Oh dear

January 20th, 2013 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Kirsty Johnston at Stuff reports:

Crime will rise if gay couples are allowed to marry, says the head of the country’s victim lobby group.

Sensible Sentencing Trust leader has submitted to Parliament that changing the law to allow same-sex marriage will be yet another erosion of basic morals and values in society which have led to an escalation of child abuse, domestic violence, and an ever-increasing prison population.

Oh dear. Garth is quite entitled to his views on the issue, but linking to child abuse, domestic violence and increasing prison numbers is bizarre – to put it mildly.

People claimed the same thing in 1986 when homosexual law reform occurred. They were wrong. I predict that once same sex marriage is allowed, the only impact on society will be a few more couples will be married.

Tags: ,

169 Responses to “Oh dear”

  1. Pete George (23,354 comments) says:

    Modern day fire and brimstone from the Garths and Andres, but their credibility is fizzling and leaking rather than burning and brimming.

    @KevinHague
    Most against the Bill seem to be hankering for a Truman Show version of NZ: conformist, God-fearing nuclear families

    @PeteDGeorge
    They think that marriage equality will destroy everyone’s morals, like, if you get married I’ll rob a bank.

    @KevinHague
    yes. “#marriageequality then nek minnit sack of Rome” is one of the most common arguments being used by opponents

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

    bizarre

    Quite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Azeraph (603 comments) says:

    Yeah, That doesn’t equate though I’m opposed to it out of my beliefs. Fearist creations or is it attention generation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    I had a good laugh at this one today.
    Only goes to show what Garth actually knows about crime and it’s causes.

    With that comment he managed both to hurt his cause (by revealing his incompetence) and the same time support the gay marriage bill (by adding another nutty argument against it.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. tvb (4,261 comments) says:

    Gareth Mcvicar is a stupid idiot. He has not got a damn clue what the drivers’ of crime are. Most criminals come from dysfunctional straight families in far nearly all. Mcvicar should focus his tiny ignorant mind on that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pete George (23,354 comments) says:

    It’s probably been done before but I saw on Twitter someone referring to him as MadVicar.

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

    Just an idiot.

    Victims need advocates but sensible ones, someone who has a clue, not someone who has parlayed a family tragedy into this quasi -religious band of clowns spouting this type of shit.

    That type of comment is about two inches from Salem. FFS

    Time for McVicar to stop wasting oxygen.

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

    The sodomites are going to destroy all that is decent and good. Poor old Garth needs to understand that gays have always been around and are not a recent invention of lefty liberals or of modern society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. big bruv (13,571 comments) says:

    I have a lot of time for McVicar. The more the criminal huggers of the left attacked him the more I knew he was on the right track. Those who talk about the “drivers of crime” are the very people that McVicar needs to keep fighting, I have no time at all for those who seek to down play crime and criminals, the only ones who suffer when that argument is in vogue are the victims of crime.

    However, McVicar has made a big mistake by spouting this rubbish, he has bloody well shot himself in the foot and done enormous damage to his campaign to get tough on criminals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. questions (186 comments) says:

    Seriously….

    I guess he is a classic conservative bigot, willing to tell any lie to get NZ closer to his straight, white, church attending ideal.

    Interesting though, all criminals are produced by a man and a women…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    Garth McVicar may be right
    But just not in the way he thinks.
    Yes, it is most likely that the undermining of marriage and the traditional family unit does engender a portion of crime

    The UK has just two-thirds of children living with both parents, one of the lowest rates in the western world, according to research by a global development organisation.
    Only in Belgium, Latvia and Estonia are children less likely to live in a household with both their father and mother.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/dec/29/two-thirds-british-children-live-parents

    What is the ration in New Zealand – two parent homes to one parent, or marriage inequality?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Judith (8,466 comments) says:

    questions (87) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 10:54 am
    Seriously….

    I guess he is a classic conservative bigot, willing to tell any lie to get NZ closer to his straight, white, church attending ideal.

    Interesting though, all criminals are produced by a man and a women…

    —————————–

    Correct.

    Was gay marriage responsible for McVicar’s friend who stole a dead baby’s name and used it on a passport?

