Not a choice
January 23rd, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarSimon Collins at NZ Herald reports:
Labour MP Moana Mackey asked Mr Craig if he still believed, as he said last August, that homosexuality 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 same sex marriage. But I do not think it is valid to keep insisting that being homosexual is a choice.
My question back to Colin Craig 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!
Related posts:
- Colin Craig – being gay is a choice due to child abuse
- Of choice, commitment, sex, desire and love!
- Adopt a gay lifestyle today!!
- Choice or Nature
January 23rd, 2013 at 12:07 pm
I still don’t think it matters whether or not it’s a choice.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:11 pm
I had no choice in being heterosexual.
If CC had a choice, then he’s bi.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:11 pm
Now, now, are you saying your life would be a lot easier as a gay man?
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:12 pm
Wot, 4,500+ on Bain not enough?
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:13 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:13 pm
Maybe he’s an existentialist.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:14 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:15 pm
iMP – so you’re saying you could swap sides?
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:15 pm
Ice cream and men? You’re definitely gay. And a bit of a perv bro.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:15 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:16 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:19 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:20 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:23 pm
Hang in their Colin. You”ll hold the balance of power come election time and have the last chuckle.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:24 pm
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: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.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:28 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:29 pm
Also, if you wear red polo shirts, you may be gay.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:33 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:36 pm
Everyone has a choice as to whom their sexual partners are. We aren’t robots.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:37 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:41 pm
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: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.
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:46 pm
No, he’s saying that if he was bi, he’d have more choice.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:47 pm
Get a grip, andrei. There is absolutely nothing inappropriate with being homosexual.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:48 pm
I don’t find having sex with other men tempting at all.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:51 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:51 pm
I think is totally un-natural to want to be penetrated up the Bournville Boluvard or Hershy Highway.
Vote:No thanks mister.
January 23rd, 2013 at 12:53 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:55 pm
Hm, and the reaction of a certain celebrity’s “I chose to be gay” statement meant nothing at all I’m guessing.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:59 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:59 pm
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.
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.
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 12:59 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:01 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Perhaps you could point to the scripture where Christ said that all his followers should never make moral judgements.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:09 pm
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?
Vote: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
January 23rd, 2013 at 1:11 pm
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: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.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:14 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:16 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:17 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:18 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:18 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:22 pm
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:
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:23 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:25 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:26 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:27 pm
ROFTL!
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:29 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:34 pm
Naturally you kept the blurb and website address to back up this claim.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:38 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:40 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:42 pm
I will not post the website address here – I will if requested by DPF provide it to him
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:46 pm
Photo of the pamphlet or whatever that came with it?
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:47 pm
There is always one who takes thing too far !
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:50 pm
@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:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:56 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 1:59 pm
And what policies do you think he would enact, given the power, to “punish gays”?
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:05 pm
@ 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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:06 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:08 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:17 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:18 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:19 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:19 pm
“Our Progenitor, who art in Heaven”
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:26 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:28 pm
@Kea – I am in agreement. If a church doesn’t want to then fuck ‘em. There are others that will.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Such as trying to change the definition of marriage.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:40 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:41 pm
Shunda barunda,
I always enjoy reading your comments. The one at 2:17pm is brilliant.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:42 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:43 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:45 pm
“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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:47 pm
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: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.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:47 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:48 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:49 pm
“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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:50 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:50 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:51 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:53 pm
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
Vote:sermonlesson.January 23rd, 2013 at 2:54 pm
“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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:54 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:55 pm
(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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:56 pm
Psycho Milt,
I would resist that temptation. Hopefully.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:56 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 2:57 pm
The biological ideal is set by biology, not the state.
The same biology that makes some people feel attracted to the same sex
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:00 pm
Don’t be dense. You acted like a pervert by deliberately phrasing your question to be a offensive as possible.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:00 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:03 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:03 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:05 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:07 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:08 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:11 pm
“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: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
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:16 pm
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.
Vote:That is potentially about to change.
January 23rd, 2013 at 3:16 pm
Yes iMP – because as soon as homosexual marriage is legal people will spanking each other, day in day out, everywhere you look.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:18 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:18 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:20 pm
@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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:21 pm
I became a christian in my twenties, how does that make it a childish fantasy
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:23 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:24 pm
That’s as daft as a straight guy shacking up with another bloke because it would be politically correct.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:26 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.”
that’s great – but her homosexuality isn’t something she can choose.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:27 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:28 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:30 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:34 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:38 pm
“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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:42 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:42 pm
Can I redefine my relationship or “marriage” to three people? Why not Contrararian? That’s discrimination and a lack of “equality.”
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:45 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.”
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:46 pm
iMP – I think you’ll find there are plenty of people in relationships of three, or more people.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:49 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:50 pm
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”
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:50 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:51 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:56 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:56 pm
“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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:57 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 3:58 pm
“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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:01 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:02 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:04 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:05 pm
Which countries?
