20th century. The most likely form of transmission was due to the bushmeat practices common in that area. It would make more sense to point to HIV/AIDS as a consequence of not being a vegan.

    To say that we don’t care about the deaths in Africa is an insult. Point of fact, I’ve been there, I’ve seen it. I, along with many young people carried out volunteer work there. I was there in ’99. This is a tragedy beyond most peoples comprehension. Don’t tell me I don’t care, and don’t use their deaths as some statistic to promote your own prejudices. The fact that many people label HIV/AIDS as a ‘gay disease’ only drove those infected underground rather than face the stigma of the diagnosis. Your attitude only makes that worse.

    Finally, to use this argument in a debate about gay marriage is despicable. This disease is spread through promiscuity. Marriage is a commitment of 2 people to each other, thereby reducing promiscuity. Care to comment on that? or will that just highlight another prejudice?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    Marriage equality for Muslims!

    But that’s not what it’s about ,it’s about legislating for homosexual marriage which is a travesty of the real thing.

    The so called “progressive” agenda is working well with destroying traditional values and creating new ones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    Reid, I doubt that the concept of sex within marriage has caused many wars or calamities. Priestly insistence on ‘orderly procreation’ is more likely to have caused problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Thanks Baxter for your support.

    I see my demerits immediately reduced to a (still unreasonable) 40 points.

    The so called “trolling”, has been precedented here by hundreds of others hundreds of times.

    I took previous trolling history here as my guide, but a new standard just got set, with the new law applied retrospectively. Breach of requirement in law for “fair warning”.

    It is the “content” that David Farrar disliked, not any trolling.

    But you are right. David Farrar whistled. He got nothing other than what he set out to get — controversy and a hot-comment thread. I answered David’s call with what I thought he had whistled me up to do.

    Bit rough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    Get a life, mate

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    if they want to get hitched they can get a civil union. That gives them all the rights. Please don’t keep claiming they are discriminated against in any way.

    You know, the first 500 times you repeated this fallacy it was obviously a complete load of cock.

    But now that you’ve repeated it for the five-hundred-and-first time suddenly it has become a logical and compelling argument.

    Because that’s how logic works, isn’t it Reid? If you repeat the same load of bollocks enough times it becomes transformed into an insightful and irrefutable argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    iMP,

    AIDS began as a disease spread by promiscuous sexual activity.

    Ahh no, it began as a similar disease in Chimpanzees. I’m not aware that group sex with chimpanzees was the initial method of transfer to humans.

    AIDS is a HUMAN disease about a lack of sexual boundaries.

    It is no more about sexual boundaries than it is about poverty, or ignorance, or religion, or drug abuse. That these factors may play an important role doesn’t mean the disease is “about” them. This is not a message from some supernatural father figure. It’s a disease with certain risk factors and people should be aware of them and change their behaviour to mitigate or eliminate those risks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    I have quite a good life thanks Rodders. Indeed, so far it has been a life that others could only have dreamed of.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    DPF says:

    I’m not aware of any desire for polygamous marriage. If there ever is, I’d ask the same question… Again if ever there is a serious demand for siblings to be able to marry, then I’d apply the same test

    I don’t know any siblings who wish to marry. But I do know some people in polygamous unions – not well, but they’re members of a discussion group on sexual politics to which I belong. Like gay people, their views on whether they want official recognition of their union varies but, like gay people, they all believe the option should be there for those who want it.

    The difference is that, unlike homosexuality, most people (aside from the occasional KB commentator) don’t reach for the burning torch and the pitchfork at the mention of it. But the idea of polygamy still frightens the horses. If I had to postulate a reason I’d say it is, like much of the objection to homosexuality above, based on disapproval of what is seen as promiscuity (though there are closed, partially open (i.e. needing the approval of those in the relationship to add another) or open polygamy – and some polygamists will argue that only the first two are polygamy at all, that open polygamy is really just “swinging” dressed up with a fancy-sounding name.

    I know of at least one traid who’ve been faithful to one another for at least a decade. If they wish that to be acknowledged as a marriage why should they not be able to, but homosexuals can? Whether you’re for or against gay marriage, one must surely see the inconsistency – either marriage stays as it is, or is opened to all who wish to claim it.

    So while we appear to be on opposite sides of the gay debate, both iMP and I agree that the “marriage equality” Bill is dishonest semantics.

    A law establishing true equality wouldn’t wait for people in nonconventional relationships other than same-sex to brave the pitchforks and torches and demand their relationship be recognised. Those people are in the same position as homosexuals were in the 50s and 60s, but presumably the proponents of the Bill would claim that, had they held power then, they’d have changed the law.

    Labour likes to point to the Bill as evidence of its commitment to the rights of minorities, but it’s not. It’s a commitment to the votes of a sufficiently large minority whose votes may swing an election, and who are very well represented within the Party itself. The wishes of other, less numerous, minorities are cynically ignored.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    Reid, I doubt that the concept of sex within marriage has caused many wars or calamities.

    Pete as you know I wasn’t saying that, I was saying, as you know, that changing the social concept of marriage from family to sex is a calamity in the same way that wars are calamities.

    If you don’t know why let me spell it out for you. At the moment the family is the most cohesive support structure in western (and all) societies. Forget about eastern and asian societies for the purposes of this discussion, since those don’t have the same demand being foisted upon them by a compliant media and Travistock engineers. This is exclusively a western society phenomena. With me so far?

    The Travistock engineers have been picking away at the family in western societies since the 60’s. Some of the things they have been doing include the pill, feminism, which destroys in women a sense of motherhood by fooling them into thinking if they aren’t allowed to act like men they’re “discriminated” against. So consequently women don’t have many children these days, as they pursue their human “right” to act like men (which by definition degrades their femininity). (Notice how feminism is also wrapped in the guise of human wights. It’s not an accident that gay rights and feminism are joined at the hip.) Another thing is the design of society so that we now need two incomes just to maintain middle-classhood, and another thing is the encouragement of the divorce rate. Most people think all of these things just happened without design. And if you only think about one of the things or even a sub-aspect of one of those things then that’s what you would conclude, that what we see today in society is just organic reaction to scientific and economic developments. But when you look at all the things as one package, a different picture emerges. And this is how you need to look at a macro level concept like the family, which is generated by the institution of marriage.

    So this gay marriage is only the latest in a long line of decades long initiatives all designed to degrade marriage which means by default you also degrade the strength of the family unit. But it’s an extremely important initiative, this one, it’s like the final assault on the family, after which there is nothing to do but wait for time to take its course. For what will happen of course, is that marriage will in time, become just slightly more formal than a casual relationship and it will be quite the thing to have marriage after marriage. This is an outcome of changing the social thinking of what marriage is about, from what it is currently about (family) to what it will become (sex).

    If you can’t understand how this works Pete then I feel sorry for you since it’s an elementary mechanism and all it takes to see it is a basic understanding of human nature and social psychology. All of advertising is based on this very same principle and it’s practised on us all the time many times every single day. If you can’t see the parallel between how advertising changes behaviour and how this new “branding” of marriage is going to work in exactly the same way as branding does in advertising, then crikey, for its obvious.

    Of course if the only thing you’ve ever done in thinking about this issue is to contemplate the dweadful twagedy that confwonts the poor widdle gays then d’oh. As I’ve said many times, all you need to do to recognise this is engineered and not organic is to ask yourself why has the global movement arisen at precisely the same time across all western nations. That’s all you have to do. But apparently, for some people, that’s just an intellectual bridge too far perhaps because you’ve worked yourself into such an emotional frenzy in your compassion for the poor widdle gays that your thinking powers are forever suspended in some sort of sore-tummy time warp where the only thing that matters is you showing your support for the poor oppwessed widdle gays, who aren’t even oppressed, at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Sofia (857 comments) says:

    Gaining ‘marriage equality’ is just one step
    Gay couple adoption is the rest.
    Those who define marriage as the covenant it is to raise children, need to decide about gay adoption because that is where this is headed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    On a different note but same issue, this is an example of a time when the majority of people get it wrong. Which all of you who support gay marriage are guilty of. History repeats, when you forget it, with tragic consequences.

    http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/12/24/she-survived-hitler-and-wants-to-warn-america/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    HIV/AIDS infection rates are far higher in the homosexual community. Countries that have major AIDS problems tend to have them due to their sexual practices and I am sick of seeing lies told to the contrary in the name of political correctness. There are reasons why Australia does not have the same rates of infection as South Africa, for example. Look it up and find out why. It is not because of poverty or education. Not being rich and not being educated will not give you an infectious disease. To hear this drivel presented as fact is an insult to our intelligence.

    DPF gave Dotcom 20 demerits for telling a self evident truth. That shows how normalized political correctness is and how brain washed we have become. Nature does have a way of dealing with things, and no amount of speech control and thought policing will change that one iota.

    For the record, I am very liberal when it comes to this issue and do not care if gays marry. None of my business. But I do value truth and honesty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    I don’t see why polygamy shouldn’t be considered if there was sufficient support for it, but that would involve significantly greater legal change than the current bill – in fact I don’t think same sex marriage is specifically excluded under the current law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Oh and before some idiot shill makes a fool of themselves, please do some checking as to why infection rates are so high in African Countries and Islands, rather than Europe/Asia/Middle East/Pacific and the entire rest of the planet.