    McVicar is wanting the job of chief Witch Sniffer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    Judith – Was gay marriage responsible for McVicar’s friend who stole a dead baby’s name and used it on a passport?

    Not likely, because that person is not yet gayly married, is he?
    Might be civilly unified

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    Who’s to say he is wrong?
    Gay marriages are definitely not constructive when it comes to stability of the family unit, which is the building block of society as we know it. If young people don’t have a grounded, stable family life, then expect to see more of them going off the rails.

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

    W.T.F.

    The majority of NZers feel that criminals get away with too much in this country, but McVicar makes himself seem like a crazy idiot by blaming it on gay marriage.

    If we had more gays we’d have fewer straight men willing to stick it into any pair of open legs and create another baby to be abused and grow up as a criminal.

    If anything, we need to encourage more youth who are unlucky enough to be born into a criminal family to be exclusively homosexual – as apparently that’s possible.

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

    Gay marriages are definitely not constructive when it comes to stability of the family unit

    And the evidence is…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Reid (16,111 comments) says:

    I smell propaganda here. I’d like to read what he said in full. While it’s hard for those who don’t understand social engineering to accept, gay marriage is merely another plank in the long running plan to corrupt western society. You can pooh pooh it if you like, but have a look at our society over the decades and tell me the following trends haven’t been appearing.

    To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution – but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future – the School recommended (among other things):
    1. The creation of racism offences.
    2. Continual change to create confusion
    3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
    4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
    5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
    6. The promotion of excessive drinking
    7. Emptying of churches
    8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
    9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
    10. Control and dumbing down of media
    11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

    One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s [JEWISH] idea of ‘pansexualism’ – the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women.

    To further their aims they would:
    • attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
    • abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
    • abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces
    • declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’

    Just google ‘Frankfurt School’ if you want more detail.

    Of course if you’ve fallen for the ‘human wights’ argument on gay marriage then nothing will save you from becoming one of Stalin’s useful idiots for this particular project in their long-running boil the frog campaign.

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

    I’d like to read what he said in full

    http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/C375983B-427D-4882-868B-850D3723472A/257535/50SCGA_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL11528_1_A305110_GarthMcVica.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    Urban Redneck, well said.

    There was an article in the NZ Herald about this also –

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

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

    However, 52 per cent of these men had also had sex in that period (six months) with other partners. So despite the rhetoric of love and commitment, most male gay couples are not in a genuinely monogamous relationship

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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    Become a divorce lawyer for gays – could be a nice little opening :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Pete George (23,354 comments) says:

    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.

    Just as well all the traditional male/female partnerships in matrimony can set a good example of genuine monogamy. As soon as we have marriage equality a new immorality will arise. I’ll be in first to coin a phrase for it – unfaithfullness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    Who’s to say he is wrong? Gay marriages are definitely not constructive when it comes to stability of the family unit, which is the building block of society as we know it. If young people don’t have a grounded, stable family life, then expect to see more of them going off the rails.

    Er, Fletch, you do realise that “gay” means “homosexual”? There won’t be any children in a gay marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Andrei (2,532 comments) says:

    I see Pete George is braying like a donkey again.

    Foolishness beyond belief on display.

    Of course because gay “marriage” is nonsense without a single rational argument to support its introduction beyond a vague appeal to a supposed “right” to get married, those who are in favour of this abomination mock distorted versions of arguments put forward in good faith to explain why this is a very very bad idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    The argument for gay marriage is that the state may not discriminate.

    That is a rational argument.

    If you think that the state should be allowed to discriminate then you can have no objection when it does so on the grounds of race. You cannot complain about council seats reserved for Maori, for example.

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

    Thank you Fletch. Interestingly enough, in Spain only 22,124 homosexual “marriages” have taken place since the government changed the law to provide for homosexuals in 2005, according to media surveys. If one assumes that every marriage involved a unique couple, and that 3.5 percent of the population is homosexual (a standard figure produced by peer-reviewed studies on the topic) then less than 3% of Spain’s homosexuals have availed themselves of “marriage” during the seven years of its availability.

    In Holland, according to a study by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (iMAPP), after ten years of homosexual “marriage” in the Netherlands, only eight percent of homosexuals were “married” in 2011. Long standing monogamous unions are the last thing these pansexuals want.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/most-homosexuals-dont-want-to-marry-or-adopt-french-homosexual-leader-admit

    And as for that “3 – 4 % of the population are born-that-way homosexuals orthodoxy, a 1994 British study called “Sexual Behaviour In Britain” conducted by researchers Wellings, Field, Johnson & Wadsworth which interviewed 20000 men and 20000 women and created a demographic model of the country found that core homosexuality was limited to 0.6% in men and a staggeringly low 0.1% in women. In fact, over eighty percent of respondents claiming to be gay, the study found, are actually just uninhibited bisexuals when push comes to shove. Further to that, I struggle to conjure up what rights bisexuals are being denied. Do they want the right to marry a man and a woman at the same time?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Andrei (2,532 comments) says:

    The argument for gay marriage is that the state may not discriminate.

    It is not discrimination to reserve marriage to hetrosexual couples consisting of one man and one woman because marriage is a union of one man and one woman.

    And those who wish to marry cannot marry just anyone of the opposite sex either, there are qualifying criteria as to whom you may marry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    The argument for gay marriage is that the state may not discriminate.

    Possibly the weakest argument ever. Pick another. Or explain your support for the removal of discrimination that prevents me from marrying my cat, or my mother, or both.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    For fuck’s sake. It is this clown that the ACT party sold its soul for.

    What a waste.

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

    discrimination that prevents me from marrying my cat, or my mother, or both.

    Like Oedipussy ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    wat, sure there will – gays adopt. Elton John as his partner just ‘had’ their second baby.

    Elton John and David Furnish announced the birth of their second son on the singer’s website Wednesday.

    “Elton and David are very pleased to announce the birth of their child Elijah Joseph Daniel Furnish-John on Friday, January 11.”

    http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mg-elton-john-baby-son-david-furnish-20130116,0,1582863.story

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    It is not discrimination to reserve marriage to hetrosexual couples consisting of one man and one woman because marriage is a union of one man and one woman.

    A circular argument if ever there was one. You could just as well say “a marriage is a union of one man and one woman of the same race.” And in many cultures of course a marriage contains more than two people.

    By all means religious cults may discriminate in whatever ways they choose.

    But the state may not.

    You can argue that the state has no business ratifying people’s domestic arrangements, but what you can’t do is argue that it can approve and favour just the particular arrangement that you happen to support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    big bruv (10,962) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 10:50 am
    I have a lot of time for McVicar. The more the criminal huggers of the left attacked him the more I knew he was on the right track. Those who talk about the “drivers of crime” are the very people that McVicar needs to keep fighting, I have no time at all for those who seek to down play crime and criminals, the only ones who suffer when that argument is in vogue are the victims of crime.


    Halden, Norway’s second largest prison, with a capacity of 252 inmates, opened on April 8. It embodies the guiding principles of the country’s penal system: that repressive prisons do not work and that treating prisoners humanely boosts their chances of reintegrating into society. “When they arrive, many of them are in bad shape,” Hoidal says, noting that Halden houses drug dealers, murderers and rapists, among others. “We want to build them up, give them confidence through education and work and have them leave as better people.” Countries track recidivism rates differently, but even an imperfect comparison suggests the Norwegian model works. Within two years of their release, 20% of Norway’s prisoners end up back in jail. In the U.K. and the U.S., the figure hovers between 50% and 60%. Of course, a low level of criminality gives Norway a massive advantage. Its prison roll lists a mere 3,300, or 69 per 100,000 people, compared with 2.3 million in the U.S., or 753 per 100,000 — the highest rate in the world.

    Or maybe Garth has more than one dumb idea…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Andrei (2,532 comments) says:

    It is not a circular argument, I am discriminated against by the Government because they wont let me earn my living as a brain surgeon, and I think they should change the rules arond who is allowed to practice brain surgery because it is my right to earn my living as a brain surgeon, its discrimination I tell you!!!!