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:06 pm
Which countries are these?
And are you now saying “Because I am banned from gay bars we should ban gay marriage?”
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:07 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:08 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:08 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:10 pm
@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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:11 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:12 pm
I guess SPC, I assumed that I was talking to adults and not just mad scientists.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:13 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:13 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Weak, even for you shunda.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:14 pm
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”
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:16 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:17 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:20 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:24 pm
“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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:26 pm
Biology does not inform morality.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:32 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:42 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:44 pm
“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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:46 pm
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.
Vote: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.
January 23rd, 2013 at 4:48 pm
“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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:55 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:56 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 4:58 pm
@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:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:01 pm
Shunda is right to note that sex can occur without attraction. Many homosexuals have married, had children and raised a family.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:02 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:03 pm
A Doctor might argue that sex itches.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:04 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:06 pm
@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:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:06 pm
Good afternoon Fletch. Is Dr Greenberg another of your selected luminaries? I guess you enjoyed reading every one of those 635 pages.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:08 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:18 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:19 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:20 pm
Or like Tchaikovsky, they married and very quickly proved to themselves that they weren’t straight.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:21 pm
You managed to show your ignorance of both philosophy and logic in a single sentence. Color me impressed.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:25 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:27 pm
Fletch:
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.
Nope, its biological.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:29 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:30 pm
John, really? Please quantify “most.”
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:31 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:33 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:33 pm
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.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:36 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:37 pm
This doesn’t preclude a minority of people from being exclusively homosexual in orientation, but it seems obviously correct.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Fletch @ 5.33pm
So Fletch, you believe they can be “cured”?
Vote:btw Is that another cut and paste from Investigate magazine?
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:41 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:43 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:44 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:47 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:49 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:55 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 5:57 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 6:04 pm
“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:January 23rd, 2013 at 6:05 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 6:05 pm
shunda, the ideal is not for people to marry, divorce and re-marry – yet we allow divorced people to re-marry.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 6:14 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 6:22 pm
Interesting links Fletch. I wasn’t previously aware that everything that appears in gay magazines is indisputable fact.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 6:26 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 6:31 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 6:38 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 6:56 pm
Complaining about autocorrected spelling just shows that you’ve got nothing.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 7:07 pm
The real issue of the report is the Herald’s headline, which didn’t mention choice:
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 7:19 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 7:24 pm
Or is it a matter of secular liberals imposing their “morals” on the rest of society?
Lack of morals actually
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 7:26 pm
“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:January 23rd, 2013 at 7:27 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 7:28 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 7:30 pm
@Kea
Not to mention Ted Haggard. Paragon of Christian virtues!
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 7:30 pm
That’s not necessary, Kea. Common sense is enough.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 7:34 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 7:44 pm
Personal attacks are not necessary. Plain reasonable argument will do.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 7:47 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 7:48 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 7:49 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 7:49 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 7:50 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 7:54 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 7:55 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 8:03 pm
“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:January 23rd, 2013 at 8:05 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 8:06 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 8:10 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 8:19 pm
Sorry, Andrei, just to confirm, your argument is now “YOU’RE NOT GETTING LYNCHED SO WHAT ARE YOU WHINING ABOUT?”?
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 8:19 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 8:19 pm
“we will rewrite a universal social institution that predates recorded history.”
How do you know that Andrei?
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 8:22 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 8:22 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 8:33 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 8:45 pm
Wish it still was.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 9:07 pm
Undoubtedly your cheerfulness, humour and positivity would have made her day.
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 9:16 pm
“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:January 23rd, 2013 at 9:29 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 9:31 pm
???
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 9:34 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 9:47 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 9:50 pm
Are you for real?
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 9:54 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 9:59 pm
That may explain which head you would be banging along with led zep
Vote:January 23rd, 2013 at 10:06 pm
This one is dedicated to Blair
Vote:
January 23rd, 2013 at 10:35 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 10:51 pm
Reading this thread certainly brings clarity to the saying:
Vote:“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.
January 23rd, 2013 at 11:34 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 11:40 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 11:44 pm
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:January 23rd, 2013 at 11:55 pm
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:January 24th, 2013 at 12:37 am
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:January 24th, 2013 at 4:40 am
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:January 24th, 2013 at 9:05 am
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:January 24th, 2013 at 9:28 am
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:January 24th, 2013 at 12:08 pm
Scorned,
As I understand it, Catholics aren’t supposed to engage in oral sex for the same reasons Lucia gave for contraceptive sex.
Vote:January 25th, 2013 at 9:57 am
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:January 25th, 2013 at 9:58 am
Me, I’m saving up my recruitment credits. My partner and I have almost got enough for a new SUV.
Vote:January 25th, 2013 at 10:03 am
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: