Not a choice

January 23rd, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Simon Collins at NZ Herald reports:

Labour MP Moana Mackey asked Mr Craig if he still believed, as he said last August, that was “a choice”.

“I do,” he said. “It’s a choice influenced by a number of things including genetics.”

This is just nonsense. I think it is perfectly valid to not support . But I do not think it is valid to keep insisting that being homosexual is a choice.

My question back to would be when did he decide to be heterosexual. What age was he? Did he weigh up the pros and cons of heterosexuality vs homosexuality? Did he consult friends over his choice?

You can choose whom you have sex with. But you don’t get to choose whom you are sexually attracted to. I wish we could – would make life much easier!

Tags: , ,

240 Responses to “Not a choice”

  1. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    I still don’t think it matters whether or not it’s a choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Rick Rowling (776 comments) says:

    I had no choice in being heterosexual.

    If CC had a choice, then he’s bi.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    But you don’t get to choose whom you are sexually attracted to. I wish we could – would make life much easier!

    Now, now, are you saying your life would be a lot easier as a gay man? ;-)

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

    Wot, 4,500+ on Bain not enough?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. iMP (2,154 comments) says:

    I think it is a choice. Everything I see about gay culture shows me that. I know people who have “become” gay, and others who have abandoned it to go back to heterosexuality. Human sexuality is fluid. Just because you have sexual thoughts about men doesn’t mean you have a gene that MAKES you something. That’s riduculous. I also have thoughts about ice cream.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Tom Jackson (2,261 comments) says:

    Maybe he’s an existentialist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Ryan is right. Who cares who some one bonks ? Who cares what Colin Craig thinks ? Everyone is entitled to have the view they want and bonk who they want. There is no conflict there at all, provided folk mind their own business about things that do not affect them.

    Most homos just go about their business the same as the rest of us. If your lawyer/mechanic likes the cock, it does not imply anything about his ability to do his job or function in society. He “takes it up the bum” Big deal. Get over it people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Rick Rowling (776 comments) says:

    iMP – so you’re saying you could swap sides?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Tom Jackson (2,261 comments) says:

    I also have thoughts about ice cream.

    Ice cream and men? You’re definitely gay. And a bit of a perv bro.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. dave (985 comments) says:

    If homosexuality is a choice then people such as Craig must believe it is a sin. And sin is a *bad* thing. If he does not think homosexual orientation is a sin, then why would he have a problem with a “choice” of being homosexually oriented? Indeed, why would it even be a “choice”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    So Colin Craig could choose to be a homosexual? I’d like to ask him:

    “If homosexuality was a choice you, Mr Craig, could quite easily choose to be a homosexual tomorrow if you wished”
    I am sure his response would be “No, I would never choose that”.
    I’d ask “Why is that?”
    “Because i am not attracted to men”

    Then I’d rest my case

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Tom Jackson (2,261 comments) says:

    Social conservatives who think that homosexuality is a choice are essentially self reporting their own inner turmoil. After all they’re agonizing whether to stay in the closet, or to give in to the lure of sweet man ass.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. LabourDoesntWork (278 comments) says:

    Insisting that what is not a choice is permissible (or socially sanctioned/approved) is to fail to distinguish between one’s impulses and one’s conscious actions. The debate’s is a waste of time if it doesn’t get past this. That suits the left: their arguments are rhetorical anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Hang in their Colin. You”ll hold the balance of power come election time and have the last chuckle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. RRM (8,994 comments) says:

    What’s this??
    More liberal / queer white-anting of traditional christian values and western civilisation by the cowardly enemies of Colin (isn’t he dreamy?) Cwaig?

    Colin Cwaig’s number one fan (no homo) will be here to rip you a new one in 10, 9, 8, 7…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    So called ‘progressives’ believe fervently in an absence of choice. It creates victims who need saving, either from themselves or from anyone who believes otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Rick Rowling (776 comments) says:

    LabourDoesntWork: ” is to fail to distinguish between one’s impulses and one’s conscious actions”

    I disagree. If your impulses as a male are towards other males, then you’re gay.

    Your conscious actions determine whether you’re in the closet or out of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Rick Rowling (776 comments) says:

    Also, if you wear red polo shirts, you may be gay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Lucia Maria (1,994 comments) says:

    The choice is in how you act. You can choose not to give into the temptation of having sex with people of the same sex. By not acting on temptations, they cease to have the same strong hold over a person. Doesn’t mean they go away – alcoholics know that they can never drink again, otherwise they’re in big trouble.

    The problem with our society is that it doesn’t help those with same-sex attractions. We say, oh you are attracted to women (if you are a women), therefore you must act in this particular way.

    I have a close friend who is attracted to women, and she made the choice to marry a man and have children. She still has the attraction to women and she struggles with it, but her choice is to be a married wife and mother.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. bringbackdemocracy (350 comments) says:

    Everyone has a choice as to whom their sexual partners are. We aren’t robots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    Regardless, it is completely irrelevant to the question of allowing gay marriage whether homosexuality is a choice or not.

    It is a choice what hair colour, race, job, education, nationality, etc your partner has and bears no relevance to the fact whether you should be allowed to marry him/her or not.

    Having said that I do believe that gingas should not be allowed to marry other gingas. Just think of the children! ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    The choice is in how you act. You can choose not to give into the temptation of having sex with people of the same sex.

    So your problem is not with gay marriage, but with homosexuality.

    Why should they not have sex with the person that they are attracted to? You do. What gives you the right to do as you please, but tell others that they shouldn’t?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    Get a grip – the same rationale says it is not a choice to be a pedophile – que the outrage, to divert from the point.

    Homosexuals are not a victim group, they own the media and the entertainment industry, they are better represented in Parliament than Catholics are, there being more “openly gay” MPs than there are “openly Catholic” ones and of course we Orthodox Christians dont have a single MP, not a single one.

    We all have to make the best of how we are born and to deal with our desires, appropriate and inappropriate.

    [DPF: It is generally not a choice to be attracted to children. It is a choice to have sex with them. A world of difference between two consenting adults and an adult and a child.]

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    are you saying your life would be a lot easier as a gay man?

    No, he’s saying that if he was bi, he’d have more choice. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    We all have to make the best of how we are born and to deal with our desires, appropriate and inappropriate.

    Get a grip, andrei. There is absolutely nothing inappropriate with being homosexual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    You can choose not to give into the temptation of having sex with people of the same sex.

    I don’t find having sex with other men tempting at all. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    The choice is in how you act. You can choose …I have a close friend who is attracted to women, and she made the choice to marry a man and have children. She still has the attraction to women and she struggles with it, but her choice is to be a married wife and mother. We say, oh you are attracted to women (if you are a women), therefore you must act in this particular way.

    Lucia Maria. Yes it is about CHOICE, but not YOUR choice. You are the one saying “you must act in this particular way”. No one is asking you to be gay.

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

    I think is totally un-natural to want to be penetrated up the Bournville Boluvard or Hershy Highway.
    No thanks mister.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Lucia Maria (1,994 comments) says:

    Eszett,

    I don’t get to do what I please. I have children and a husband and I have to look after them. Every day I have to do a huge list of things that I’d rather not do, such as the washing, the dishes, the preparation of food. Today I have to go and buy heaps of stationery for both children so that next week, when they start school they will be prepared. My life at this point is very narrow and full of responsibilities, but living like this has made me grow up from a selfish teenager into a person who can be a mother to children and can be a wife and not run off and do my own thing.

    If you don’t want a life like mine, I’m not telling you that you should have one. Have sex with whomever you want. However, you will find that a life without purpose is destructive, and that sex outside a marriage (to a person of the opposite sex) is also destructive to yourself and to your sex partners.

    I have to live in this society and do you, and I want it to be a society where it’s easy to be good rather than hard, as it is now, and getting harder and I worry for my children who are inheriting all the decisions made today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    Social conservatives who think that homosexuality is a choice are essentially self reporting their own inner turmoil

    Hm, and the reaction of a certain celebrity’s “I chose to be gay” statement meant nothing at all I’m guessing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    I have to live in this society and do you, and I want it to be a society where it’s easy to be good rather than hard, as it is now, and getting harder and I worry for my children who are inheriting all the decisions made today.

    You want it to be a society where it’s easy to be your idea of good.

    I want it to be a society where it’s easy for anyone to pursue their own ideals and values.

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

    krazykiwi (8,617) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 12:28 pm

    So called ‘progressives’ believe fervently in an absence of choice. It creates victims who need saving, either from themselves or from anyone who believes otherwise.

    So called ‘Christians’ believe fervently in free will. They believe that God so loved the world that He killed Himself to save the world from Himself.

    Lucia Maria (1,233) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 12:33 pm

    I have a close friend who is attracted to women, and she made the choice to marry a man and have children. She still has the attraction to women and she struggles with it, but her choice is to be a married wife and mother.

    Good for her. And guess what? Nobody is stopping her from making her choice. Just like how nobody is stopping you from taking on a minimum wage job when you are perfectly qualified to earn a six figure salary, if you so happen to want to make such a nonsensical decision.

    Andrei (1,666) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 12:44 pm

    Get a grip – the same rationale says it is not a choice to be a pedophile – que the outrage, to divert from the point.

    We all have to make the best of how we are born and to deal with our desires, appropriate and inappropriate.

    What’s your point? I highly doubt pedophiles choose to have pedophilic feelings. They’re illegal because they involve a non-consenting party. Your desire to be judgmental is inappropriate in the words of your Lord and Saviour, so perhaps you ought to take the plank of judgment out of your own eye before pointing out the speck of homosexuality that is in another’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    If you don’t want a life like mine, I’m not telling you that you should have one. Have sex with whomever you want. However, you will find that a life without purpose is destructive, and that sex outside a marriage (to a person of the opposite sex) is also destructive to yourself and to your sex partners.

    So in order for gay sex not to be destructive, they ought to be allowed to be married.
    Sounds like an argument for gay marriage to me.

    (Aside from the fact that it is the typical puritarian, self-loathing catholic bullshit of the highest order)

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

    Lucia Maria (1,234) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 12:53 pm

    I have to live in this society and do you, and I want it to be a society where it’s easy to be good rather than hard, as it is now, and getting harder and I worry for my children who are inheriting all the decisions made today.