    Warning, what you will find is not very PC !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    Reid @ 4.07pm – are you trying to channel Elmer Fudd?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    Good comment Kea. Flash those orange underwings mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Rex,

    So while we appear to be on opposite sides of the gay debate, both iMP and I agree that the “marriage equality” Bill is dishonest semantics.

    It isn’t dishonest at all. Similar arguments can indeed be made with regards to polygamous unions and I would tend to agree with them. But the fact that they go unaddressed in the current political climate does not negate the legitimacy and merit of those arguments in support of homosexual equality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Slightlyrightly, it wasn’t me, on this page, who first discounted Africans as not counting in a debate on casualties of HIV/AIDS, so I have no intention of justifying the remark. I’ll justify my citing it if you need me too, but that’s not what you asked me to do.

    And for those who challenge that I link HIV/AIDS historically to gay men, the reason you think this is because …

    … ssshhhh, we can’t talk about homosexual disease. So you pretend the connection away.

    New Zealanders, dear little New Zealanders, darlings that you are, you are so sheltered.

    I lived in New York in the late 1970s/ early 1980s and I saw people dying all around from the gay/AIDS connection by the tens of thousands. And I remember it well. While you are trying to pretend it away, I remember it well.

    It WILL happen again, not necessarily even closely related to HIV/AIDS, but something else will happen if you toy with Mother Nature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    The Gay community went nuts when HIV/Aids started to kill people, demanding all sorts of govt funding, research and support and culturally ‘owning’ the disease (ala Elton John’s trsu, et al). Does no one remember that? Has it suddenly become a disease of little old monogamous once married spinsters in Leeston?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    Reid Fudd – it’s social evolution of what’s seen as acceptable. It’s a tad overdramatic claiming it’s a final strraw calamity. I don’t see how gay couples living together being able to get legally married is going to have no effect on most of us and little if any effect on society as a whole.

    You may be right, but you haven’t explained how a few more people able to get married is going to suddenly precipitate our social destruction. Wasn’t it claimed that the civil union bill would be the end of the world?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Kea,

    Countries that have major AIDS problems tend to have them due to their sexual practices…

    …Not being rich and not being educated will not give you an infectious disease.

    Key word is “tend”. These are all risk factors. None of them automatically leads to infection, they just make you more likely to be at risk. Sleeping with lots of partners obviously increases the chances that you will encounter someone with the disease. Similarly with sharing needles. Likewise being ignorant of the mechanism of infection will make it more likely that you will engage in behaviour that puts you or others at risk. Perhaps you will forego protection. Perhaps you will think sleeping with a virgin will cure you of the disease.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    it’s social evolution of what’s seen as acceptable.

    Pete get it through your head that just because people approve of it doesn’t mean it’s correct. I don’t know how many times I’ve said that today.

    you haven’t explained how a few more people able to get married is going to suddenly precipitate our social destruction.

    I have but you just don’t want to hear it. Degrading marriage by associating it with sex will degrade the family unit as a unit, resulting in children to be born in sixty years time who grow up with no stability so they look to the state for their stability. This is social engineering Pete. If you don’t understand social engineering then I suggest you educate yourself, because it happens all the time, as I explained with other examples above. If you wish to deny it happens deliberately on purpose then go ahead, but be prepared to be surprised in sixty years time when what I have said is the reality of your great grandchildren, who won’t thank you for it anymore than they’d thank you if you were a warmonger who caused death and destruction by killing people. You’re killing the family unit. You are. And for what? This is the thing. You can’t even explain what discrimination your position is in aid of. You can’t even do that.

    Wasn’t it claimed that the civil union bill would be the end of the world?

    I don’t know Pete. If it was claimed then while I don’t recall what I said, I don’t think I would have said that at the time because if you’ve noticed, I have been discussing what will happen in sixty years, I don’t deal in five year timeframes on this issue because social engineering doesn’t work like that and if you think it does then you don’t understand anything about the discipline.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    The ignorance argument is just BS, Weihana. HIV and syphilis Infections are up amongst young men (gay and straight) aftre 25 years of intense focus on STDS, HUV, safe sex education, free condoms, and sex education in schools. This issue is just another example of when it comes to gratifying ourselves, humans never learn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Yes Weihana, I was not attempting to address all the causes. Really I was speaking out against all the nonsense, in an appeal to truth and logic.

    I would not wish the disease on anyone, regardless of where they live, or their sexual habits. I have a gay mate and would think it a terrible thing if he caught it. But the fact is that homosexual men are far more likely to get it in our society. Other places have other factors to consider.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Sofia (857 comments) says:

    People seem to have forgotten the Aids Foundation.
    To counter Aids, gays had to feel more accepted so they could seek help
    Hence the big Aids Foundation campaigns and gays are now so accepted they will be allowed to marry publicly in about six months time.
    Were is the level of Aids infection – still rising last time I heard – although general opinion seems to be Aids isn’t such a bad disease any more?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    Wasn’t it claimed that the civil union bill would be the end of the world?

    No it was claimed, correctly as it turned out, that “civil unions” would be steeping tone to “gay marriage”.

    It’s how the forces of darkeness degrade us by creeping stealth.

    It wont be the end of the world btw Pete George but it is the end of the West but you are too dumb to see the writing on the wall. You are like a dumb little sheep being led by the nose to the slaughter board to have your throat (actually more accuratly your sescendants throats) cut.

    The people who have the most children are the people who will inherit the earth and western sodomites and western women who abort their children are not producing enough children to replace themselves and have not been doing so for the past forty years.

    The chickens are about to come home to roost and when they do smashing the family as the fundamental unit of society will be revealed to be the most foolish thing we could have ever allowed to happen.

    WE are talking evil here

    [DPF: If a western sodomite is heterosexual, and only sodomises his wife some of the time, and the rest of the time does vaginal sex, leading to her having some good western children, is the western sodomite still evil and part of the forces of darkness?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    Some people manage to see evil everywhere except in themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Kea.

    HIV infection rates ARE higher in the male homosexual community in the WESTERN world. In other parts of the world the virus is far more prevalent in the heterosexual community. Different strains of the virus exist and not all people are aware that they may be infected, this is doubly more so areas of the world where medical care is sparse, and often traditional in nature. Many Africans believe that sex with a virgin will result in a cure. You can imagine the downstream effects of that.

    In the western world, screening, identifying risk groups and risk behaviors, and the effective communication networks we have is the best fight against HIV infection. Coupled with Education and a more accepting attitude to those infected (for the most part anyway) this is a fight we are winning in the west. In most of Africa, with none of those advantages, there is little hope of a similar victory, and Sexual Orientation has fuck all to do with it.

    The demerits, as I see it, come not from the fact that dotcom holds a contrary viewpoint, he has that right. The way he is expressing those views is offensive. Talking about nature having ways of dealing with these people and the like. I too value truth and honesty. Dotcom has provided little of both today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    Degrading marriage by associating it with sex…

    Marriage has been associated with sex for a long long time. Some priests have tried to de-sex marriage by threats of fire and brimstone (because they have de-sexed themselves?) but that has been very unsuccessful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Weihana says:

    …the fact that they go unaddressed in the current political climate does not negate the legitimacy and merit of those arguments in support of homosexual equality.

    I don’t deny the legitimacy of those arguments, just that the Bill cannot claim for itself the mantle of euqality unless it serves to make everyone equal.

    NZ wasn’t a leader in granting the franchise to women unless they happened to be single. Or lesbian. It granted the vote to everyone who was not male (and thus had it already) and thus achieved equality.

    Since I happen to be watching “Lincoln” as we speak, let me compare the Bill to the Emancipation Proclamation. In fact it freed only a small percentage of slaves: those who were behind Union lines, and only provided they were in areas not exempted. No one can argue with the rightness of its intent, or that it was a catalyst in eventual change. But it did not “free the slaves” any more than this Bill will make all persons equal in their access to marriage.

    The intent may be laudable; the title is dishonest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Slipster (170 comments) says:

    As someone else said before me:

    “When I say I’m married, I don’t want my listeners to silently wonder what gender my wife is”.

    This pretty much sums up the reason for opposing that idea for many. And not only for oldies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    iMP (962) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    The Gay community went nuts when HIV/Aids started to kill people, demanding all sorts of govt funding, research and support and culturally ‘owning’ the disease (ala Elton John’s trsu, et al). Does no one remember that? Has it suddenly become a disease of little old monogamous once married spinsters in Leeston?

    No, I think people have just started to concentrate less on stereotypes and prejudice and more on specific preventative measures that can be taken.

    Has it occurred to you that if a certain demographic is ten times more likely than average to engage in a type of behaviour that that does not necessarily mean that such behaviour is representative of most people in that demographic? For instance, if most criminals are Maori it does not imply that most Maori are criminals.

    For me, equality is about being treated as an individual. To not be judged merely on the basis of belonging to a demographic. To not be judged on statistical averages and speculation as to one’s propensity to engage in disagreeable behaviour based on those statistical averages. And yet we routinely hear conservatives raise such issues as whether or not homosexuals are promiscuous, whether they take drugs, whether they molest children etc. etc. Instead of condemning specific types of behaviour instead conservatives focus on prejudice pertaining to an entire group of people and seek to judge every member of that group by such prejudice.

    It’s no different to how previous generations viewed racial minorities. Are they more likely to be criminal? Are white women at risk of being raped by them? Are they less intelligent than whites? Again and again the focus is on statistical averages rather than treating each member of the group as an individual and that is exactly why this debate is just a continuation of the civil rights argument and why in time history will come to regard you as just another product of your time: a historical curiosity but thankfully an attitude long discarded by most.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    You are like a dumb little sheep being led by the nose to the slaughter board to have your throat (actually more accuratly your sescendants throats) cut.