    FFS You cannot call a loaf of bread a porterhouse steak which is what you are doing when you asy two men are married to each other.

    And there is a profound reason why a male couple or a female couple are not equivalent to a male, female pairing, a reason that goes to the very heart of who we will be as a people thirty years from now

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Fletch (3,756) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 12:45 pm
    wat, sure there will – gays adopt. Elton John as his partner just ‘had’ their second baby.

    Oh poor child… Access to unlimited funds… Access to some of the worlds most influential people… Life is so tough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Rex Widerstrom (5,330 comments) says:

    I was part of the debate amongst NZ journalists which so upset Karl du Fresne recently, as he accused some people of intolerance for wanting to “silence” McVicar.

    I don’t believe anybody should be silenced. But I do believe that when his views are reported alongside those of Kim Workman, the latter’s history of nearly 20 years in the police and as Assistant Secretary (Penal Institutions) with the Department of Justice, his fellowships (two Churchills), scholarship (to Stanford) and other relevant items should be mantioned, as should McVicar’s – embittered cow cocky with no professional experience or qualifications in justice or penology.

    The media’s lazy habit of trotting out McVicar as though his opinions are as expert as those of Workman, and other professionals in the field, constantly misleads the public as to the basis on which they’re formed. He knows less about the subject than several people who comment here (and whom I generally disagree with, but acknowledge they have the experience that guides their opinions) and the public need to be reminded of that when being fed his bizarre rants.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    Oh dear. That’s a pretty dumb analogy. An unqualified brain surgeon may do harm to others. That homosexuals will call themselves married will not affect you in the slightest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1986002,00.html

    Forgot the link re Norway prison system

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    Urban Redneck, according to research it is the gay dirty little secret – that not many people are truly solely homosexual.

    Nearly nine percent of men in a GAPSS gay Auckland survey reported having sex with a woman during the previous six months.

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

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

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

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

    ~ from Investigate

    Indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. BlairM (2,307 comments) says:

    The submission was in a personal capacity only, and does not say what Farrar says it says. McVicar was pointing out that degrading marriage as an institution has negative consequences. The bulk of criminals come from broken homes. It’s his belief that the bill does that. I’m not quite sure I share his views on that (I oppose it for different reasons), but it’s a valid point of view, and a sensible one in my opinion. It is neither bigoted, nor homophobic.

    There are reasons to disagree with McVicar. I don’t think having the government redefine marriage is going to make it morally easier for straight couples to break up. Most people already treat marriage too lightly – they don’t need gay marriages to help that along. I’m not quite sure how to connect his logic there. But I do think that he has a point in a general sense about how society treats marriage. His conclusions are wrong but his take on the problem is correct. Commentators should cut him a break, especially on the right where there is no reason to get on the left’s bandwagon of demagoguery and demonization.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    Fletch,

    wat, sure there will – gays adopt

    Adoption and marriage are separate issues. Do you have a substantive objection to gay marriage?

    krazy,

    Possibly the weakest argument ever. Pick another. Or explain your support for the removal of discrimination that prevents me from marrying my cat, or my mother, or both.

    Non-discrimination is the weakest argument ever? Blimey. At least you are honest in admitting that your “argument” simply consists of you wanting the state to enforce your personal prejudices.

    You’d have no real argument then if the gay mafia wins the election and allows only gay marriages. After all, you are not arguing from principle.

    And by the same argument, allowing inter-racial marriages could also lead to people marrying their mothers and their cats couldn’t it. Because, er…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    The gays have quite a bit of ground to catch up in destroying the family unit and humanity as we know it – or ‘destroying the very “essence of the human creature” ‘ as the Pope describes it.