    I, too, worry for your children if they are inheriting the decision you make to fill their brains with religious garbage. I find it rather sad that Christianity is taught by parents to their children and thus retarding their minds. Maybe I should argue for it to be banned because I disagree with it, just as you are arguing that homosexuality should be banned? See how that comes across?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    Your desire to be judgmental is inappropriate in the words of your Lord and Saviour

    Perhaps you could point to the scripture where Christ said that all his followers should never make moral judgements.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Yvette (2,591 comments) says:

    Maybe close your eyes to not read ‘Bob McCroskrie’ as source, but read the rest –

    Earlier, Family First director Bob McCoskrie warned that terms such as mother, father, husband and wife could disappear from the law if gay marriage was legalised.
    He said Spanish law had recently replaced the terms mother and father with Progenitor A and Progenitor B.
    “The US State of Washington is to remove the terms husband and wife from divorce courts. In France the words mother and father will be stripped from official documents.”
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10860840

    Regarding choice, has anyone asked Louisa Wall about wording of marriage certificates?
    At the moment I favour marriage ‘equality’, but if that equality knocks out terms like husband, wife, or father, mother [when they get to birth certificates], with some homogenized term, then gays can go get taxidérmatised

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Psycho Milt (1,982 comments) says:

    I still don’t think it matters whether or not it’s a choice.

    Not to us, no. But it does to Colin, because a govt gets to punish people for making a choice it doesn’t like. Harder to make a case for punishment if choice was absent.

    If CC had a choice, then he’s bi.

    A fact you’d think would be obvious to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Lucia Maria (1,994 comments) says:

    Eszett,

    No. Gay sex is always destructive to the person. It cannot create life (likewise contracepted heterosexual sex is also destructive), and does not allow the partners to give themselves as a gift to the other, for the other. One who loves does not use another person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. redeye (626 comments) says:

    If being a homo was a choice I’d suggest most of us would be gay. We generally prefer the company of the same sex. If we had a choice we’d more than likely be having sex with same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Zebulon (54 comments) says:

    What Colin Craig’s type (and also many loud gay rights activists) seem to get confused over is that there IS a difference between those who are exclusively homosexual and those bisexuals who can slide between homosexuality and heterosexuality as it pleases them. Bisexuals can choose, but those who are exclusively gay (or straight) cannot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    Yvette: Yes, it’s a ridiculous myth pushed by crazy people until someone actually proves that “crazy” person correct by suddently demanding it be implemented.

    Case in point: gay marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    Left wing gay apologist David Farrar with yet another gay post. It must be nearly time for the second reading of the redefinition of marriage bill and so we must post on this subject everyday. We must mock the opposition, in this case Colin Craig who is an actual conservative and actually knows something about marriage as opposed to Mr Farrar who has never been married and is not likely to be in the foreseeable future.
    But this argument about choice is hopeless. If you point out people who were heterosexual and then became gay, well obviously they are now finding their true identity. If you talk about people who were heterosexual, then had a gay relationship, then ended that relationship and became heterosexual again (American actress Anne Heche comes to mind) then they are obviously bisexual.
    Like it’s a thesis that cannot be falsified.

    But it’s important because gay activists and moral nihilists (like many on this thread) use it to justify radically changing the most basic institutions of our society, such as the family, to appease a relatively tiny group of people who claim to be exclusively homosexual and claim to be born that way.

    However if we take the example of ancient Greece the elite men almost universally had wives which they needed to beget a family and a male lover on the side who was the real object of their affection. So there is a clear case of a society that chose homosexual love and chose to practice it. So in my book that’s choice. Born that way is therefore false. And Colin Craig is right. And DPF is wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    No. Gay sex is always destructive to the person. It cannot create life (likewise contracepted heterosexual sex is also destructive), and does not allow the partners to give themselves as a gift to the other, for the other. One who loves does not use another person.

    Pretty worrying view of sex if you can’t see it as sharing something together – that it’s “using another person” if there’s no chance of a baby resulting from it.

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

    From the beginning, the homosexual agenda to erase moral values from our minds and our public policy has been so relentless and so incredibly successful. The entire agenda of the Sexual Left is founded upon a conspiracy of ignorance, superimposed over a sophisticated public relations campaign designed by homosexual activists to normalize their behaviour and induce millions of young people to experiment sexually. No one is born gay. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals et al as they like to be identified, are generally people who have suffered either emotional trauma or sexual abuse early in life and whose same-sex attractions in a large number of cases are actually the result of coping mechanisms compounded by inappropriate erotic stimulation during adolescence.

    Lesbian author and political commentator Tammy Bruce explains:

    Frankly, even before the depth of the Catholic Church’s problem became known, it was common knowledge that many gay men pursue sexual relationships with adolescent boys. Why? Based on my experience in the gay community, I believe it’s due to the fact that so many gay men had their first sexual experience as an adolescent with an adult male. That is a traumatic experience, and as long as the wound remains untreated, the victim feels compelled to continually reenact the experience so as to master it or project it onto others

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    But it does to Colin, because a govt gets to punish people for making a choice it doesn’t like.

    LOL – how is the Government punishing homosexuality Milt? How much is the government putting into next months Gay Pride thingy and how much are Auckland’s long suffering ratepayers ponying up for this? Doesn’t seem like persecution to me.

    On the other hand smokers who are making a choice the Government doesn’t like have just been wacked again with a huge hike in excise duty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria (1,235) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 1:11 pm
    Eszett,

    No. Gay sex is always destructive to the person. It cannot create life (likewise contracepted heterosexual sex is also destructive), and does not allow the partners to give themselves as a gift to the other, for the other. One who loves does not use another person.

    More bullshit, Lucia. Nothing but the typical inhuman, demeaning, self-loathing catholic doctrine that you follow.
    There is far more to human sexuality than just for conception. 99% if not more of human sexual encounters are not for reproductive purposes. Even amongst most catholics!

    Deeming them as destructive just shows how fucked up (pardon the pun) and how far from reality your view is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Left Right and Centre (2,397 comments) says:

    Do you choose to be gay? I don’t think so.

    I don’t choose this but I’m very attracted to Helen Clark and his wife Peter and I’d like the legal right to marry with them. I want to be respectable.

    The ones I don’t get are the ones who are ‘straight’ until like their fucking 40s and then suddenly ‘realise’ they’re homos. WTFF? (That’s *what the fucking fuck?* BTFW (you can work that one out)).

    Colin is a hardcore fairytale believer… not fairy’s tail beheaver… and he’s irritating… you can’t even call him a wanker. Because bursting ya main pipe is just more sin. Everything is sin in his world. I’m straight and I’m thinking about Colin giving Brian Tamaki a good honest kiwi white bread sausage sizzle. Do I need to repent? Slide that Craig’s jam square in the buns.. oh yeah baby.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    The entire agenda of the Sexual Left

    ROFTL!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    …superimposed over a sophisticated public relations campaign designed by homosexual activists to normalize their behaviour and induce millions of young people to experiment sexually.

    Yes, about a year ago my boy got unsolicited three condoms in the mail and blurb pointing him to a website where there was a pornographic video on how to sodomize or how to be sodomized dressed up as a safe sex message.

    How these wicked people got his name remains a mystery but showing this sort of thing to boys at the height of their sexual development has a clear aim, that being to divert boys from that which is natural to that which isn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Yes, about a year ago my boy got unsolicited three condoms in the mail and blurb pointing him to a website where there was a pornographic video on how to sodomize or how to be sodomized dressed up as a safe sex message.

    How these wicked people got his name remains a mystery but showing this sort of thing to boys at the height of their sexual development has a clear aim, that being to divert boys from that which is natural to that which isn’t.

    Naturally you kept the blurb and website address to back up this claim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    So I have a question for those who homosexuality is a choice:

    Can you choose to be attracted to Helen Clarke. Give it a try and let me know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Graeme Edgeler (3,222 comments) says:

    Andrei – my expectation would be that some acquaintances of your son thought it would be funny. I recall someone at school signing up someone else for a free sample of Depends. This prank is rather old.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    Naturally you kept the blurb and website address to back up this claim.

    I will not post the website address here – I will if requested by DPF provide it to him

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    I will not post the website address here – I will if requested by DPF provide it to him

    Photo of the pamphlet or whatever that came with it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Can you choose to be attracted to Helen Clarke.

    There is always one who takes thing too far ! ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    @Kea – indeed!

    But it is a valid point. I cannot choose to be attracted to Helen Clark. Try as I might she’ll never get a – ahem – rise out of me.
    In the same regard I cannot turn off my attraction to my wife. She is god damned stunning for starters.

    I could choose not to have sexual relations with my wife but I can’t turn off my attraction to her – or to woman in general. For homosexuals the same principle applies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Psycho Milt (1,982 comments) says:

    LOL – how is the Government punishing homosexuality Milt?

    It isn’t. Mainly because govt doesn’t consist of Colin and like-minded types. I am assuming that by forming a political party and running for office, Colin has expressed an interest in being in govt at some point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    I am assuming that by forming a political party and running for office, Colin has expressed an interest in being in govt at some point.

    And what policies do you think he would enact, given the power, to “punish gays”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    @ Andrei
    A repeal of the Homosexual Law Reform Act would do it (though admittedly i am not sure if that is part of his platform).

    Any answer to my comments at 1:50pm and 1:38pm?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    TheContrarian, of course. I just think the whole “gay issue” is no issue at all. Just a bunch of busy-bodies trying to impose their morality on others.

    Christian conservatives are free to hold their values regarding sexuality and marriage. I even agree with many of those values. Good you all.

    The sodomites are NOT suggesting you give up those values and start craving COCK.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    Indeed, I don’t expect Christian conservatives to give up their values – but they shouldn’t be asking everyone else to hold them either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    When a tree gets hammered by a storm as a sapling, it will occasionally grow ‘crooked’ for the rest of its life, often limiting its ultimate size and stature.

    This seems to be an often repeated scenario for all forms of life on earth, the ‘storm’ can come from a multitude of causes.

    For humans, the ‘storm’ could be a virus, some other illness, or it could be abuse from another individual at a critical age that causes deviation from the ideal.

    For people to idealize homosexuality or any other aspect of human existence as always a positive or ‘intended’ outcome for that individual is very wrong and extremely ignorant of human psychology in my opinion.

    I would like to know, (for instance), how it is possible for a woman to be born in a mans body and this condition not be considered a mental illness (especially if due to trauma) And no, we are not talking about hermaphrodites or other individuals that can be shown to have a verifiable physical anomaly, we are talking about individuals that are definitely either physically male or female and then claiming otherwise.

    Please explain to me how this is genetic.

    It is absolutely undeniable that some people do in fact choose to identify, for whatever reason, as ‘this or that’. To deny this fact is to deny some people the help they need to live a fulfilling life. It’s pretty cruel to suggest a victim of sexual abuse or incest has to live with a distorted sexuality for the rest of their life because the current cultural nihilists/moralists said you were born that way and need to deal with it.

    There is still a point in establishing the biological ideal, and then working out why an individual has not attained it. Maybe in certain circumstances it doesn’t really matter, the deviation may be of no harm to the individual and life happily goes on. But sometimes (often in fact) that is not the case, and helping that individual back towards the ‘ideal’ is necessary for their (and others around them) happiness and safety.

    Homosexuality is a biological anomaly, we should not be cruel to anomalies, we should not persecute them. But we should not loose sight of a broader picture of humanity just because the current crop of liberal elite are on their bandwagon and screaming a message from the hilltops just like every evangelist of change the world has ever known.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Yvette (2,591 comments) says:

    Kea – Christian conservatives are free to hold their values regarding sexuality and marriage.

    Maybe. But it could become a little more difficult if the next move is to eliminate words like ‘mother’ and ‘father’, as apparently is the case in Spain, and use ‘progenitor’ instead, as fucking stupid as that is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Well put TheContrarian.

    I wish those conservative folk would spend their time commenting on hetro sex, but it does not seem to interest them nor inspire the same passion. It is all about what they think the homos are doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Yvette (2,591 comments) says:

    “Our Progenitor, who art in Heaven” :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Yvette, I am dead against such tampering with the language to socially engineer us. I am also strongly opposed to any suggestion that religious people should be forced by the state to marry same sex couples, in contravention to their beliefs.

    Christians own Christian marriage & Christians make the rules. The rules are clear, Christian marriage is between a man and a women. Given that simple fact, it is not possible for gays to have a Christian marriage.

    If some particular Church chooses to ignore the clear words of the Bible and marry gays willingly, then ok.

    For all its worth, I am an atheist, but I believe in personal liberty for Church and Homo alike.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    @Kea – I am in agreement. If a church doesn’t want to then fuck ‘em. There are others that will.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Lucia Maria (1,994 comments) says:

    I wish those conservative folk would spend their time commenting on hetro sex, but it does not seem to interest them nor inspire the same passion. It is all about what they think the homos are doing.

    Such as trying to change the definition of marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Yvette (2,591 comments) says:

    I think, from the indications already, that gay or same sex marriage will happen in New Zealand – and shortly

    I think there are enough gays in the clergy, Presbyterian for example, that gays will get the Church weddings they want.

    I do strongly object though – to civil disobedience if need be – to any change that removes ‘mother’ or ‘father’ or the traditional family concept from general usage. Children should always be able to see different patterns [and so choices] in marriage without any ‘equality’ fudging the concept into HOMOgenous terms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Lucia Maria (1,994 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda,

    I always enjoy reading your comments. The one at 2:17pm is brilliant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Do you like the cock Lucia ?

    It is ok if you do. You never talk about it though. What you do is bang on about homos all the time. Read my post re CHRISTIAN marriage.

    Here is a short video that deals with both sides of the debate.

    Ricky Gervais – Doesn’t like cock

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQfk5GAG0C8

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    The redefinition of marriage is primarily about removing the institution as a reflection of the ideal of human relationships.

    Long held ideals (even ones backed by biology) are universally hated by cultural nihilists, they simply must be torn down and replaced by something much more ambiguous.

    Marriage will cease to be a term that really means anything at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “Marriage will cease to be a term that really means anything at all.”

    Not to me it won’t. Marriage is a word – if you think the the term evolving in meaning means you relationship with your significant other will change than that’s your problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    Kea, a question for you

    People such as my self and Lucia have devoted our adult lives, not in the pursuit of hedonistic pleasure but in the raising of our families. This is a time consuming and expensive business which requires self sacrifice.

    It is however rewarding emotionally.

    But we try and bring up our children in our ways to follow on from us after we are gone.

    Now we live in a time where there are all sorts of people who want to bring up our children in their ways with their values not our ones.

    Often these people perhaps not unsurprisingly are childless.

    Do you think that this is right?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Lucia Maria (1,994 comments) says:

    Kea,

    If you said your 2:42pm to me in real life, I’d consider you a pervert and never come anywhere near you again. Just because we are online doesn’t mean that good manners should not apply also.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Psycho Milt (1,982 comments) says:

    And what policies do you think he would enact, given the power, to “punish gays”?

    I dread to think. Religious conservatives of the world’s many civilisations have proved to be creative and industrious inventors of punishments for gays, up to and including capital punishment, so he has a very rich tradition he can draw on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Marriage will cease to be a term that really means anything at all.

    That is a matter of personal choice. What you really want is your meaning of marriage imposed on others by our secular government. That I object to.

    I am very pro-marriage, though I am an atheist. That is MY PERSONAL belief. The government, or you, can not change that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “Now we live in a time where there are all sorts of people who want to bring up our children in their ways with their values not our ones.”

    What utter hypocrtical bullshit – by denying others what you deny yourself you are imposing YOUR value judgements on everyone else.

    And Andrei – you still have no comment on the questions and statements I made directly to you? Figures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Not to me it won’t. Marriage is a word – if you think the the term evolving in meaning means you relationship with your significant other will change than that’s your problem.

    It will fail to be a reflection of the biological ideal of human relationships. The State claims it has an interest in the institution, not the happiness of individuals.

    In this regard the institution will cease to be a pillar of our society and simply become ‘something some people do’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. RRM (8,994 comments) says:

    If a gay couple raise a child and it turns out to be a better adult than the children of the straight couple next door, does God kill a kitten?

    (I ask because I am thinking of one particular gay couple I know, who would be significantly better parents than the parents of several kids at my daughter’s school… but the Christian Taliban think it should not be allowed… “re-defining marriage” etc etc :-) )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Psycho Milt (1,982 comments) says:

    If you said your 2:42pm to me in real life, I’d consider you a pervert and never come anywhere near you again.

    You’d have every right to smack him/her one in the chops.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria (1,238) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 2:47 pm
    Kea,

    If you said your 2:42pm to me in real life, I’d consider you a pervert and never come anywhere near you again. Just because we are online doesn’t mean that good manners should not apply also.

    A simple: Yes or No, will do thanks Lucy Loo.

    But I will play along with you. You rant on about homos and their sexuality but consider me a “pervert” for asking if your straight ? Is there any form of sexual activity that you do not consider “perverted” ? Have you thought that maybe you are doing it wrong ?

    ps: thanks for the morality sermon lesson.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “In this regard the institution will cease to be a pillar of our society and simply become ‘something some people do’.”

    It is YOUR choice to have marriage as important as you feel it needs to be. My marriage is important to me but I have friends and family who’ll never get married but are still in a committed, long-term relationship. marriage is not a pillar of modern NZ society

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    It’s the word “choice” that’s got Craig in trouble.

    I understand it’s pretty well established that there is no gay gene, rather genes which set initial conditions that make people more likely to be susceptible to environmental influences. But I can quite understand that some people feel that it was not their choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    (I ask because I am thinking of one particular gay couple I know, who would be significantly better parents than the parents of several kids at my daughter’s school… but the Christian Taliban think it should not be allowed… “re-defining marriage” etc etc

    Two separate issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Lucia Maria (1,994 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt,

    I would resist that temptation. Hopefully.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    It is YOUR choice to have marriage as important as you feel it needs to be.

    So you don’t believe their is any value in the State recognizing the biological ideal for human relationships?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    The biological ideal is set by biology, not the state.

    The same biology that makes some people feel attracted to the same sex

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    But I will play along with you. You rant on about homos and their sexuality but consider me a “pervert” for asking if your straight ?

    Don’t be dense. You acted like a pervert by deliberately phrasing your question to be a offensive as possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda,

    I always enjoy reading your comments. The one at 2:17pm is brilliant.

    The thing is Lucia, they will never respond to those points because they simply can’t answer them.

    I have discovered that exposing the ideology behind these things is far more important than attacking the changes they are trying to make.

    It is extremely difficult to argue against the biological ideals of life for instance, no matter how hard they try that will never change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Do you think that this is right?

    Andrei, no I do not think it is right. You may find that I admire people such as yourself and Lucy. There is more common ground than points of difference. I work along side a very conservative Samoan Minister. We talk about many things. He is well aware I am an atheist, but guess what ? on most issues of morality and family, we agree.

    It is always a balancing act to protect both personal freedoms and society generally. That, for me, is where the debate lays. In my humble view, you do not help your position by attacking homos directly. It is used against you to make your position look extreme and intolerant. You may be better to focus on protecting your beliefs and let the sodomites do as they please among themselves. Your God will sort them out later, apparently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. RRM (8,994 comments) says:

    Two separate issues.

    Not as long as we keep seeing references to “the natural (child-rearing) purpose of marriage as a pillar of our society” they aren’t!

    Just one counter-example is enough to disprove the hypothesis that gays are inadequate parents… and I know the children of dozens of career beneficiary, dope-smoking, scum of the earth type hetero couples whom the Christian Taliban have no problem with… and yet the gays can be stellar citizens in every respect but the Christian Taliban will not recognise their home-founding relationship, nor their wishes to raise children in their home.

    It is dogma based on ignorance and fear (hey, organised christianity at it’s best!) and we would be well rid of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    I dread to think. Religious conservatives of the world’s many civilisations have proved to be creative and industrious inventors of punishments for gays, up to and including capital punishment, so he has a very rich tradition he can draw on.

    I’m disappointed in you Milt, you’re generally way smarter than that.

    Is anyone seriously suggesting that we recriminalize homosexuality?

    Do you think if this was put forward as a policy that it would get my support?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    The biological ideal is set by biology, not the state.

    The same biology that makes some people feel attracted to the same sex

    But homosexuality is not the biological ideal, it is a biological anomaly that affects approx 2% of the human population.

    If the state were to pass laws on human relationships because of the value these relationships bring to society, should it reflect the 98% or the 2%?

    With so many problems with issues relating to children and relationship break down (costing the country a fortune) should state laws reflect the biological ideal in order to foster a more stable society, or simply reflect poorly defined issues of “personal happiness” of a tiny minority?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    You acted like a pervert by deliberately phrasing your question to be a offensive as possible.

    Thanks for noticing. I was rather pleased with it myself :)

    However “offence” is purely subjective. Many take offence to Lucy’s views. Should she shut up ?

    Claiming “offence” is always used as a way to avoid responsibility, the real issue, or silence opposition. As evidence of that, I am still waiting for an answer to my simple question …?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “If the state were to pass laws on human relationships because of the value these relationships bring to society, should it reflect the 98% or the 2%?”

    Homosexual marriage in no way effects the ability of the other 98% to enjoy a wholesome heterosexual marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. iMP (2,154 comments) says:

    The annual Folsom Street Fair gay festival. Take a look and tell me this is the same as a family walking their kids and dog thru the park.

    http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/the-worst-excesses-of-public-gay-pride-censored

    This is not what I want my public spaces turned into in NZ, in the interests of “equality.” Until some in the gay community clean up their act, they will continue to be opposed by moderates like me, as they push for inclusion and mainstreaming of their sub-culture within ours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Not as long as we keep seeing references to “the natural (child-rearing) purpose of marriage as a pillar of our society” they aren’t!

    Marriage reflects the biological ideal, that is the pillar, marriage just reflects it

    You seem to be railing against the fact that this ideal even exists, but it won’t ever change no matter how much the redefiners spin it.

    The biological ideal for raising wonderful future NZ citizens will always revolve around a stable male/female relationship.

    The institution of marriage has served NZ well in that regard.
    That is potentially about to change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    Yes iMP – because as soon as homosexual marriage is legal people will spanking each other, day in day out, everywhere you look.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    “If the state were to pass laws on human relationships because of the value these relationships bring to society, should it reflect the 98% or the 2%?”

    Homosexual marriage in no way effects the ability of the other 98% to enjoy a wholesome heterosexual marriage.

    It is starting to sound like the only thing keeping some people straight is the states laws not allowing them to do what they would really like.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Tom Jackson (2,261 comments) says:

    It is extremely difficult to argue against the biological ideals of life for instance, no matter how hard they try that will never change.

    It’s pathetically easy. There are no final causes in nature. The results of evolution sometimes makes it look as though they exist, but they don’t in reality. Religion is nothing more than a childish fantasy that some people never grow out of.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    @Kea – these are the same people that belief losing a belief in god means everything is permissible and well all becomes Mao’s and Hitlers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. SouthernRight (54 comments) says:

    I became a christian in my twenties, how does that make it a childish fantasy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. RRM (8,994 comments) says:

    iMP – there are plenty of hetero – oriented events around the world that make that gay event you linked to look piss weak.

    Google Key west mardi Gras for example… or maybe don’t, if public nudity by females offends :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Tom Jackson (2,261 comments) says:

    I have a close friend who is attracted to women, and she made the choice to marry a man and have children. She still has the attraction to women and she struggles with it, but her choice is to be a married wife and mother.

    That’s as daft as a straight guy shacking up with another bloke because it would be politically correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “I have a close friend who is attracted to women, and she made the choice to marry a man and have children. She still has the attraction to women and she struggles with it, but her choice is to be a married wife and mother.”

    that’s great – but her homosexuality isn’t something she can choose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    It’s pathetically easy. There are no final causes in nature. The results of evolution sometimes makes it look as though they exist, but they don’t in reality.

    What an utterly illogical statement.

    Religion is nothing more than a childish fantasy that some people never grow out of.

    From your prior statement, you don’t seem that adverse to a fantasy land all of your own.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    The reason Craig says it is choice influenced by other factors (and cites genetics) is because he wants to infer that sexual behaviour is a choice and society can proscribe those choices by calling them immoral ones. He as a conservative wants to retain the sociological/cultural order that derived from Christian Kings ruling by divine right and imposing church rules as national laws. The hypocrisy of calling the Jewish religon one based on national law and imposing church faith rules as Christian nation laws seems to have escaped Christendom for over 1000 years.

    Some churches accept homosexual identity (they don’t debate whether this is from nature or nurture) but say they oppose sex out of marriage and thus in this instance are consistent when they ask for abstinence from sex for homosexual church members and require it for clergy.

    They took this position with the security of knowing that society did not allow same sex marriage. Now their position is thrown into some confusion.

    In Greece, where women were kept out of public life, men only socialised with other men and some took male lovers. In Rome men would lie with younger slaves (either male or female). This is why apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans stressed a link between the (Creator) Godfaith he was teaching and procreative sex and noted the different sexual practices amongst those not of this new religion. In mentioning women who lay with other women he became the first and only person in the bible to mention this. Genesis only refers to women being created to desire men and bound to pay the price of becoming a mother for this. One church tries to ensure this remains true to this day by banning contraception for women church members. However they are either exercising the choice that society allows them to use contraception or women of that church are now the most infertile they have ever been.

    Government in allowing same sex marriage is expanding on the divergence between the sexual behavior and marriage ideal of the church (two virgins who will procreate children and raise a large family) and sexual behaviour and marriage as practiced in the wider society. This is simply recognition that people should have choice in how they live their lives.

    It is a consequence of secular society co-existence in place of the old imposed order of the church in Christian nations. But it allows the church to once again become the people of a faith in God (and a way of life) rather than a ruling order imposed on the rest of the world around them. Nations were never meant to be possessions of a religion for the purpose of judgment of those in them by the choices they make in their personal lives.

    I doubt that nations are supposed to be the possessions or creatures of international capital either, with those not provided for in the marketplace left to to be judged for their failure to compete, but that is another debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    iMP – there are plenty of hetero – oriented events around the world that make that gay event you linked to look piss weak.

    Google Key west mardi Gras for example… or maybe don’t, if public nudity by females offends

    So these hetero’s actively rally to redefine relationships, families, child rearing, and education do they?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    shunda, biological ideals – do you really want to go there?

    What next, state breeding programmes based on genetic matching to create the biological ideal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “So these hetero’s actively rally to redefine relationships, families, child rearing, and education do they?”

    No one is ‘redefining relationships’. You can define your relationship however you wish

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Government in allowing same sex marriage is expanding on the divergence between the sexual behavior and marriage ideal of the church (two virgins who will procreate children and raise a large family) and sexual behaviour and marriage as practiced in the wider society. This is simply recognition that people should have choice in how they live their lives.

    Imagine if there was a way for marriage to be retained by the State (in recognition of our history and desires of religious folk) and a more modern state recognition for the “sexual behaviour and marriage as practiced in the wider society” we could call that civil unions or something.

    The reasonable folk that no longer value traditional marriage would be happy to separate from this institution and simply enjoy equivalent state recognition of their diverse relationships.

    Oh wait a second, we did that and they wanted the tradition as well, but not for the tradition, no sirree, it’s all about the social capital.

    Are these people reasonable? are they just insecure? or are they doing exactly what you just yourself identified as a negative trait of history and simply operating in the equivalent of: ” ruling by divine right and imposing church rules as national laws”

    Thanks for that SPC, the truth is as clear as day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. iMP (2,154 comments) says:

    Can I redefine my relationship or “marriage” to three people? Why not Contrararian? That’s discrimination and a lack of “equality.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    “I have a close friend who is attracted to women, and she made the choice to marry a man and have children. She still has the attraction to women and she struggles with it, but her choice is to be a married wife and mother.”

    Many Greek men of the past had male lovers and wives. Some Romans lovers male and female (for them usually junior in status and age) and wives. The practice of the women, their wives, is not well recorded by the men who wrote about their culture. Women just being seen as wives and mothers …

    But that would have been the practice of some women (and men) for thousands of years. Homosexual or bisexual women who had the attraction and the activity before, or after, becoming wives.

    Homosexual and bi-sexual people can still choose to raise up children with the other birth parent. Now they will also have the choice of raising up their children with a same sex partner (who would become a step-parent on their marriage), just as many other families currently have step-parents on a birth parents re-marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    iMP – I think you’ll find there are plenty of people in relationships of three, or more people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. iMP (2,154 comments) says:

    If homosexuality is not “chosen,” then the genetic bell curve since the 1970s must be an unprecedented historic phenomenon of such incredible change, it will be worth studying by biologists for centuries to come. Or were millions of ‘gays’ just in denial pre-1970s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    shunda, biological ideals – do you really want to go there?

    What does that even mean? and I’ve been bleating on about it for most of the afternoon.

    What next, state breeding programmes based on genetic matching to create the biological ideal?

    ‘Sigh’

    I note your attempt to shift the goal posts and immediately identify this as a classic SPC diversionary tactic – I guess I must be on to something.

    No SPC, I don’t advocate for “state breeding programmes based on genetic matching to create the biological ideal”
    :roll:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. iMP (2,154 comments) says:

    Great Contra., lets acknowledge that and not discriminate against them, and let them marry too. Why not? Their sexuality is as valid as anyone else’s, surely? They love each other and are consenting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    shunda, traditional marriage?

    What is traditional marriage? Most cultures allowed divorce and re-marriage. Yet the Christian nation was for a long time bound by the prohibition of divorced people getting re-married.

    In fact the Anglican Church formed because of the ban on divorce and re-marriage. Having to have marriages annulled or a wife killed on made up charges to finally get a wife who desired her husband and would pay the full price by giving birth to his son was by royal decree.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. iMP (2,154 comments) says:

    While we’re at it, I also think we should redefine “gay” to include couples of different gender (let’s call them “heterosexuals”) so they are not discriminated against. They should be freely able to enter gay bars as diverse-gender couples (which they are currently banned from doing).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “lets acknowledge that and not discriminate against them”

    I don’t discriminate against them. Do you?

    Polygamous marriage is not the issue here – you mentioned that relationships were being redefined which is laughable because YOU not the state define your relationship

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    iMP (1,006) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 3:14 pm
    The annual Folsom Street Fair gay festival. Take a look and tell me this is the same as a family walking their kids and dog thru the park.

    http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/the-worst-excesses-of-public-gay-pride-censored

    BDSM, spanking and etc are not exclusively gay practises, in fact they are probably more straight folk practicing than there are gay people.

    I cannot think of an sexual act that is exclusively gay. If you argue that some sexual practice disqualifies gays from marriage it would disqualify straight people as well. I am not sure why that should be an argument in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “They should be freely able to enter gay bars”

    I have been to a few gay bars and I’m straight. Hell, I have picked up straight woman at gay bars…but now you are just being silly because you have no argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. iMP (2,154 comments) says:

    So eszett, why is it everywhere as a marketing of homosexuality during their festivals and parades? Are we missing something? Is there a hidden homosexual land where there are no penises, whips, leather and dress-ups? All I see from “gay public inc.” is THAT culture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    I still say all of these problems would be solved by abolishing the Marriage Act entirely. The State shouldn’t be interested in it any further than it being a contractual legal arrangement (one that is unnecessary for marriage as a cultural institution and as a commitment between consenting adults), and legal contracts can handle that without special legal treatment.

    There is nothing stopping a same-sex couple or three people from getting married in New Zealand right now. They can have a ceremony, pledge themselves to each other, etc. The only thing they can’t get is legal recognition alongside the legal recognition of same-sex marriages, which is rightly perceived as the State advocating one way that people can live over other ways.

    Why try to make shoes that fit everyone when they can just go barefoot?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. iMP (2,154 comments) says:

    Contrarian, you know that straights are BANNED from gay bars in several countries, don’t you, because too many straights were going into the bars and they weren’t ‘gay’ enough. So they banned men entering with women.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Contrarian, you know that straights are BANNED from gay bars in several countries, don’t you, because too many straights were going into the bars and they weren’t ‘gay’ enough. So they banned men entering with women.

    Which countries?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    Which countries are these?