    Andrei, ironic, I don’t buy any of that grossly threatening religious bullshit that some churches seem to be determined to use control their sheep.

    One thing you said I agree with, but perhaps I have taken a different meaning:

    WE are talking evil here

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

    I have no problem with same sex marriage because the issue for me is individual rights. The Govt should not get involved in legislating it.

    Dotcom…
    HIV/AIDS is but one disease of gay men

    The following brief from UNAIDS is relevant.

    HIV and sex between men

    There are lots of other studies that is cited in the UNAIDS brief above, where one can just Google for them. The study from China that’s cited in the brief document above, the full publication is not available as it is a subscribed journal only, but the abstract is available here:

    Men Who Have Sex With Men and Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Sexually Transmitted Disease Control in China

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    although general opinion seems to be Aids isn’t such a bad disease any more?

    While infection rates are high in some places, there is not a correspondingly high death toll. This seems to be the case even for those who are not lucky enough to receive medication. Some African leaders have officially denied the disease even exists.

    We all remember the dire predictions made by scientists back in the 80’s. You could not take a girl home without her fussing over AIDS. Mostly people ignored the scientists and kept on fucking recklessly. The world did not end and everyone went away with a smile on their faces.

    It is a bit like global warming in that regard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    The intent may be laudable; the title is dishonest.

    Rex, what do you think would be an honest title? The ‘A bit more equality’ marriage bill?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Kea,

    But the fact is that homosexual men are far more likely to get it in our society. Other places have other factors to consider.

    Indeed, but focusing on homosexuality rather than addressing the root cause (promiscuity coupled with unsafe sex) is unlikely to yield results.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    slightlyrighty, I agree with what you said about HIV/AIDS, but not about Dotcom. When you take “offence” it is a description of your emotional state, not another persons actions. I was not “offended”.

    You would have to be a bit thick not to see that Dotcom was stirring in order to make his point. He is probably an ok guy in real life and may even like the cock himself ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @Pete George

    How about “The Marriage (Recognition of Homosexual Relationships) Bill”? That’s precisely the honest and full intent of the Bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Weihana, I hope you don’t think I am some how disagreeing with you.

    I was not intending to get into a big talk around AIDS/HIV. My point was more to do with way speech is being controlled in the name of political correctness. If someone is wrong in their thinking, then I believe it is best they let it out in the open. Then we can all pick their ideas to bits and maybe all learn something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    HIV/AIDS is NOT a gay disease.

    Actually, the original name for AIDS was GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency), and it still affects mostly MSM (men who sleep with men).

    Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.

    In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 2008.

    Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States,4 in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    But Rex, it recognises more than just homosexual relationships. For example transexuals in existing marriages won’t be forced to divorce if changing their sex. It allows legal recognition of any sort of sexual relationship between two consenting adults.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    Jesus Christ but the nutters are out today.

    So far not one person has posited a single argument against gay marriage which isn’t a whacko conspiracy theory and/or the most egregious logical fallacy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    Fltech – committed legal relationships are more likely to result in less promiscuous, safer sex and should help reduce HIV rates.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    Marriage has been associated with sex for a long long time. Some priests have tried to de-sex marriage by threats of fire and brimstone (because they have de-sexed themselves?) but that has been very unsuccessful.

    Where do you come up with this rubbish from Pete George.

    Marriage has always been about having children. Sex is how babies are made. Sex is good, babies are good.

    For example from our marriage service which is ancient and would become nonsensical if applied to same sex couples, because same sex marriage is non sensical

    For the servant of God (Name) and the handmaid of God (Name), who are now being joined to one another in the community of Marriage, and for their salvation; let us pray to the Lord.

    That this marriage may be blessed as was that of Cana of Galilee; let us pray to the Lord.

    That there may be given unto them soberness of life, and fruit of the womb as may be most expedient for them; let us pray to the Lord.

    That they may rejoice in the beholding of sons and daughters; let us pray to the Lord.

    That there may be granted unto them the happiness of abundant fertility, and a course of life blameless and unashamed; let us pray to the Lord.

    That there may be granted unto them and unto us all prayers that tend unto salvation; let us pray to the Lord

    That both they and we may be delivered from tribulation, wrath, danger, and necessity; let us pray to the Lord.

    Help us; save us; have mercy on us and keep us, O God by Your Grace.

    Calling to remembrance our all‑holy, immaculate, exceedingly blessed glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever‑Virgin Mary, with all the Saints; let us commend ourselves and one another and all our life to Christ our God.

    or

    Holy God, Who fashioned man from the dust, and from his rib fashioned woman, and joined her to him as a helpmate for him, for it was seemly unto Your Majesty for man not to be alone upon the earth, do You Yourself, O Sovereign Lord, stretch forth Your hand from Your holy dwelling place, and join* together this Your servant (Name) and Your handmaid (Name), for by You is a wife joined to her husband. Join them together in oneness of mind; crown them with wedlock into one flesh; grant to them the fruit of the womb, and the gain of well favored children, for Yours is the dominion, and Yours is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory: of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, both now and ever, and to the ages of ages.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    Marriage has been associated with sex for a long long time. Some priests have tried to de-sex marriage by threats of fire and brimstone (because they have de-sexed themselves?) but that has been very unsuccessful.

    Pete this response indicates to me you have no idea what a social concept is. Here’s a clue. Ask any child ten or under what “marriage” is and most of them them will probably say something along the lines of “mummy and daddy and me and Timmy and Suzie.”

    A social concept is something that isn’t intellectualised it’s formed out of subconscious processes based on social mores. This is what children pick up without even thinking about it. Once people intellectualise a concept it becomes less of a social, collective concept and more of their concept because their own thinking processes about this that and the other interpose themselves between the “pure” subconscious collective concept and their rationalised version of it which reflects their own prejudices and thought patterns which have arisen from their own unique life experiences.

    As individuals we all hold thousands of social concepts all based on the same origins and they cover all topics from “what is money and how should I treat it” to “what is work and how do I treat it” to “what is my home and how do I treat it” to “what is my family and how do I treat it.” When I say “how do I treat it” I mean, what does this mean to me? Where am I in relation in relation to “x?” What does my upbringing and my education and my life outlook tell me to do, with respect to “x?”

    This is what Satan is playing with Pete. And he’s very good at what he does.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    Fltech – committed legal relationships are more likely to result in less promiscuous, safer sex and should help reduce HIV rates.

    Pete George, I do not think so. Monogamy is not part of the gay lifestyle, especially among gay men.

    GERMAN SEXOLOGIST SAYS COMMITTED MONOGAMOUS
    HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS ARE A MYTH

    By David W. Virtue

    A leading German sexologist, Dr. Martin Dannecker, who is himself a
    homosexual, says fidelity between homosexual men living in a “committed
    relationship” is a myth.

    In a recent study he undertook of 900 male respondents living in a “steady”
    relationship in Bonn, 83 percent (747) persons said they had had frequent
    homosexual contacts outside their “steady” relationship within the last 12
    months.

    “In this context we must point out the clear differences in the manner of
    sexual gratification that exists between homosexual men living in a steady
    relationship and those who do not. Of those who were in a steady relationship
    at the time of the survey, the average number of homosexual contacts per
    person was approximately 115 in the past year. Homosexual men without a
    steady relationship had an average of about 45 homosexual contacts,” said
    Dannecker.

    In his new book “The Joy of Gay Sex” Dr. Charles Silverstein one of the best
    known advocates of the “normality” of the homosexual lifestyle, says fidelity
    and monogamy are not necessarily the same thing. He writes: “Fidelity between
    lovers excludes the possibility of having sex with a third person; monogamy
    means that two people have declared themselves lovers – an intimate emotional
    and sexual relationship. The latter arrangement can include sexual adventures
    outside the relationship.”

    Addressing the problem of “promiscuity”, Silverstein writes: “The word
    ‘promiscuous’ should be retired from the vernacular. As a rule of thumb, if a
    gay man is unattached there’s no harm in his having as much (safe) sexual
    experience as he wants. If he has a lover, they should decide how much sex,
    if any, they want outside their relationship, and under what circumstances.
    One lover having sex without the other’s knowledge is not promiscuous but
    dishonest; this situation is best viewed as a failure of communication rather
    than a moral flaw.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Relax wat dabney. No one will force you to gay marry. Everyone is free to follow their own beliefs, that is the beauty of it.

    I would only oppose it if religious folk were forced to marry gays. If a particular church was ok with it, then all good, but those against gay marriage should be free to follow that belief. It does not cause any problems for others if they refuse to marry gays. The gays can marry some other place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    I should refresh my memory of the Book of Job, to see if one of Job’s comforters was named Andrei.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    I would only oppose it if religious folk were forced to marry gays.

    So killing the family unit isn’t a problem for you Kea?

    I see…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    A posting by a gay Christian male in Australia from last year –

    I’m a gay male who also happens to be Christian. I live in Australia where gay marriage is still not legalised. I believe that my orientation is not a choice, but my faith is. I do not believe that being gay is sinful. I believe it is an orientation not a sin.

    I also believe that there is a difference between being gay and living a gay ‘lifestyle’. No matter what your orientation is, you are capable of choosing your behaviours and how you treat others – including your partner. I also believe that marriage by it’s very nature is about monogamy and many other things too. If you aren’t willing to make a vow to be faithful to your partner and to put it into practice, then you shouldn’t get married. Rather just have a live-in relationship. Many heterosexual people do this too. I’ve always supported gay marriage in principal, but at the same time questioned it’s viability given the awful track record that the majority of the gay community has with the way they treat their partners and their relationships.

    I have witnessed and experienced this first-hand and will not back down on the issue. I know my fellow gays will be very angry at what I’m about to say but I will not back down on this matter. I feel too strongly about it. I’ve seen and experienced too much in the gay scene and I simply will not be silent on the matter. There has to be a change for the better, and as a community we do have to consider the facts and reflect on them. If we do not do this, we can not expect to be taken seriously and are fooling ourselves and entering into gay marriage on a whim.

    I believe that if the gay community so badly wants the right to marry then they need to show cause for their case. They need to show that they are ready to do it PROPERLY. From my personal experience 99% of gay males are promiscuous and can not treat a partner with any form of love, dignity, faithfulness or respect. Instead, partners are treated like consumable items that are to be used and discarded once your sexual urges carry you elsewhere. Yes, this is completely true. Let’s not be foolish enough to deny it. I have walked a very long road to healing because of horrendous relationship experiences I’ve had with other gay men. I went into the gay world with a Christian up-bringing and values. I went into the gay world full of hope that I’d meet a kind and loving man who wanted to share a life together and be monogamous. For me, if I love someone with my heart there is just no way I could ever cheat. It’s just not a question and it doesn’t even enter my mind.

    Well, let me tell you that my gay dating experiences in my 20’s were like an induction into another world. I have experienced some form of infidelity or abuse in EVERY relationship without exception. Either I was being cheated on, or the person I was dating was actually cheating on their partner and not being truthful about it. Partners have also all been abusive to varying degrees. I have yet to encounter one man who has been different. In the gay scene I have seen countless examples of this in other gay people’s lives. It has always made me sick to my stomach.

    Where is the love? What are gay relationships built on? Sexual gratification or love? Most gay men would scoff at me for still holding onto ideals such as love, monogamy and marriage. It’s sad to see how their hearts have hardened. So lets ask ourselves, why do we want gay marriage so badly? Are we ready for it? Will we do it properly? I know I’d have no problem doing it properly if I got married and I’d love to get married one day if I met the right man. I also know of a very small number of wonderful gay men who certainly would do marriage properly too. However, I regret to say that the majority of gay men out there are not ready for marriage. I base everything I’ve said on hard evidence – observations and personal experiences. My comments are not based on irrationality.

    http://aflame.blog.co.uk/2011/02/09/the-myth-of-gay-monogamy-a-gay-man-speaks-out-10549413/

    And we want Govt to make these kind of relationships lawful?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    Ah the good ol 80s Aids Foundation. Is it still compulsory to be gay to work there?

    DPF, I would increase Dotcom’s demerits, simply because it conjurs up for me, that Kimmy Dotcon might be in here spreading his largesse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    A kind of Kiwiblog demerit Dotcom condom

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    For the servant of God (Name) and the handmaid of God (Name), who are now being joined to one another in the community of Marriage, and for their salvation; let us pray to the Lord.

    I doubt there are many people who would buy into this these days.

    Or this:

    Holy God, Who fashioned man from the dust, and from his rib fashioned woman, and joined her to him as a helpmate for him

    For most people the social concept of marriage has moved on a lot from this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Left Right and Centre (2,979 comments) says:

    And I thought this was a thread about the age divide of nzder’s attitudes towards same sex marriage. I’m wrong again.

    I was listening to ZB and one those old dinosaur kiwi blokes who whistles when he talks… and normal tone of voice sounds like they’re ‘telling you off for doing some wrong’… you know the type… called gay people ‘unnatural’.

    That’s the kind of moron that gay folks are up against. Forget the marriage issue… it’s a deeper problem than that. Old crusties don’t even want to accept being gay as a concept.

    He said he was sorry to disagree with ‘modern people’. Too funny.

    I was watching a vox pop street survey about gay marriage a while back. If it was someone less than fifty… they’d stop… think about it… not really know what to answer having been put on the spot… but all done in a fairly relaxed manner.If it was an old person… they’d start walking off as soon as the question was asked. That sums them up mate. And they had a disgusted ‘nose put out of joint’ look on their faces that said it all. Like it was an insulting question not even worthy of consideration. The mind shut off automatically and they hit escape mode. Fleeing… like running from a fire. You can’t even go to the shops without someone asking you about a gay issue!! That’s the breakdown of society for ya. It’s not like the good old days where everything was women in dresses and blokes with short hair and there was no crime and society had values. They wish someone had hit pause around 1957 and it could remain that way indefinitely. Bad luck.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    From the NZ Herald –

    What of gay commitment and faithfulness? Long-term lesbian relationships on average may well be as committed and faithful as that of an average married heterosexual couple. The problem is the gay men.

    Some male gay couples are as committed and faithful as typical married heterosexuals. Survey evidence, however, indicates that these are very much a minority.

    Significant data on male homosexual behaviour is available through New Zealand Medical Journal articles and the New Zealand Aids Foundation website. The Aids Foundation and the Aids Epidemiology Group at the University of Otago have conducted biennial surveys, the Auckland Gay Periodic Sex Surveys, for the past decade.

    The 2010 results covered the sexual behaviour of 1527 gay men in 2008. On the commitment side, the survey indicates that the most common number of sexual partners for gay men over the previous six months was two to five. Just 38.8 per cent of those surveyed had a partner of more than six months’ standing (i.e. relationships with some level of commitment).

    However, 52 per cent of these men had also had sex in that period (six months) with other partners. So despite the rhetoric of love and commitment, most male gay couples are not in a genuinely monogamous relationship. Should the meaning of “marriage” be broadened under such circumstances?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10830082

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    you know the type… called gay people ‘unnatural’.

    Well, gay “sex” IS unnatural. That’s pretty much the only word to describe it.

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

    I think what you’re worried about Andrei and co, is how the gay community have been sucked in by and promote socialism.That tends to get on my tits too, now I can see socialism and the green religion for the dirty great cults they are.
    But still. What is worse? Rooting someone of the same sex or having an affair? I tend to believe consenting don’t have to answer to anyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Many folk seem to think being gay was “invented” by liberal lefties to undermine society. In fact gays have always been part of our society. Many have made major contributions, though you may not know they were gay. They are actually pretty ordinary folk going about their business.

    Part of the problem is the left trying to claim ownership of gay rights, to push other agendas. They have attempted to label them as a “victim” group. I have seen no convincing argument that being gay makes you a lefty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @Pete George

    While I accept – and indeed celebrate – the full spectrum of human sexuality, gender (at least in the eyes of the law) is bipolar: you are male or you are female. So the legal effect of the Bill is to make legal homosexual marriage, but only between two people.

    You cite “transexuals in existing marriages … changing their sex”. Presumably you mean a male who’s transitioned to female changing sex to female, and being unable to remain married to their female partner?

    While I support their ability to do so, there are transexuals who want the ability to be recognised as uniquely such, though there’s debate around the peferred terminology. So what about the transexual who wants their official documentation to record something other than “male” or “female”? Not only are they discriminated against in that respect, but this Bill will not recognise their equality, unless they allow themselves to be labelled in a way they do not want.

    Now this may sound as though it’s splitting hairs to the nth degree but that’s my point: there are so many variables. Only a Bill which said “Any number of human beings who wish to step forth and have themseves declared married may do so” would achieve equality of marriage.

    By passing a Bill named as this one is, lawmakers and most of the public will assume we have true equality, and not repoen the issue for many years to come. If the drafter doesn’t care, and is seeking only to redress the lack of equality only as it affects a sizeable minority and not the multitude of smaller minorities, then she should name the Bill something else. If she seeks genuine equality she should also aim to lift the restriction on numbers, degrees of relatedness and so forth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Damnit it… second paragraph should read “Preumably you mean, for example…”

    Bloody useless WordPress… why update a system when critical plugins aren’t ready. Do you not communicate with your developers?!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Long-term lesbian relationships on average may well be as committed and faithful as that of an average married heterosexual couple. The problem is the gay men.

    Fletch, So the lesbians blamed the men. Wow, now there is a surprise ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    I think what you’re worried about Andrei and co, is how the gay community have been sucked in by and promote socialism.

    Now here is someone who gets it !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Sofia (857 comments) says:

    All this shit when gays want to marry –
    What will you do in answer to the demands for gay adoption of children?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    For most people the social concept of marriage has moved on a lot from this.

    Moving on does not necessarily mean for the better Pete George.

    When it comes down to it Christian marriage is about something bigger than just the two parties entering into it – it is about the new generations that will result from it and the sacrifices entailed in raising them as well as the belessing that arise from doing this. Thus my children are BLESSINGS not liabilities and the idea of abortion is an anathema to me.

    Gay marriage is by its very nature both sterile and selfish and cannot produce children.

    It is in the long term socially destructive but that is the intention of those who are promoting it be led by the nose if you like Pete George, I can’t help it if you a gulliable fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. nasska (11,525 comments) says:

    Fletch

    Statistics from 2011 on adults living with HIV/AIDS:

    United States of America 1,300,000
    United Kingdom 94,000

    versus

    South Africa 5,600,000
    Kenya 1,600,000

    In the West it is highly likely that the virus is spread by promiscuous homosexuals but the numbers are totally dwarfed by those in third world (esp. African) countries where it is heteros who are mainly infected. Ref: http://www.globalhealthfacts.org/data/topic/map.aspx?ind=1&gclid=CO3pzYDcubQCFQQcpQodejsATw

    All this & you’re still banging on about HIV being predominant amongst, “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men”. Climb off the pulpit & have a read before you let your religious bigotry show you up as a total fool.

    Even in shitholes such as Pakistan where you are likely to be killed for a homosexual act 130000 live with the disease.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    All this shit when gays want to marry –
    What will you do in answer to the demands for gay adoption of children?

    Sofia, I suggest we treat them equally. They can head off to the fertility clinic the same as the hetrosexuals do.

    There is no way I approve of gay adoption. Not ever and under no circumstances. They can marry and they can fuck who they like, it is their business. But raising kids is a no go. Nature made those rules, not me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    What will you do in answer to the demands for gay adoption of children?

    Wait and see Sofia. I’m hoping we start having that debate after the gay marriage issue is consigned to the dustbin of history once the wise society has told the gays to have civil unions. I don’t think that will happen, but that’s what should happen.

    But meanwhile, when you were a little girl growing up, tell us honestly, if you had had a choice, would you rather have had a Dad and a Mum, or a real Mum and an extra Mum and if you choose the latter, would you be the same person you are today?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    nasska, home work time…

    Dry, abrasive vaginas are seen as desirable in sexual intercourse in the vast majority of southern African cultures

    http://www.salon.com/1999/12/10/drysex/

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

    http://www.thebody.com/content/art2762.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. nasska (11,525 comments) says:

    Kea

    And I thought that a sly one at the beach was less than comfortable. You learn something new everyday & I’ve no trouble accepting that it would multiply the risk factor incredibly.

    It doesn’t however, contradict anything in my 5.32pm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Left Right and Centre (2,979 comments) says:

    Fletch reply:

    So’s a bloke taking his sheila up the jacksee. And I wonder if our ancestors were into ‘doing business downtown’ like today?

    Gay’s getting off with each other is natural for them. They are what they are, and they are a part of nature… just like other folks who were born in a way that doesn’t help them reproduce like infertile people.

    You can even find homosexuality in other species. I think the bonobos can’t get enough of it. They love a good homo bonobo boner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    Actually, the whole HIV/AIDS thing is questionable itself.
    Check out the movie House Of Numbers – http://www.houseofnumbers.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Hey, David Farrar, can I please have a credit of 40 merit points, for my having introduced this important conversation that needs to be had, that of mens sexual health?

    After all, if you Google the term in quotes, “mens health” you get returned about 100,000 GBLT sites wanting to promote the openness of conversation on this important issue.

    What is the rule here? You have to be either in the medical industry or GBLT yourself, to discuss men’s health. Are BLTs allowed to discuss the health of the Gs in GBLT, btw?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    nasska, I was as shocked as the next man when I found out about it. It is very wide spread with some major reports written on the subject by various medical and humanitarian organisations.

    Yet the main stream media never mention this. Not ever. With all the appeals and bleating we hear about Africa, not a single mention of why AIDS is really spreading so quickly through Hetrosexual populations there. Now I wonder why that might be?

    My guess is that, once again, political correctness is put before outcomes for real people !

    Many women concur that dry sex, as this practice is called, hurts. Yet it is common throughout southern Africa, where the AIDS epidemic is worse than anywhere in the world. Researchers conducting a study in Zimbabwe, where Mhakeni lives, had trouble finding a control group of women who did not engage in some form of the practice. Some women dry out their vaginas with mutendo wegudo — soil with baboon urine — that they obtain from traditional healers, while others use detergents, salt, cotton, or shredded newspaper. Research shows that dry sex causes vaginal lacerations and suppresses the vagina’s natural bacteria, both of which increase the likelihood of HIV infection. And some AIDS workers believe the extra friction makes condoms tear more easily.

    Dry sex is not the only way African women subordinate their sexual safety to men’s pleasure. In a few cultures, a woman’s vagina is kept tight by sewing it almost shut. But in most African societies, the methods are subtler: Girls are socialized to yield sexual decision-making to men.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Left Right and Centre (2,979 comments) says:

    ah yeah… the next talkback caller after Mr ‘Gays are unnatural’ was talking about feral women and spoke the line ‘they have them left right and centre’. I should turn that into a drinking game.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    The state is secular….how then can it discriminate against its own citizens?

    nasska sorry I only just read this. As you might have seen above, I don’t agree there is any discrimination. There is none, apart from the ability to use a word to describe their union, and last time I heard, the Human Rights Commission has never ruled that a word, with nothing else attached to it, is discriminatory.

    And there is nothing else attached to it. No-one can argue there is. This is why no-one can claim any discrimination is occurring. Because it isn’t.

    As I keep saying on this particular point, if anyone wishes to claim the inability to adopt is discriminatory, then fine, let’s have a gay adoption debate.

    All of these points covers the entire field of anything whatsoever in this issue that could conceivably be claimed to be discriminatory. And yet still, some people, while remaining wisely silent on pretending there is discrimination and to prove it this is it, right here, while remaining silent on that, still some people, for some inexplicable reason, continue to stand by their argument that the reason they are in favour of gay marriage is discrimination.

    It’s mass hallucination on a hideous scale and it would be funny, if it wasn’t so tragic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. nasska (11,525 comments) says:

    Kea

    I reckon that countries influenced by western civilisation are about the only ones where women get much say in about what is done to them. In Africa & most of the Middle East they enjoy the status of a inflatable sex aid.

    Yet here where the X chromosome doesn’t relegate its owner to the level of the family goat we have the biggest pack of moaning, joyless, whingers as women.

    Go figure!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    iMP, did joo see my pic on Mr Vail Oil block this morning? Pic off zee day posht.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Yet here where the X chromosome doesn’t relegate its owner to the level of the family goat we have the biggest pack of moaning, joyless, whingers as women.

    I have said that many times and discussed it at length with friends from overseas. We are yet to find the answer. Why are our liberated women such miserable sullen harpies ?

    I still adore the joyless bitches though ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. nasska (11,525 comments) says:

    Reid

    I hope I still have sufficient wits to see through the new world ‘agenda’ & I accept quite a few of your contentions.

    My sole contention is that in marriage, everything other than its celebration, has long been the responsibility of the state. This is not something sprung on everyone recently….it goes back to the establishing of the protestant church five centuries ago.

    The “state” is all encompassing…..it doesn’t have the power nor the right to discriminate between its citizens. Ergo whatever the arguments for or against same sex marriage we are heading down a dangerous constitutional path if we treat one group differently to another.

    That is the only reason I support the proposed legislation…..adoption is another matter & would push me far out of my comfort zone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Left Right and Centre at 5:14 pm:
    ””…And I thought this was a thread about the age divide of nzder’s attitudes towards same sex marriage…””
    _______________________________

    What do you expect LRaC? I commented on topic and got demerited. You expect others to follow that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    Let’s all play Spot the difference

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    The “state” is all encompassing…..it doesn’t have the power nor the right to discriminate between its citizens. Ergo whatever the arguments for or against same sex marriage we are heading down a dangerous constitutional path if we treat one group differently to another.

    The State can make what ever laws it sees fit. The State can, and does, make laws that discriminate on the basis of, gender, age, marital status, race, mental capacity and so on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,551) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 6:23 pm
    Let’s all play Spot the difference

    I got it ! :)

    The photo on the left has pictures of a non existent deity in the background. The photo on the right does not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Jaisus, it scares me shitless to read here time and time again, that GBLTs think that HIV/AIDS isn’t a Gay disease. This scares me shitless. What sort of a world … with this level of irresponsibility/denial? Fark!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Andrei, oh and one more thing. The guys in the other photo use condoms … ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    What is the rule here?

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/demerits

    Off-topic, grossly offensive statements, spamming, I reckon you have tallied up more than 100 demerits already. You are fortunate that DPF isnt as strict as he could be.

    Its been rather counter-productive too, Dotcom. I dont believe you actually hold the beliefs you are espousing here.

    It really sounds like you have some personal issues you are using Dr Internet to work through.

    A lot of people turn to the internet to do that; people who are struggling with their own sexuality (they hate themselves for loving what they love), others were touched by a relative or clergy, and still others who committed gross sexual acts with family pets in their youth for which they are seeking atonement.

    I dont know which one(s) apply to you Dotcom, but you definitely have issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    I find the hypocrisy of conservative Catholics truly fascinating. Such venom directed against consensual adult sexual activity, while their institutional hierarchy has engaged in massive denial, concealment and facilitation of child sexual abuse by pedophile priests. If these apologists for the clergy and Catholic hierarchy’s decades long wilful negligence and deceit think their institution has any moral authority left whatsoever outside the blindly devout and devoutly blind, then I am afraid that I must disabuse them. Oops. I said ‘abuse.’ Naughty me. I should have said serial child rape.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    Why are our liberated women such miserable sullen harpies ?

    They’re slowly getting there Kea, just give it time. It’s all part of the plan. Pretty soon the only feminine ladies will be those of Asian and African and Eastern descent. Forget the west. In another generation, all of our women will have been instructed to turn themselves into men by their grandmothers and their mothers, for that is the path to “success” in this life, they will say.

    Meanwhile the real values of stability and loyalty and strength and compassion and dedication which both men and women achieve when they perform their genetically designed roles of one providing for the family and the other sacrificing for the family, which is how repeat which is how we are designed, which means whatever you think about the human wights of it all, is how repeat how we are, in fact designed, which therefore, der, cannot be changed by pretending it doesn’t exist; are all lost forever as we selfishly pursue our Satanically-inspired destiny, to pursue our own gratification, with no thought for what really actuates us as humans, to sacrifice ourselves willingly for the sake of our loved ones.

    That’s what it’s about, it’s been proceeding apace for five decades now, think what society will be like in 2072, as we proceed down the current path which has served humanity so very well, hasn’t it. All the while accompanied by the braying of the useless and foolish idiots, as they say over and over and over again: “human wights, human wights, human wights…”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    Such venom directed against consensual adult sexual activity

    There is no venom directed at anyone CG. Der. If you claim there is, then what is it?

    Why is not letting gays call themselves married, directing venom at them, when they can have the same rights via civil union? Why?

    Go on. Be the first one ever, to explain that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Jaisus, it scares me shitless to read here time and time again, that GBLTs think that HIV/AIDS isn’t a Gay disease

    It is not a gay disease. Male homosexuals engage in high risk behaviours, so the prevalence is higher among that group. However, anyone can contract the disease.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    Chardonnay, so, you you don’t find any hypocrisy OUTSIDE the conservative Catholic church? Man, I’d like to live in that world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Reid, have a look at Dotcoms comments.

    Also, CG’s point stands. The catholic church has lost its moral authority.

    Would you follow the moral philosophy of Michael Jackson?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. nasska (11,525 comments) says:

    Kea

    The state can do what it likes which is the greatest argument ever advanced for the Monarchy & an Upper House. For all that I can’t think of much (NZ) law that imposes restrictions on the basis of gender or martial status. Race only comes into it where our cosseted Tangata Whenua are entitled to put both hands & feet in the trough whereas age restrictions are aimed to protect the young & disappear at the age of eighteen.

    Even then it is hard to justify excluding sane adults from a civil marriage contract.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    iMP, so the Church is just doing what everyone does?

    Then what the bloody hell is it there FOR?!?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Pretty soon the only feminine ladies will be those of Asian and African and Eastern descent.

    That horse has already bolted. Women from those places are often stronger and more self possessed than our “strong” Kiwi women. They know what they want, and they dam well expect to get it too. However they do not try to be men and do not see being angry and militant as a sign of strength.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    I can’t think of much (NZ) law that imposes restrictions on the basis of gender or martial status.

    Contracts are one example of martial status. The charge of “male assaults female” is one example of gender bias. The gender bias is a big one. Women in Saudia Arabia have more equality, in law, than men in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Kimble at 6:30 pm

    I don’t like much of what you have to say either. But I don’t cry foul to the ref. “Ref, ref, (read Mummy, mummy) he’s making fun of me”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. nasska (11,525 comments) says:

    Kea

    I’m not conceding defeat but you’ve got me on the ropes. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    Also, CG’s point stands. The catholic church has lost its moral authority.

    I’m not arguing Catholic rules Kimble. This is not a religious issue, although ethics is at its base. But if anyone wishes to claim religion has a monopoly on ethics, then they’re welcome to, but don’t look to me for support because it’s a transparently fallacious proposition.

    But CG’s point from my reading, is that he hallucinates anyone against gay marriage is therefore, ipso facto, discriminating against gays. Which is complete and utter bullshit of the highest order, albeit not unusual that lefties adopt it, as they do on all sorts of issues, possibly because their self-righteous arrogance is so over-weaning their small, narrow and ineffectual minds become overwhelmed with trying at the same time both to think and to proclaim how supreme one’s humanity is with triumphant justice for all and anyone who doesn’t agree just HAS to be evil and venal and wicked because how could they possibly not understand because I am so very brainy and humane.

    It had that smell about it Kimble, so forgive me CG if you really were only talking about Catholics. I do apologise, if so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Kimble, are you the (self appointed) Taliban of KB, here to impose (your) morality on others?

    Your scramble for the, imagined, moral high ground, is only a cover to launch into a grubby little personal attack, littered with deviate sexual references, on our friend Dotcom.

    I pick you as a Graham Capill supporter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    “Would you follow the moral philosophy of Michael Jackson?”

    Michael Jackson became a ‘Saint’ again when he died- An Icon and a hero….the dubious sleepovers with young boys and the odd decision to replace his face with an Ice Cream container seem to have been all but forgotten.

    Dying is a great career move

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Dotcom, its mostly not what you are saying, but how very obnoxious you are being in saying it. Its spam. And spammers are scum. Very few of your posts here are making any real point. As DPF pointed out, one simply rejoiced in people dying. Keep it up but dont complain when you get banned.

    Your actions here are similar to someone touching themselves while riding on the bus, mumbling to scared children that “AIDs is a gay disease”.

    You’re pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    But if you really want to see someone elevated to Sainthood wait until Mandela dies- I’m betting there will be no mention of the Church Street Terrorist bombing ever again…erased from the History books like our own Boyd massacre.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    I really couldn’t care less if two old Queens want to tie the knot and pretend they are husband and wife. (Am I still a right winger?)
    Feral solo mums spitting out 12 children to different dads are, in my humble opinion, a far greater threat to society….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Kea, I doubt you could use only quotes from this thread to make a case for what my opinion on gay marriage is. So I dont know what morality I am supposed to be imposing on people.

    Trolls are trolls, and spamming trolls are worse than that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Kimble quotes (on morality and standards)


    1. touched by a relative or clergy
    2. committed gross sexual acts with family pets
    3. touching themselves while riding on the bus, mumbling to scared children
    4.spammers are scum

    Keep em coming Kimble. We are loving your moral guidance on how to be decent, just like you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Sofia (857 comments) says:

    Archbishop of Westminster attacks gay marriage plan
    The Roman Catholic Church’s leader in England and Wales says government plans for gay marriage are a “shambles”


    Although the Church of England has opposed gay marriage and is expected to oppose the government’s bill, it has also said it was not consulted on a plan for the bill to include a specific ban on it conducting gay marriages. And the Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan, said he thought the ban was a “step too far”.

    But Muslim leaders have called for the same legal exemptions as the Church of England in gay marriage legislation, with the Muslim Council of Britain saying it was “appalled” by the government’s “utterly discriminatory” proposals.

    The Scottish government has also published its proposed legislation to introduce gay marriage and a draft bill is now being compiled to be put to the Scottish Parliament.

    Under the plans, religious and belief bodies would need to “opt in” to perform same-sex marriages
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20840531

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    I’m not arguing Catholic rules Kimble. This is not a religious issue…

    Then why does religion always come up?

    In this thread it was Fletch and Andrei who brought up religion. How about you police your own? Tell them that this isnt a religious issue. Be prepared for the flack though, theres a reason why being an atheist is a dangerous thing to admit to in certain parts of the world.*

    *Fun game. Show me one place in the world where saying you follow any religion (rather than a specific religion) is dangerous to your health.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Feral solo mums spitting out 12 children to different dads are, in my humble opinion, a far greater threat to society

    Agreed. The whole issue of gay marriage gets way more time that it deserves. It is not a big deal. Most of the poofters I know are self employed business people and employ others. They are probably right wing, in an economic sense, and contribute to society.

    Unlike the bitter twisted man hating socialist lesbians who are really behind all this. They are only out to destroy and many have never done an honest days work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Kea,

    1. touched by a relative or clergy (moralising that touching children is a bad thing?)
    2. committed gross sexual acts with family pets (moralising that raping animals is a bad thing?)
    3. touching themselves while riding on the bus, mumbling to scared children (moralising that touching yourself in front of children on public transport is a bad thing?)
    4.spammers are scum (statement of fact)

    You need to up your game. If that is moralising then every statement uttered by anyone is moralising.

    And none of those things amounts to a case for my position on gay marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    They are probably right wing, in an economic sense, and contribute to society.

    What a shame you guys force them to vote for left-wing, economic criminals because of such a non-issue then, eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Kimble darling, if I were calling on the ref for a red card, I would not do it in the same comment that acccuses me of fondling the genitals of the family pets, or that I had been the favourite plaything of the family priest. Now if anyone belongs in the sinbin, sweatheart, … …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    The point is Kimble, someone may be “offended” by you saying those things. Just as you are “offended” by Dotcom’s brain farts.

    You did not need to use those sexual references to make your point. This is the very thing you accused Dotty of. Get what I mean ? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. gump (1,649 comments) says:

    I love reading gay marriage threads on kiwiblog.

    They really reinforce the old adage that 50% of people are below the average intelligence.

    (strictly speaking they’re below the median, but the point stands).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    I never said you did, Dotcom.

    I said that people turn to the internet because of those things. I then said I dont know if any (or multiple) of those things apply. Sensitive much? Did I hit a nerve?

    See? That’s how you do it intelligently, with style.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Azeraph (604 comments) says:

    One doesn’t go off and complain but the gym owners start to notice couples start to stop coming to their gyms, I don’t give a rats ass if a guy is gay but the last thing you want to see is two guys kissing and shaving each others backs in a public space or dropping their towels in front of you while you are sitting down then proceed to bend over slowly to pick it up or have your hairdresser fuss too overly about you that you have to plead with your eye’s to the ladies to intervene. My last surviving uncle who was a Kaftan gay had to beat up his mates to stop them fussing around us as teenagers. So tell me, is this behavior unofficially going to be ignored as part and parcel of being a gay guy at a inner city gym?

    The last guy who wouldn’t take the hint ended up with an ice pack on his face and me being led out to the police station.

    No one ever notice this? I’m hoping the younger gays stop this behavior but i haven’t seen it happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Gump, check this out:

    Why Smart People Are Actually Dumb
    The human brain is a weird old thing. When confronted with a new, uncertain situation, it virtually always abandons careful analysis, and instead resorts to a host of mental shortcuts—that almost always lead to the wrong answer. Turns out, the smarter you are, the more likely you are to make such mistakes.

    http://gizmodo.com/5918045/why-smart-people-are-actually-dumb

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Just as you are “offended” by Dotcom’s brain farts.

    I am not overly offended by Dotcoms keyboard-forehead-rolling efforts. His actions are those of a spamming troll and he should be treated as such.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Just while there is a lull in this commenting … … I don’t know if anyone has seen it, but David Farrar inserted this comment on the very first comment above.

    “You really need to understand the difference between sodomy and homosexuality”

    Can anyone please help me here?

    Can anyone suggest to me please, in what way might I have a NEED for better understanding the difference between sodomy and homosexuality?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    The last guy who wouldn’t take the hint ended up with an ice pack on his face and me being led out to the police station.

    How gay is that?

    …the gym owners start to notice couples start to stop coming to their gyms…

    Oh puke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Azeraph, interesting post. That should get a few comments. You seem to have an acutely developed “Gaydar”, which is just as well with all the queers you seem to attract. You big tease you…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Dotcom, chicks have anuses too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Kimble said, … “As DPF pointed out, one (of my comments) simply rejoiced in people dying …”

    Kimble dear, which of my comments rejoiced in people dying?

    And while you are at it, pumpkin, where did DPF point this out?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Kimble at 7:29 pm
    Dotcom, chicks have anuses too.
    ________________________

    I know. It is the hole nearest to the back of the head.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Azeraph (604 comments) says:

    These experiences happened as well as the amount of Roidjunkies popping and injecting, strange behavior, you can’t accelerate the body when you want it, there is no click now muscle toned body.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Your third comment, coincidentally the third comment on this post, because you are a spamming troll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Usually

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Sorry, that was meant to be usually first hole from etc …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Those are ears.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    “You really need to understand the difference between sodomy and homosexuality”

    Can anyone please help me here?

    I can help Dotty.

    Some men and women do it up-the-bum. My wife and I used to do it often, which we both enjoyed.

    If my big hairy mate wanted me to do him up the bum, then there would be an issue. I would be forced to call Azeraph, to give him a good old fashioned “gay bash” ;)

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

    Fletch:Actually, the whole HIV/AIDS thing is questionable itself.

    No it isn’t. AIDS-denialism is a crackpot movement like creationism, holocaust-denialism, moonlanding-denialism etc.

    Check out the movie House Of Numbers

    The House of Numbers movie is a well-known piece of nonsense, misquoting people and misrepresenting facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    eeer actually you could be forgiven if you took that first sentence the wrong way lol !

    She got it up-the-bum, not “we” …. !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    My third comment doesn’t mention deaths, let alone glory in death. Nor does DPF point out my glorification of the dead. You are not acquitting yourself well in the truth stakes, petal.

    But look, I need to off for a wee while now, and if I don’t mention I’m off, you will be backstabbing me for not entertaining you. So ta ta Kimble. Miss you already.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Hay look, we have wiped out the Bain thread on recent comments. Well done !

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

    But we haven’t wiped it out by the number of comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Redbaiter (8,923 comments) says:

    Kimble you are the most odious puke inducing anti-free speech coward.

    This blog is infested with trolls but funny how so many escape your sharp blog policeman’s eye.

    Oh hang on- most of the trolls are all on your side of the political fence aren’t they?

    So of course they’re spared your odious brownshirt activities.

    How repugnant you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Azeraph (604 comments) says:

    Yep it is interesting and no i’m not some great looking guy either, my mates use to laugh until you take them in and show them and yeah i knew i was setting myself up but there is no other way to describe it.

    If the Gay community want to be taken seriously then stop trawling the public places for a hit, they have their clubs for meet and greet but then the idiot males that hassle supposedly single female gym members need to be hammered as well. It’s embarrassing to see guys lose their demeanor and strut around the ladies trying to workout.

    I’m no angel, not by a long shot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Nick K (1,244 comments) says:

    Dotcom said:

    I lived in New York in the late 1970s/ early 1980s and I saw people dying all around from the gay/AIDS connection by the tens of thousands. And I remember it well. While you are trying to pretend it away, I remember it well.

    It WILL happen again, not necessarily even closely related to HIV/AIDS, but something else will happen if you toy with Mother Nature.

    Then surely you would you want gay men to marry to reduce promiscuity, wouldn’t you? I would.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Kimble (3,447) at 7:20 pm
    See? That’s how you do it intelligently
    ______________________________________________________

    Only is it intelligent on the internet.

    On the other hand, in real life, you push it too far, I punch the fuck out of you, you call it hate crime, bitch, and I end up in prison. And you wonder why your lot are hated to the point of bashing you? And you have been hated, as DPF DID indeed point out on my first comment, for thousands of years. God, it’s good to know … that … I didn’t invent this intense dislike for you, all on my own. (That bloody priest, and that promiscuous little temptress of a tomcat!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Hay Dotty, do you now understand the difference between giving the wife one up-the-bum, and running all over town bumming blokes, yet ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    Is there a Doctor in the house?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    The House of Numbers movie is a well-known piece of nonsense, misquoting people and misrepresenting facts.

    Part of the extra features of House of Numbers – a doctor has to write an application for more money for a grant for AIDS research, and tries to come up with a citation to prove that “HIV is the probable cause of AIDS”. He can’t find it. He can’t find any document that proves it. Not even asking Luc Montagnier face-to-face at a function – the man who supposedly “discovered” the retro-virus. He couldn’t provide him with any proof either. Um….so…?

    Where is the proof? The scientific paper?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    So now everyone who opposes your spamming is gay? Classy, Dotcom, real classy.

    Not as classy as the most impotent of internet rejoinders, though. “I would be able to beat you up in real life”.

    You sound very short. Are you very short?

    Dont worry, nobody can see how short you are on the internet. They can only judge you by your comments. Oh dear.

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

    Fletch:Where is the proof?

    Try here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hivaids/understanding/howhivcausesaids/pages/hivcausesaids.aspx
    http://www.avert.org/hiv-causes-aids.htm
    http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=771&page=2

    There you go Fletch. Get back to me when you have read all that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    To put Nasska’s stats into some context

    Statistics from 2011 on adults living with HIV/AIDS:

    United States of America 1,300,000
    United Kingdom 94,000

    versus

    South Africa 5,600,000
    Kenya 1,600,000

    If you express as a percentage of population

    US 0.41%
    UK 0.14%
    SA 10.8%
    Kenya 3.7%

    Now take the SA number and realise the demographic time bomb at play here. That is 10.8% of the total population. that would be a far higher proportion of the sexually active population most likely to transmit the disease, and that figure only represents KNOWN cases.

    Do you really think that allowing gay couples to marry could or would alter these figures one iota? Would not allowing them to marry reduce this statistic at all? Of course not. The rantings of Dotcom bring nothing to the gay marriage debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    chiz back at you

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Kea at 7:42 pm
    Hey look, we’ve wiped out the Bain thread off “recent comments”. Well done !
    ____________________________________

    Yeah. After my 300 or so posts over there (I registered the 1241st comment, the record at the time, and the 1500th) I came over here (I gave it away on exactly 1500).

    So naturally, when I moved, the comments dried up there, and the comments flew here. I have that effect on blogs, (and this nickname does it all the more). Phew, people hate this nickname. So combined with people hating me whatever name I use, Dotcom does it to extreme. I also signed my posts “Logician-Magician” there which pissed people off no end. They will never but never solve the David Bain problem. I have, but they won’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Kimble at 7:36 pm
    Those are ears.
    ___________________

    No ….. rears

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    You were thinking laterally or vertically, me horizontally.

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

    Fletch, that website that you linked to quotes Duesberg and Papadopulos-Eleopulos, two well known crakcpots when it comes to the debate. Spend some time googling and you will find scores of websites out there devoted to debunking these two in detail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Kea (at 8:06 pm Dotcom, do you now understand the difference between giving the wife one up-the-bum, and running all over town bumming blokes?
    ______________________________________

    Yep, in one the dungeon is happy with the dragon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    chiz, even Gallo recognizes Duesberg as a pre-eminent virologist – the pre-eminent virologist. You may call him a crackpot, but you’d be wrong. That’s just a smear. Just look at the case of Lindsey Nagel.

    The first is Lindsey Nagel. She was from Romania and adopted by an American couple. When she left Romania she tested negative for HIV, then when she arrived in the US and had another test it came out positive (why?).

    Not knowing any better at first, the Nagels followed their pediatrician’s instructions to administer anti-retroviral drugs, which at the time meant high dosage AZT. For months the Nagels watched as their initially healthy daughter deteriorated, getting sicker and sicker. Among other things, her growth became stunted. Of course all symptoms were ascribed to her supposed HIV infection, and not the drugs.

    After nearly two years of this, the Nagels were alerted to Peter Duesberg’s dissenting view by a relative who read an article about him in National Review. The Nagels became intrigued and wrote to Duesberg. He responded immediately, telling them to take Lindsey off the antiretroviral drugs, or they would kill her. They did, and for that reason Lindsey is alive today.

    As for the other children back then that her doctor treated, the doctor herself says “There was nothing you could do years ago. Most children back then did not live past seven to 12 years old. And it was hard; these were children that you got attached to. It was really hard. All we could do was provide some supportive care and treat their opportunistic infections. We had many deaths, 10 to 12 in 1994.”

    And this is only one of the many cases where patients have stopped taking the AIDS medicine, and got better (because it is actually the medicine making them sick). This lady is another case –

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Fletch, I raise immunization causing autism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    ps, I notice that someone has the whole documentary House Of Numbers up on youtube. I guess it is with the film makers permission.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Nick K asked me why I didn’t see MSM marriage as an improvement on MSM promiscuity.

    Marriage changes nothing. The marriage promises of fidelity and sexual monogamy are NOT guaranteed by a marriage certificate, and it this is the purpose of the certificate, then Heaven help all of us.

    Promiscuity is the norm for a huge proportion of the MSM population, or at least should I say, relative to the hetero population. I have no expectation whatsoever, of MSM marriage leading to as few as one less opportunity for sexual disease transmission to occur. Not one, in the billions of examples over the years to come.

    On the other hand, the MSM community will have the rest of us believe anything if they can get away with it, so of course they want us to believe that they will be less promiscuous. Tui billboard.

    Yours sincerely

    Tony Dotcom, Logician-Magician

    (see the L-M bit is awful isn’t it)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    Of course, a cure will never be found now, because if the medical establishment were to admit that HIV does not cause AIDS and it was the actual medicine that was killing people there’d be such an uproar.

    Not to mention the fact of all the money these pill manufacturers are making from AIDS pills.
    They don’t want to wave bye-bye to all that money.

    And so it goes on, and people keep dying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Fletch I guess it is with the film makers permission
    _________________________________________

    You zink I care about zee film makerss permission.
    Dotcom

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

    Won’t be long and there will be no discernible difference:
    http://www.cracked.com/article_15788_the-top-25-men-who-look-like-old-lesbians.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    So the Pope wrote that “whoever defends God is defending man”.

    The Pope believes that God mass murdered every human alive in the days of Noah. There is no evidence known to man that this flood ever occured, but it is an article of faith for the Pope’s Christians that God is a mass murderer.

    In my defence of God on the charge of murdering creation, I also defend God from the lie perpetuteated by the bible – claimed to be God’s self confession to mass murder – this fraud written by men is simply a slander of God by men adversarial to God.

    It is of course no surprise that one of the men who perpetuates the lie that God is a mass murderer claims the title of holy father.

    Once upon a time a man said that only God was holy, and that only God was due the title of father in the realm of faith (for he taught men to pray to God as a father to those who beleived in the kingdom of God for ressurected life) – possibly he would do this to identify those who would oppose both him and God in stealing this title to themself – that is the title holy father.

    Possibly this would identify the church founded by Simon Peter and how it would betray him and God as much as as Simon Peter was said to have done. After all it was said most of all, not to harm the children … .

    This is not an attack on the Catholic Church, for really it is an attack on all biblical Christianity, all those who place their faith in the words of men, such as Paul, instead of love for God via love for fellow humanity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    The law will change. It’s inevitable. Marriage, the formalisation of a special relationship — mating and rearing any offspring since time immemorial, with its roots in the beginning of life itself — will be reduced to a comforting word for homosexuals.

    Well, marriage doesn’t matter any more. Look at the statistics. So.

    Homosexuals don’t want to be married, they simply want to be the same, “normal”.

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

    Fletch:chiz, even Gallo recognizes Duesberg as a pre-eminent virologist – the pre-eminent virologist. You may call him a crackpot, but you’d be wrong. That’s just a smear.

    Duesberg used to have a very very good reputation as a virologist, until he started denying the link between AIDS and HIV. Now he is widely regarded within the scientific community as someone who has gone off the deep end and become a crackpot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    chiz, even though what he says is reasonable, but no one will enter into a debate. I mean come on –

    Even Professor Luc Montagnier who “discovered” HIV in 1983 (and won the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for it) says “We can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks.”

    This is in direct contrast to the official line that says HIV takes ten years to (somehow?) morph into full blown AIDS. Dr Duesberg makes the point that NO virus takes ten years to make you sick. If you catch a virus (and HIV is actually a retrovirus), you usually get sick in a week or two, a month at the outside. Saying that it takes ten years is just not logical.

    And HIV is actually a retrovirus (‘an incomplete “side” of a DNA spiral ladder’). According to what I read “Viruses are larger and more complete replicable strands. Generally, the ones that can hurt us get into our cells and replicate themselves, and destroy the cells they get into. This has never been observed with a retrovirus, and certainly not with HIV”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Having sex with donkeys is a part of growing up for some of the local boys on the northern coast of Colombia. We went to investigate this obscure tradition and foolishly said, “we’ll believe it when we see it.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VKWLC87Uzw

    But can they legally “marry” ?

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

    Fletch: even though what he says is reasonable

    People have debunked Duesberg in detail elsewhere. Try using Google.

    And you should be wary of quoting Montagnier. He’s also widely regarded as a crackpot now for his recent claims about electromagnetic homeopathy.

    And HIV is actually a retrovirus (‘an incomplete “side” of a DNA spiral ladder’). According to what I read “Viruses are larger and more complete replicable strands.

    Oh dear. That explains why you got taken in by this documentary – you clearly know absolutely nothing about basic biology. You don’t even understand the different types of viruses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. nasska (11,525 comments) says:

    Kea

    I didn’t want to be the first to tell you but……the fact that you found that clip indicates that you have farrrrr too much spare time on your hands. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    …his recent claims about electromagnetic homeopathy.

    Two ways to torpedo your own credibility; 1) claim some positive evidence of electromagnetic homeopathy, 2) cite someone as an expert who once claimed positive evidence of electromagnetic homeopathy.

    ……the fact that you found that clip indicates that you have farrrrr too much spare time on your hands.

    Thats probably not all he has on his hands.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    I just typed “documentary” in youtube, nasska, honest :)

    So should they be allowed to marry ?

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

    Not just once Kimble. Montagnier still stands by his claims, and he gave a speech earlier this year linking it to autism!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. nasska (11,525 comments) says:

    Kea

    My attitude on matters such as these has always been homosexual, heterosexual, farmyard, whatever. I do feel however, that it’s unlikely to fly even at the fringes.

    Probably because it would be tad difficult to tell whether the donkey was qualified to give consent. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    I see your point nasska.

    Where is Johnboy when you need him? He would know the correct approach on such matters as, consent, with farm animals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    Johnboy is out at a strip club/shearing shed :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. nasska (11,525 comments) says:

    Wainuiomata: The place where men are men & sheep are nervous!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Rodders, Johnboy does not share his sheep. You have to get your own.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    And you should be wary of quoting Montagnier. He’s also widely regarded as a crackpot now for his recent claims about electromagnetic homeopathy.

    Um, chiz..

    Hate to point this out to you, but Mantagnier is the one who “discovered” HIV. Really.
    So now you’re claiming he doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Fair enough.

    It sounds like you don’t know much about it either if you don’t know he discovered it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    [edit]

    Montagneir, I mean…

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

    Yes, I know that he discovered HIV. However, he’s also gone off the deep end. Read summary of his claims or the summary on the wikipedia.

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

    For example:

    Biology professor PZ Myers also described it as “pathological science.” He described the paper as “one of the more unprofessional write-ups I’ve ever run across”, and criticized the publication process as having an “unbelievable turnaround” time: “another suspicious sign are the dates. This paper was submitted on 3 January 2009, revised on 5 January 2009, and accepted on 6 January 2009,” leading him to ask: “Who reviewed this, the author’s mother? Maybe someone even closer. Guess who the chairman of the editorial board is: Luc Montagnier.”

    Anyone familiar with the normal time-scales for academic publishing will recognise, as Myers did, how dodgy the publishing of this paper is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Fletch, arguments from authority carry a risk. The fact he was right about some things, does not make him right about every thing. This applies no matter how brilliant his discoveries may have been.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Not just once Kimble. Montagnier still stands by his claims, and he gave a speech earlier this year linking it to autism!

    Fuck off ! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Thats probably not all he has on his hands.

    Kimmie, what is with all the sexual references ?

    I suggest you join a dating site, not KB. There will be a man out there for you somewhere :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    You could try Johnboy’s dating site – http://wellington.gen.nz/sheep :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Its an OCD thing; cant leave a blatant set-up without its punchline.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    This is the premium site: http://nzsheep.co.nz/sales/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    All of the above really proves my point- that religious social conservatives on the right are analogous to oldtime Trots and Maoists on the left- namely, both are sectional, selfish and sectarian zealots determined to foist their own authoritarian brand of ideological purity on the centre-left or centre-right through labelling any deviation from their own hallowed version of ideological orthodoxy a heinous ‘thought-crime’ against either the self-appointed ‘vanguard party of the masses’ or ‘traditional values’. Both inhabit authoritarian organisations with unaccountable leadership and both are resolutely opposed to pragmatism, compromise and reformism. Thankfully, in the case of the left, the Trots are almost extinct thanks to the fall of communism back in 1991.

    I’m often pleasantly surprised by the fact that I seem to have more in common with thoughtful classical liberals like David here than with the likes of John Tamihere, Chris Trotter or their ilk on the ostensible ‘left.’ It may have something to do with the fact that we have had to put up with parallel headaches and doctrinaire ideologues and wannabe Lord Protectors.

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