    And are you now saying “Because I am banned from gay bars we should ban gay marriage?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. iMP (2,154 comments) says:

    Contra.: USA, Australia and UK for a start. Here are several links to news stories about the different bans. Hetero. kissing is also banned

    http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/gays-ban-heterosexuals-from-kissing/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    shunda, you are the one doing the running as usual.

    You don’t think claiming that there is an “ideal” biological identity at birth – as related to later procreating life as an adult within a marriage – is without consequences?

    Do you really not see “ideal biological identity at birth” terminology as problematic. Do you want to teach this ideal in schools to those not of this ideal?

    Are those not of this “ideal”, also able to marry if they choose? Some homosexuals and bi-sexuals do choose to marry those they have children with. So why not each other also?

    Are you ignorant of eugenics and the history of the language of the human biological ideal. You say heterosexual, someone else will say something else is the human biloogocal ideal. DNA science will say someone without genetic defect (health vulnerability)etc etc. Smilie face away, affect a superior to another put down tone. What else can one expect of those who use the term biological ideal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. iMP (2,154 comments) says:

    No, I’m saying if we’re going to redefine marriage on the basis of sexuality, why can’t we redefine “gay” the same way?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    @iMP

    Yes they should be able to freely enter as heterosexuals

    But now you are being a hypocrite. Complaining about discrimination against hetero while discriminating against homosexuals

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. iMP (2,154 comments) says:

    If marriage was once one thing, and being “gay” was once one thing, why can’t we redefine “gay” to mean one man and one woman too?so that no one is discriminated against. It’s the same argument. If you want it one way, you have to allow it the other…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    I guess SPC, I assumed that I was talking to adults and not just mad scientists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Oh, like individual places in some countries. Sorry, iMP, I thought you were saying that the governments had banned it somehow.

    Your problem is that individual property owners have dictated how people should act on their premises? They sound like dicks to me, but it’s their place, they can make whatever rules they like.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    iMP you can define gay to mean whatever you want it to mean and if enough people get on board then you might get your wish

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    Weak, even for you shunda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    No, I’m saying if we’re going to redefine marriage on the basis of sexuality, why can’t we redefine “gay” the same way?

    Lets just redefine everything to “Aladeen” :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    iMP, sure go into a gay bar and introduce yourself and your partner as a gay couple. Better still a church. People will presume you married to raise children together and you each like a little on the side.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Psycho Milt (1,982 comments) says:

    I’m disappointed in you Milt, you’re generally way smarter than that.

    Is anyone seriously suggesting that we recriminalize homosexuality?

    It’s not yet 30 years since decriminalising homosexuality was portrayed as the kind of “moral nihilist” death blow to civilisation that gay marriage is seen as now, so let’s not pretend punishing homosexuality via the criminal justice system is something from the distant past.

    That said – obviously Colin Craig doesn’t have a chance of recriminalising homosexuality, much as he’d like to. Punishment would take a subtler form than that – removal of civil unions legislation for example, or “safety” measures like not letting gays work in education. There’s all kinds of ways a society can find to discourage people making choices it doesn’t like, without resorting to criminalising it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    How about biological generalization then SPC?

    Either way, my point remains completely valid, homosexuality is a biological anomaly, and this aspect is almost never properly discussed.

    It seems to me people would actually rather argue back from a position that is closer to a rival religion than from anything that really incorporates the facts of life on this planet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “homosexuality is a biological anomaly”

    If true, so what? It still exists, has existed as far back as recorded and appears it will exist for as far as we care to look forward. It doesn’t change anything.

    Down Syndrome is a biological anomaly. That doesn’t change the fact there are down syndrome people that should be treated with respect

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Either way, my point remains completely valid, homosexuality is a biological anomaly, and this aspect is almost never properly discussed.

    Biology does not inform morality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    Shunda, it’s an area fraught with a past. The term ideal can marginalise (there are enough supremacists in the world as it is), the term abnormality is little better. Given it was used in the past to justify attempts to normalise behaviour of homosexuals (by either criminalisation or forced treatment)

    There is the complication with behaviour choices, are they less than ideal or less than normal? And why reserve those terms for homosexual behaviour choices – are other choices less than ideal or less than normal?

    We can agree some behaviours arise from biological influence (these can include emotional affinity and or sexual attraction). We can agree that because homosexuals cannot breed by their partner this is less than the ideal for them. It’s less than ideal that I was never an AB etc, but we live with our limitations, whatever they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    If true, so what? It still exists, has existed as far back as recorded and appears it will exist for as far as we care to look forward. It doesn’t change anything.

    It actually changes a lot depending on the issue at hand.

    Down Syndrome is a biological anomaly. That doesn’t change the fact there are down syndrome people that should be treated with respect

    I never said any different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “It actually changes a lot depending on the issue at hand.”

    So if one accepts homosexuality as a biological anomaly what does it change?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    SPC your post at 3.28pm states that men in ancient Greece took male lovers. So they had a choice? It wasn’t born this way, it was a choice because women were kept out of public life – your won words.
    So if homosexuality was a choice in ancient Greece then it might also be a choice in contemporary New Zealand. So once again Colin Craig is right.
    We need to abandon the whole gay agenda. Everyone agree? I thought so-excellent. My work here is done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “So if homosexuality was a choice in ancient Greece then it might also be a choice in contemporary New Zealand.”

    Some of those may have chosen to engage in homosexual activity as a matter of course whereas would have had an attraction to men. The attraction part cannot be chosen any more than you could convince yourself to become attracted to Oprah Winfrey (assuming you are not already)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    The attraction part cannot be chosen any more than you could convince yourself to become attracted to Oprah Winfrey

    You know, for supposedly liberal minded people, some of the participants here have a remarkably one dimensional view of sexual attraction.

    People engage in sexual acts with the less than perfect partner, sex tickles, no attraction is necessary.

    It is absolutely undeniable that some people that identify as gay have done so as part of a sexually liberal choice, to say this isn’t possible is to reason like the hardened religious folk they claim to oppose.

    Sex tickles, end of story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    Scott, is that your best work/contribution to this debate?

    It occured in Greece at that time because women were kept out of public life and were not given equal place in societal/cultural life. It became somewhat commonplace only because there was no persecution. Other cultures of that type did persecute homosexuals.

    However homosexuality that occured/occurs despite criminalisation and or modern equality and inter-action in society between men and women was/is a different thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    @Shunda – for someone who isn’t a homosexual you seem to know a lot about it.

    Anything you want to get off your chest because for you to be able to tell a homosexual how they must feel towards the a member of their own sex makes me think that perhaps you have some inside knowledge.

    I find it quite amazing that a man attracted to woman without any attraction to men would pick a same sex partner and stay that way for the rest of their lives.

    And you may have missed this:

    “It actually changes a lot depending on the issue at hand.”

    So if one accepts homosexuality as a biological anomaly what does it change?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    Shunda is right to note that sex can occur without attraction. Many homosexuals have married, had children and raised a family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    People engage in sexual acts with the less than perfect partner, sex tickles, no attraction is necessary.

    It is absolutely undeniable that some people that identify as gay have done so as part of a sexually liberal choice, to say this isn’t possible is to reason like the hardened religious folk they claim to oppose.

    Sex tickles, end of story.

    With the proviso that it does not matter whether or not homosexuality is a choice…

    The evidence contradicting that theory is the significant number of people who for societal, cultural or religious reasons wish that they were not attracted to members of the same sex, who spend years or their whole life trying to deny it, who – like Lucia Maria’s friend mentioned above – “struggle” with their attraction to members of the same sex.

    They don’t want to be gay. They want very much not to be gay. And yet it doesn’t go away for these people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Sex tickles

    A Doctor might argue that sex itches.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Fletch (5,726 comments) says:

    He probably means this:

    The world’s leading expert on the history of homosexuality is Dr David Greenburg, a New York sociologist, who is gay himself and is the author of a 635 page academic study of homosexuality through the ages called “The Construction of Homosexuality”. It has been hailed within academic circles as the most “extensive and thorough” analysis of homosexuality ever published. And what does he say? That homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. He said he had “an obligation to the truth”. Greenburg looked at all recodred examples of homosexuality. Every single one, he wrote, could be traced back to sexual behaviour practice rather than an innate sexual identity.

    So, it IS a choice based on lifestyle, perhaps influenced by the culture around you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    @Shunda – for someone who isn’t a homosexual you seem to know a lot about it.

    Anything you want to get off your chest because for you to be able to tell a homosexual how they must feel towards the a member of their own sex makes me think that perhaps you have some inside knowledge.

    I’m not insecure or uncomfortable regarding my own sexuality, if anything I might have a slightly higher sex drive than normal and enjoy this aspect of life a great deal.

    I am human, therefore I am in a great position to ponder all sorts of aspects of human nature.

    I have also been involved in helping people with destructive sexual behavior.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Good afternoon Fletch. Is Dr Greenberg another of your selected luminaries? I guess you enjoyed reading every one of those 635 pages.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    Shunda, you are missing something…..

    “It actually changes a lot depending on the issue at hand.”

    So if one accepts homosexuality as a biological anomaly what does it change?

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

    iMP:If homosexuality is not “chosen,” then the genetic bell curve since the 1970s must be an unprecedented historic phenomenon of such incredible change, it will be worth studying by biologists for centuries to come. Or were millions of ‘gays’ just in denial pre-1970s.

    Gay people existed before the 70′s, they just weren’t open about their existence. They married woman, to prove to others that they were straight, for example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    Fletch, this person wrote a review of the book and the main point of this and now used to advertise the book is

    “At various times, homosexuality has been considered the noblest of loves, a horrible sin, a psychological condition or grounds for torture and execution. David F. Greenberg’s careful, encyclopedic and important new book argues that homosexuality is only deviant because society has constructed, or defined, it as deviant. The book takes us over vast terrains of example and detail in the history of homosexuality.”—Nicholas B. Dirks, New York Times Book Review

    http://books.google.co.nz/books/about/The_Construction_of_Homosexuality.html?id=RKhFRgR-1awC&redir_esc=y

    http://queeringthechurch.com/2010/03/25/greenberg-david-the-construction-of-homosexuality/

    You can do further reading here.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    They married woman, to prove to others that they were straight

    Or like Tchaikovsky, they married and very quickly proved to themselves that they weren’t straight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Tom Jackson (2,261 comments) says:

    What an utterly illogical statement.

    You managed to show your ignorance of both philosophy and logic in a single sentence. Color me impressed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. iMP (2,154 comments) says:

    Rodders, DPF maintains a lot, including this exact stream, that people who say gay is a choice, are stupid. He accuses Colin CRaig of the Consv. party of this (why he posted this). If that is true, then New York sociologist, and gay leading academic Dr David Greenburg, himself gay, is also a nut, because his research concludes homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.

    Most 20th century behavioural scientists agree. That “gay” is a choice is a valid point of view with research to back it up.

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

    Fletch:

    The world’s leading expert on the history of homosexuality is Dr David Greenburg, a New York sociologist, who is gay himself and is the author of a 635 page academic study of homosexuality through the ages called “The Construction of Homosexuality”. It has been hailed within academic circles as the most “extensive and thorough” analysis of homosexuality ever published. And what does he say? That homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. He said he had “an obligation to the truth”. Greenburg looked at all recorded examples of homosexuality. Every single one, he wrote, could be traced back to sexual behaviour practice rather than an innate sexual identity.

    Except that that is irrelevant. His book came out in 1988, nearly a quarter of a century ago, well before the research showing that homosexuality has a biological component – which came out in the 90s and later. I have reading the scientific literature on homosexuality since the 90s and I’ve never once seen his work mentioned, which accurately reflect how little regard there is for ideas in the scientific community.

    So, it IS a choice based on lifestyle, perhaps influenced by the culture around you.

    Nope, its biological.

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

    iMP:Most 20th century behavioural scientists agree. That “gay” is a choice is a valid point of view with research to back it up.

    The general scientific consensus is that homosexuality isn’t a choice, and most psychologists agree on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Most 20th century behavioural scientists agree

    John, really? Please quantify “most.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    iMP, his point was that the extent of homosexual behaviour in society that occurs is subject to societal and culture tolerance and censure. Being free to choose (without censure/criminalisation etc) both increases the practice and awareness of the behaviour.

    It was not research on how people primarily identified, only the impact of society on individual behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Tom Jackson (2,261 comments) says:

    men in ancient Greece took male lovers

    Equating Greek homosexuality with modern homosexuality is fraught with difficulty. For a start, being a catamite was about the worst thing a man could be. It’s not a bug deal anyway, since many men have homosexual tendencies. For these people it is likely a choice as to whether to act upon them. Same goes for men who have a preference for BDSM. On the other hand, some men are exclusively homosexual, and there is no sexual choice available for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Fletch (5,726 comments) says:

    SPC, Greenburg still says it is not innate. He touches on the history when he says that homosexual behaviour was rife in Greece and Rome because it was tolerated and even expected and had much to do with male initiation ceremonies. Older men enjoyed the power of raping young boys. These men then went home to their wives and fathered children. “The Greeks assumed that ordinarily sexual choices were not mutually exclusive, but rather that people were generally capable of responding erotically to both sexes”, writes Greenberg. “Often they could and did. Sparta too, institutionalized sexual relations between mature men and adolescent boys.

    So it comes down to being about the culture. Those men were addicted to sex with anything.

    As I’ve said before, it’s been written (by gays) that the dirty little secret is that there are not many people solely gay.

    “Things are more three-dimensional and less compartmentalized than they once were”, lesbian activist Nan Golden wrote in The Advocate. “Maybe that has to do with getting older and understanding the ambivalence of things. At the moment I’m actually dating a man. And I’ve known people who were active in ACT UP and were very defined as lesbian or gay but who were secretly sleeping together. I think people are more complicated than those categories. being gay to me isn’t just who I sleep with, it’s how I live my life”.

    In other words, it’s a political statement, not a true sexual identity. International surveys of the gay community have shown that a staggering 91% of gay men have become aroused and had sex with women. Ninety-six percent of lesbians have had sex with men. It’s the dirty-little-secret that the gay community doesn’t discuss with outsiders, but gay media reports off some insights: “I must confess that I am both elated and terrified by the possibilities of a bisexual movement”, lesbian activist Dr Lillian Faderman told Advocate magazine. “I’m elated because i truly believe that bisexuality is the natural human condition. But I’m much less happy when i think of the possibility of huge numbers of homosexuals (two thirds of women who identify as lesbian, for example) running off to explore the heterosexual side of their bisexual potential and, as a result, decimating our political ranks. What becomes of our political movement if we openly acknowledge that sexuality is flexible and fluid, that gay and lesbian does not signify a ‘people’ but rather ‘a sometime behaviour’?”

    New Zealand’s gay community may not like it, but the book title Queer by Choice sums it up, and it’s author – American lesbian academic Dr Vera Whisman – explains the political ramifications for the “rights movement”:

    “The political dangers of a choice discourse go beyond the simple notion that some people genuinely choose their homosexuality. Indeed, my conclusions question some of the fundamental basis upon which the gay and lesbian rights movement has been built. If we cannot make political claims based on an essential and shared nature, are we not left once again as individual deviants? Without an essentialist foundation, do we have viable politics?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Fletch (5,726 comments) says:

    Nope, its biological.

    Chiz, I’m sorry but that’s B.S.

    If you medically examine a ‘straight’ and a ‘gay’ without knowing which is which, there is no difference biologically between them. Gays have been trying to find something that is a difference and that they can point to, to prove that homosexuality is innate, but to date nothing has been found. If it had it would have been trumpeted loudly in the media.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Tom Jackson (2,261 comments) says:

    iMP, his point was that the extent of homosexual behaviour in society that occurs is subject to societal and culture tolerance and censure. Being free to choose (without censure/criminalisation etc) both increases the practice and awareness of the behaviour

    This doesn’t preclude a minority of people from being exclusively homosexual in orientation, but it seems obviously correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Fletch @ 5.33pm

    there are not many people solely gay.

    So Fletch, you believe they can be “cured”?
    btw Is that another cut and paste from Investigate magazine?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Tom Jackson (2,261 comments) says:

    “The Greeks assumed that ordinarily sexual choices were not mutually exclusive, but rather that people were generally capable of responding erotically to both sexes

    Not necessarily. Plato has one of his characters claim that sexual orientation is innate. This in the Symposium, one of the gayest works of antiquity. It’s the bit about people looking for their lost other half.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    You managed to show your ignorance of both philosophy and logic in a single sentence. Color me impressed.

    That would be ‘colour’ Tom….’colour’

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

    Shunda Barunda: I would like to know, (for instance), how it is possible for a woman to be born in a mans body and this condition not be considered a mental illness (especially if due to trauma)

    Gender Identity Disorder is in the DSM and is considered a disorder.

    And no, we are not talking about hermaphrodites or other individuals that can be shown to have a verifiable physical anomaly, we are talking about individuals that are definitely either physically male or female and then claiming otherwise.

    What do you mean by verifiable physical anomaly? Some cases of pseudo-hermaphroditism are due to enzyme deficiencies.

    Please explain to me how this is genetic.

    What are you asking for here? There is evidence that gender identity disorder has a genetic component if that’s what you’re asking. If you’re asking how it happens then the most likely explanation is that its caused by de novo mutations – mutations that occurred when the sperm or egg cell formed but which were otherwise absent from either parent.

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

    Fletch:If you medically examine a ‘straight’ and a ‘gay’ without knowing which is which, there is no difference biologically between them. Gays have been trying to find something that is a difference and that they can point to, to prove that homosexuality is innate, but to date nothing has been found.

    To date, differences in the size of certain hypothalamic nuclei in the brain – also found in gay sheep, statistically robust trends in finger length ratios in lesbians (reflecting pre-natal hormone exposure), differences in the cochlea in lesbians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    So if one accepts homosexuality as a biological anomaly what does it change?

    It means that gay is not straight.

    It changes the way these supposed ‘human rights’ issues are addressed, it means that institutions that reflect the biological ideal relationship type of our species by definition are exclusive to certain individuals.

    It means that exclusive institutions like hetero marriage are not a violation of anyone’s fundamental human rights, they are an expression of the rights of others to simply be who they are.

    If homosexuality is an anomaly, it is ok to have exclusive heterosexual institutions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    Fletch, in the past homosexuals married to be/appear part of mainstream society. Sure, even today many inclined to same sex emotional and sexual attraction are going to play mainstream at some point. They just want to be sure, to find out about themselves – be like their friends for awhile. Some will even marry a heterosexual partner by choice (and not just for breeding, this because they are bi-sexual).

    There are people who because of biological influence, possibly exacerbating some genetic ones, are simply homosexual. They should be allowed to marry. As for those who have some choice, let them choose who they marry.

    How does this harm the church ideal that two virigns should marry and build a family together? And that they should not divorce and re-marry to another.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Fletch (5,726 comments) says:

    Rodders, to citations (links) –

    “I must confess that I am both elated and terrified by the possibilities of a bisexual movement”, lesbian activist Dr Lillian Faderman told Advocate magazine. “I’m elated because i truly believe that bisexuality is the natural human condition. But I’m much less happy when i think of the possibility of huge numbers of homosexuals (two thirds of women who identify as lesbian, for example) running off to explore the heterosexual side of their bisexual potential and, as a result, decimating our political ranks. What becomes of our political movement if we openly acknowledge that sexuality is flexible and fluid, that gay and lesbian does not signify a ‘people’ but rather ‘a sometime behaviour’?”

    The Advocate

    Story of a gay man who fell in love with a woman (from ‘Out’ magazine) –
    http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=cmIEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA50#v=onepage&q&f=false

    “Things are more three-dimensional and less compartmentalized than they once were”, lesbian activist Nan Golden wrote in The Advocate. “Maybe that has to do with getting older and understanding the ambivalence of things. At the moment I’m actually dating a man. And I’ve known people who were active in ACT UP and were very defined as lesbian or gay but who were secretly sleeping together. I think people are more complicated than those categories. being gay to me isn’t just who I sleep with, it’s how I live my life”.

    The Advocate

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “It means that gay is not straight.

    It changes the way these supposed ‘human rights’ issues are addressed, it means that institutions that reflect the biological ideal relationship type of our species by definition are exclusive to certain individuals.

    It means that exclusive institutions like hetero marriage are not a violation of anyone’s fundamental human rights, they are an expression of the rights of others to simply be who they are.

    If homosexuality is an anomaly, it is ok to have exclusive heterosexual institutions.”

    So does this apply to other biological anomalies? Down syndrome is a genetic anomaly, do we treat them differently based upon a genetic anomaly? They are not biologically ideal because most often down syndrome males are sterile. Does that now mean that may not marry either?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    As people have already said:
    Any exclusively straight man should know inherently that being gay is not a choice. It’s common sense – one doesn’t “chose” to be straight, so why would one chose to be gay?

    I’ve thought how in some ways gays have it easier, not having to deal with emotional needs of women, less game playing, greater promiscuity etc. But, I couldn’t ever chose to be gay. Disgusting hairy bodies, stubble, scrota – it makes me sick thinking about it.

    And even if a bisexual is choosing to be gay, then so what. I support whatever choice they want to make, as long as it doesn’t adversely affect others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    shunda, the ideal is not for people to marry, divorce and re-marry – yet we allow divorced people to re-marry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    Interesting that the opponents of same sex couples take two different tacks – basically dependent on whether they support civil unions or not.

    If they support civil unions – they argue this provides the way for law to formalise same sex partnerships. And they claim those “biologically different” to others by being homosexual do not qualify for (traditional) marriage.

    If they do not support civil unions either, they refer to homosexual activity being a choice, and a choice that should not be made (as if any sex outside of a heterosexual marriage union is a wrongdoing) and which society should not condone by recognising same sex relationships.

    On the wider point of choice, the most amusing conclusion of this debate will occur in the decades after there is full freedom of who people marry. When more same sex partners pair off, there will be others – people who acknowledge same sex emotional and sexual attraction and who have been part of the “gay” scene who will marry heterosexual partners or other bi-sexuals who they can breed with – because this is simpler way to settle down and they also still have that choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Interesting links Fletch. I wasn’t previously aware that everything that appears in gay magazines is indisputable fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    So does this apply to other biological anomalies? Down syndrome is a genetic anomaly, do we treat them differently based upon a genetic anomaly? They are not biologically ideal because most often down syndrome males are sterile. Does that now mean that may not marry either?

    The only thing that is a prerequisite for heterosexual marriage is heterosexual attraction, are you seriously struggling to understand the point I am making?

    In the example you gave, I am sure you could find several examples where an individual with that condition would be unable to fully participate in some other area in society.

    No ones fault, but sometimes inequality exists through no fault of the able bodied.

    That is the key point that the social progressive ideologues just can’t seem to accept or grasp.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    You have maintained that homosexuality is a biological anomaly that doesn’t represent the ‘biological ideal’ for marriage.

    Many down syndrome a fully participant in society yet a) have biological anomalies and b) cannot mate therefore do not represent a biological ideal.

    Therefore, either you hold true to your points where down syndromes shouldn’t have the right to marry or admit your ‘biological ideal’ points are just window dressing for your own bigotry.

    Which is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. wat dabney (3,463 comments) says:

    Those who agree with Craig should tell us what they remember of the day they “chose” to be straight, and how those turbulent homosexual urges magically disappeared afterwards leaving just the heterosexual ones.

    Did you just toss a coin to decide?

    Or pick the leaves off a daisy one at a time?

    I wonder if Craig “chose” to be a laughable twat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Tom Jackson (2,261 comments) says:

    That would be ‘colour’ Tom….’colour’

    Complaining about autocorrected spelling just shows that you’ve got nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Reid (15,593 comments) says:

    The real issue of the report is the Herald’s headline, which didn’t mention choice:

    Society right to discriminate – Craig

    The unspoken implication of course being that not allowing gays to get married is discwimination! And evewyone knows discwimination is weally weally weally weally bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Craig’s unwise evocation of the choice issue is a red-herring and frankly, Ryan’s comment in the first post on this thread should probably have been the only post necessary on this particular attempt to foment happy mischief.

    No ones fault, but sometimes inequality exists through no fault of the able bodied. That is the key point that the social progressive ideologues just can’t seem to accept or grasp.

    Shunda there is no inequality in sight in this issue. Gays have civil unions. Straights have marriage. Both are equal. They’re separate, but they’re equal. And if someone says they’re not equal, why let’s have a debate on gay adoption then because that’s the only REAL thing in sight that’s not equal.

    But no. They don’t want to have that, since they know society wouldn’t buy that. There aren’t quite enough useless moron idiots yet for them to sell that. So they take the next best thing and attack the family unit. Again.

    But as usual, the pwogwessives deliberately obfuscate the issue by making the pretend political point that it’s not equal, without specifying where the inequality lies. (Which they can’t, because it doesn’t exist, but no-one in the moron useless idiot brigade questions this fallacy because apparently, their brains go AWOL as soon as they hear the word “discwimination.”)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    It isn’t a matter of ‘inequality’ for me – it’s that arguments against gay marriage don’t stack up. I don’t think churches should be forced to marry homosexuals – that is their call but I can’t see why it should matter to anyone apart from Christian Conservatives who are merely imposing their morals on the rest of society. To which I say – fuck off with your faux moralising bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    Christian Conservatives who are merely imposing their morals on the rest of society.

    Or is it a matter of secular liberals imposing their “morals” on the rest of society?

    Lack of morals actually

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “Or is it a matter of secular liberals imposing their “morals” on the rest of society?”

    No. It isn’t. Your relationship doesn’t change and your morals remain the same

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Again, it’s not important whether or not homosexuality is a “choice”. What matters is that it is none of the Nanny State’s business telling people how to live their lives, or encouraging them to live their lives one particular way, via the machinery of the legal system.

    JS Mill. Read him. All online for free.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    I wonder how many of the conservative Christians on KB, supported Graham Capill, Christian Heritage party leader, ex Police Prosecutor and promoter of traditional family values and morals ?

    Now there was the sort of person Lucia Maria supports. He was not a “pervert” was he Lucy ?

    Capill, 52, was sentenced to nine years jail in July 2005 after admitting sex crimes against three young girls over a 12-year period, starting in 1990, the year after he became party leader.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    @Kea

    Not to mention Ted Haggard. Paragon of Christian virtues!

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    That’s not necessary, Kea. Common sense is enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. big bruv (12,380 comments) says:

    This thread is hilarious. Time and time again people point out that Colin Craig is wrong yet we keep seeing the religious fundies rushing in to defend his stupid comments.

    I must admit that I did laugh out load when Lucia told us that contraception was wrong yet only a few comments earlier she had said that she was going out to purchase books for both of her kids.

    Only two kids Lucia????, cant be very Catholic then can you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Personal attacks are not necessary. Plain reasonable argument will do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    That’s not necessary, Kea. Common sense is enough.

    Ryan Sproull, I do not understand your answer.

    Do you mean it is “commons sense” who would have supported the Christian Heritage Parties stand on Christian family values ?

    It is crystal clear. I am just waiting for someone to ADMIT IT. :)

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

    Man. Lucia’s friend sold herself short. With a bit of fast talking she could have had a very Victorian arrangement. She could have had her cake and ate it out, as it were.

    Not to woryy. Uk journalist Malanie Philips has it all set out for us:

    Britain gets comfy as Melanie Phillips explains ‘biblical sexuality’

    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/?Itemid=81&id=3539&option=com_content&task=view

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Psycho Milt (1,982 comments) says:

    Either way, my point remains completely valid, homosexuality is a biological anomaly…

    Albinos are a biological anomaly. Hell, Whitey is a biological anomaly, come to that. This offers up moral conclusions we should draw about them how, exactly?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    Time and time again people point out that Colin Craig is wrong yet we keep seeing the religious fundies rushing in to defend his stupid comments.

    Just let me fix that for you: Time and time again people point out that Colin Craig is right yet we keep seeing the liberal atheists rushing in to attack any and all Christians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    Whose morals change by allowing people to decide for themselves who they marry?

    I am somewhat confused as to why those of the Christian religion, of the claim to have departed from the rule of law as the order of their faith, want to impose their morals through law. That was the way of Judaism and is still the way for some of Islam.

    Christianity should be able to co-exist with secular society, that for many of it it cannot is a sign of its/their own lapse into hypocrisy and judgment of others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    Albinos are a biological anomaly. Hell, Whitey is a biological anomaly, come to that. This offers up moral conclusions we should draw about them how, exactly?

    Good point. Where’s the braying demand for ‘equal’ recognition of albino relationships? How can those who decry discrimination against gays sleep straight in their beds knowing that albino’s are cast aside by the state?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Amazing that not one of the conservative Christians on KB will admit to supporting this. Funny that. Did I miss something ?

    According to Christian Heritage New Zealand’s self-description, the party aimed “to provide leadership that takes the initiative in building a culture that affirms marriage, strengthens families, and celebrates life as a precious gift of God. We believe these are the key issues that need to be addressed if we are to make an impact for the next generation.”

    It described its three key policies as “Affirming Marriage, Building Families and Celebrating Life”, i.e. opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion and support of law-and-order.

    The party espoused strongly conservative views on social policy. It favoured law-changes to strengthen heterosexual marriage and to prevent same-sex marriage and civil unions.

    So no one here will admit to those values ! Time for a Tui :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “Where’s the braying demand for ‘equal’ recognition of albino relationships? How can those who decry discrimination against gays sleep straight in their beds knowing that albino’s are cast aside by the state?”

    Albino’s have equal recognition. As do those with those with down syndrome who both have biological anomalies and the inability to obtain the so called ‘biological ideal’ through breeding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. big bruv (12,380 comments) says:

    KK

    Somebody else has already asked this question but I will ask it again.

    Given that you believe that Craig is right does that mean you are attracted to member of the same sex as you?

    Colin Craig is not right, we both know that. The problem here is that you let your religious bigotry get in the way of common sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    FFS this is inane

    I spent part of yesterday with a woman born without legs and who has cerebal palsey. She spends her entire life in a wheelchair and lives in semi fucking poverty.

    And no Government is going to wave a magic wand and give her a life let alone a Prince Charming to marry and yet we have priviledged upper middle class people whining they are hard done by?

    And I think of an airhead TV presenter who claims she is a “B” in the alphabet soup of sexual identities and is grizzling because having had her hetrosexual marriage she now want a “gay marriage” so she can marry her girlfriend. This is a woman who has been given every fucking blessing in the world and is claiming discrimination. Listen folks, people like her did not grow up with black skins in rural Alabama in the 1930s, they grew up with silver fucking spoons in their mouths and were handed every fucking thing they wanted on a plate – this whining from them makes me want to throw up, spolt over indulged brats

    And to appease her and her ilk we will rewrite a universal social institution that predates recorded history.

    Whats the matter with you people?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    So I take it then Andrei you’ll stop moaning about how hard done by you are going to be if gay marriage is legalised?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Sorry, Andrei, just to confirm, your argument is now “YOU’RE NOT GETTING LYNCHED SO WHAT ARE YOU WHINING ABOUT?”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. big bruv (12,380 comments) says:

    Andrei

    “And to appease her and her ilk we will rewrite a universal social institution that predates recorded history.”

    So you think that the end of Slavery was unnecessary?
    So you think that we should still be burning suspected witches?

    I love the way you religious fundies are in a mad panic about this bill. Time moves in Andrei, things change, it is time that you and your religious beliefs do the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Pete George (21,826 comments) says:

    “we will rewrite a universal social institution that predates recorded history.”

    How do you know that Andrei?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    And I think of an airhead TV presenter ….they grew up with silver fucking spoons in their mouths and were handed every fucking thing they wanted on a plate – this whining from them makes me want to throw up, spolt over indulged brats

    I agree. I can not stand Mau. She is a weak superficial empty vessel. Perfect for popular TV, in other words.

    TheContratian has caught you out though my friend ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    I think of an airhead Kiwiblog commentator who claims that he’s got a direct line to God on how life is to be lived and is grizzling because having had his life of freedom to marry someone he falls in love with, now he doesn’t want “gay marriage” so that other people can enjoy the same legal recognition.

    Grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth and was handed every fucking thing he wanted on a plate. His whining makes me want to throw up, spoilt over-indulged brat.

    And to appease him an his ilk we will persist in having the State encourage people to live the way he wants people to live and tell other people they’re not quite good enough.

    What’s the matter with you people?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    In the world there is also a past of polygamy and polyandry in marriage too andrei. People paid a dowry etc.

    And most cultures recognised divorce and re-marriage – something later banned in Europe for over 1000 years. Was that change to tradition wrong too? Adultery was once a criminal offense etc.

    The only constant is that society or culture impacts on the marital rules of the day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    Adultery was once a criminal offense

    Wish it still was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    She spends her entire life in a wheelchair and lives in semi fucking poverty

    Undoubtedly your cheerfulness, humour and positivity would have made her day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “I spent part of yesterday with a woman born without legs and who has cerebal palsey. She spends her entire life in a wheelchair and lives in semi fucking poverty.”

    And if she were a lesbian seeking to marry her partner who looks after her day in day out you’d deny that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. BlairM (2,266 comments) says:

    Anyone who thinks it is not a choice should be asked where the men with guns are. You know, the ones who make you fuck other men, because it’s not a choice?

    Just because so many people want to believe it, doesn’t make it so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    ???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    Listen up BlairM – I have been pretty clear on the point that acting on ones impulse to fuck a member of the same sex is different to the attraction to the same sex.

    One is a choice, the other is attraction. Sexual feelings towards one’s own sex isn’t something you choose. Homosexuality is not a choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. BlairM (2,266 comments) says:

    Well that depends what you mean by homosexuality. This is what I suspect the problem is. People define the term different ways.

    It’s still nonsense. I like Led Zeppelin. Is that a choice? Of course it is. It feels very natural to like Led Zeppelin, and you couldn’t force me not to like them. You couldn’t make me go to a Celine Dion camp to get rid of my predilection to headbang to Kashmir or Whole Lotta Love. But I could certainly choose not to listen to them, ignore them, not make them a part of my life. That might be hard for me. But it’s still a choice. To say that same sex attraction is any different is ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    To say that same sex attraction is any different is ridiculous

    Are you for real?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    Your analogy is facile but I’ll play.

    Yes, Blair, but do you have a choice is not liking Led Zeppelin? You admittedly said you don’t. You have a choice not to listen to them but you don’t have a choice in not liking them?

    So attraction to the same sex, homosexuality, is not choice by your own example. You can choose not to act on it – but that doesn’t change what you are…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    That may explain which head you would be banging along with led zep

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    This one is dedicated to Blair

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

    An article in New York Times confirmed what has long been been denied or evaded by liberals, namely that many same-sex relationships whether formalized by marriage ceremonies, civil partnerships, or commitment ceremonies are “open”. According to a Gay Couples Study conducted by the University of San Francisco, they traced 556 male couples for three years and discovered that 50% had sexual liaisons outside their relationships, WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT OF THEIR PARTNERS ! As time passed the number of faithful couples declined, as homosexual propagandists Kirk & Masden admitted that for gay men, the cheating ratio eventually reaches 100% over time.

    Another study of 156 male couples found that after 5 years all of the couples “had incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationship. Even a study conducted by the NZ Aids Foundation revealed that a whopping 77% of male homosexuals were gorging themselves on other partners within six month of the “committed” relationship beginning. This explains why 60% of all new syphilis and gonorrhea cases are male homosexuals, and if you removed bisexual males and intravenous drug users out of the equation, HIV would be pretty much solely a homosexual problem.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0
    http://www.nzaf.org.nz/voices/view/latest-gapps-report

    These people have no intention of honouring any of the traditional marriage covenants – namely monogamy. So now, genuine marriages need to be debased to include GLBT or any veritable alphabet soup of sexual deviancy so that a small clique of perverts can exercise their so-called “rights” rendering the institution of marriage to be about as worthless as an NCEA qualification in the process.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Reading this thread certainly brings clarity to the saying:
    “There aint no asshole like a fucking asshole”
    Oh God forbid people should cheat. It sure as shit aint the domain of the LBGT fraternity.
    And there are some pretty disgusting hetero diseases as well. Mono. Coldsores.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    Colin Craig is not right, we both know that. The problem here is that you let your religious bigotry get in the way of common sense.

    No, the problem here is that Colin Craig is a conservative Christian, meaning that haters around here feel duty-bound to attack him (and anyone who won’t join them), and would declare him wrong if he was quoted saying that 1+1 equalled 2.

    Shunda – kudos to you for an extremely well reasoned case.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    Urban, nice … citing the behaviour of homosexual men to justify denying lesbian women the right to marry each other.

    I suppose the other problem of same sex partnership is that there is not the traditional role playing of provider and stay at home parent as occurs in traditional marriages …. Oh wait most women now have careers.

    Or that same sex partners do not practice chastiy and marry as virgins as hetero couples do …. Oh wait, used to do.

    As for HIV most people with it are heterosexual. In the USA there is the prevalence of gay men with it, but simply a consequence of where it first emerged in USA society.

    Who knows how patterns of behaviour in homosexual relationships will be affected by being able to marry? A few decades ago the sterotype of where men met other men to engage in what was then “criminal activity” was what exactly. And if caught they somehow deserved to go to prison and be raped by heterosexual men. Things change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    krazy kiwi, Colin Craig claimed to be a fiscal conservative. He said he wanted a balanced budget. He also proposed that income should be tax free up to the minimum wage. He informed those on super how large an increase in their payment would be if this was government policy. His 2011 campaign bribe was the largest in our political history. There was no balanced budget offered to show how this could be afforded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    Reid, once again you confuse things.

    There is not equality if civil unions do not allow partners to become step-parents of the children each of them has.

    Are those claiming civil unions “could” (they do not yet) provide an independent equality to marriage, then proposing that step-parenting become automatic when civil unions occur – saying that they should?

    Are those opposed to same sex couples being able to marry prepared to offer civil unions that include automatic step-parenting as marriage does as an alternative?

    Given much of the opposition to same sex marriage comes from those that opposed and still oppose civil unions that is some forlorn hope.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Tom Jackson (2,261 comments) says:

    Would the social conservatives enlighten us as to what they think the appropriate punishment for homosexual behavior should be?

    Beheading? Stoning? Burning at the stake?

    What about borderline homosexual behavior such as whistling show tunes or wearing properly fitted clothes?

    Should such people be jailed? Fined? Have their picture published in the paper as a corrupter of morals?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. transmogrifier (518 comments) says:

    Late to the party, but my view in a nutshell:

    1. I support gay marriage.
    2. “It’s not a choice” is one of the worst possible reasons to use in support of gay marriage.

    You could argue pedophilia is “not a choice” either (please be aware I am not equating homosexuality to pedophilia in any other way), but there is thankfully never going to be a campaign to allow them to legitimize their abnormal desires with legal protection. Also, if nature provides situations where there is “not a choice”, why not allow that society is also going to throw up situations where you will also have no choice: you must pay tax, you can’t walk around outside naked, you can’t get married etc. Suck it up, welcome to the world.

    There are a million better arguments than “It’s not a choice”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    krazykiwi, if you think shunda made a reasonable case that homosexuality is biological, then did Fletch fail to convince you that it was a choice – he argued in support of Colin Craig who said it was primarily a choice?

    Is your problem with those who agreed with shunda on biological influence identity and support same sex marriage or those who agreed with Colin Craig but still support same sex marriage? Or just with people supporting same sex marriage – in oppostion to both shunda and Colin Craig?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Question….Lucia,Andrei and other anti’s….have any of you ever engaged in oral sex as a giver or receiver….? If you answer yes I submit that makes you hypocrites of the highest order as that sex act has nothing to do with procreation.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Scorned,

    As I understand it, Catholics aren’t supposed to engage in oral sex for the same reasons Lucia gave for contraceptive sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. ChardonnayGuy (1,024 comments) says:

    I suspect that Colin C actually didn’t choose not to be gay. We have very strict recruitment :) standards and he flunked the entrance exam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. ChardonnayGuy (1,024 comments) says:

    Me, I’m saving up my recruitment credits. My partner and I have almost got enough for a new SUV.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. RRM (8,994 comments) says:

    As I understand it, Catholics aren’t supposed to engage in oral sex for the same reasons Lucia gave for contraceptive sex.

    The Most Offensive Song Ever – South Park

    (Duet – Kenny & Mr Hankey the Christmas Poo)

    Howdy Ho.
    the Virgin Mary was sleepin’
    When Angel Gabriel appeared
    He said, “You are to be the virgin mother.”
    and Mary thought that was weird.
    Mary said, “I’m not a virgin.
    I blew a guy last year.”
    But then Gabriel said to Mary,
    “My child, have no fear.”

    cause, you can suck all the dick you want
    And still be a virgin, Mary.
    You can suck all the dick you want
    And still not be considered flawed.
    Although you went to town and sucked some semen down,
    You’re still a virgin in the eyes of God.

    There was no room at the inn
    When Mary and Joseph did arrive.
    But they were so very tired, you see,
    And Mary had to offer a bribe.
    Since she had no money,
    How would she pay for a place to sleep?
    Gabriel appeared to Mary
    And told her not to weep.

    ‘Cause you can suck all the dick you want
    And still be a virgin, Mary.
    You can suck all the dick you want
    And still be the mother of Christ.
    If there’s no room at the inn, then it’s not considered a sin
    so suck a dick and get a room tonight!(laughs)

    Then, three wise men did appear
    Bearing gifts of myrrh and such
    They said that they had followed a star
    And missed a woman’s touch
    Mary thought she might pleasure them
    But could not take them to bed.
    But again, Gabriel appeared to her
    And this is what he said:

    “You can suck all the dick you want
    And still be a virgin, Mary.
    You can suck all the dick you want
    Every one in the nation.
    Fellatio ain’t no sin. Go on and blow those Three Wise Men
    And you’ll still be a virgin ’cause there was no penetration!

    So, you can suck all the dick you want
    And still be a virgin, Mary.
    The donkey and the ox and the lambs
    And even the little drummer boy
    folks will remember your name quick. They’ll say “Damn, that bitch could suck a dick!”
    ‘Cause sucking dick brings peace on Earth and joy.

    [slowing] ‘Cause sucking dick brings peace on Earth and joy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.