    New Zealand has the third-highest rate of children living in single-parent homes, an OECD study says.
    This means nearly one in four Kiwi children are growing up in single-parent homes as more marriages break up and single women choose to enter motherhood on their own.
    Of 27 industrialised countries, New Zealand ranked third in the Doing Better for Families study, with 23.7 per cent of children living in a one-parent household, compared with the 14.9 per cent average across all countries. The United States ranked first with 25.9 per cent and Ireland was second with 24.3 per cent.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4945358/One-child-in-four-in-single-parent-home

    According to New Zealand census statistics, there has been a 20% increase in the number of one-parent families in the past 10 years.
    http://www.kiwifamilies.co.nz/articles/birthright/

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

    from Investigate

    That well known objective observer of sexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    blairM

    The bulk of criminals come from broken homes

    Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. BlairM (2,307 comments) says:

    The bulk of criminals come from broken homes

    Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

    Recognised, but a very very strange coincidence, don’t you think? Can’t be anything in it, surely? The Left keep telling us it takes a village to raise a child, so shouldn’t matter?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    I am discriminated against by the Government because they wont let me earn my living as a brain surgeon

    If it’s true that the government prevents you, on discriminatory grounds, from learning to be a brain surgeon then that is indeed awful. But I would have though that that would have made you realise the evil consequence of allowing the state to discriminate.

    FFS You cannot call a loaf of bread a porterhouse steak which is what you are doing when you asy two men are married to each other.

    A loaf of bread is not a porterhouse steak, it’s true.

    But couples making the same commitment to each other are the same, regardless of what’s in their trousers. So your analogy falls to the ground.
    More to the point, gay people don’t require your consent or your blessing for their marriages; any more than your own marriage (assuming for the sake of argument that you are married) requires theirs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    Weihana, this from a man raised by two mothers –

    NEW YORK, January 18 (C-FAM) Perhaps as many as a million people marched in Paris last Sunday and at French embassies around the world against proposed legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage in France.  One of the surprises in the French campaign for traditional marriage is that homosexuals have joined pro-family leaders and activists in the effort.

    “The rights of children trump the right to children,” was the catchphrase of protesters like Jean Marc, a French mayor who is also homosexual.

    Xavier Bongibault, an atheist homosexual, is a prominent spokesman against the bill. “In France, marriage is not designed to protect the love between two people. French marriage is specifically designed to provide children with families,” he said in an interview. “[T]he most serious study done so far . . . demonstrates quite clearly that a child has trouble being raised by gay parents.”

    Jean Marc, who has lived with a man for 20 years, insists, “The LGBT movement that speaks out in the media . . . They don’t speak for me. As a society we should not be encouraging this. It’s not biologically natural.”

    Outraged by the bill, 66-year old Jean-Dominique Bunel, a specialist in humanitarian law who has done relief work in war-torn areas, told Le Figaro he “was raised by two women” and that he  “suffered from the lack of a father, a daily presence, a character and a properly masculine example, some counterweight to the relationship of my mother to her lover. I was aware of it at a very early age. I lived that absence of a father, experienced it, as an amputation.”

    “As soon as I learned that the government was going to officialize marriage between two people of the same sex, I was thrown into disarray,” he explained. It would be “institutionalizing a situation that had scarred me considerably. In that there is an injustice that I can in no way allow.” If the women who raised him had been married, “I would have jumped into the fray and would have brought a complaint before the French state and before the European Court of Human Rights, for the violation of my right to a mom and a dad.”

    http://www.c-fam.org/fridayfax/volume-15/french-homosexuals-join-demonstration-against-gay-marriage.html

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

    Oh well another thread fucked

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. BlairM (2,307 comments) says:

    More to the point, gay people don’t require your consent or your blessing for their marriages; any more than your own marriage (assuming for the sake of argument that you are married) requires theirs.

    Then why do they need a certificate from the government to validate it?!

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

    BlairM

    A fucking car needs a certificate, why can’t a couple of humans?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    And this is the news article about the study cited in my last post –

    “The empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go,” said Regnerus in his study published in Social Science Research.

    Regnerus’ comprehensive study examines nearly 3,000 adult children from eight different family structures and evaluates them within 40 social and emotional categories. The results reveal that children who remain with intact biological families were better educated, experienced greater mental and physical health, less drug experimentation, less criminal activity and reported overall higher levels of happiness.

    The greatest negative outcomes were found among children of lesbian mothers. This contradicts defective studies popularized by the media claiming children fare as well, or better, with lesbian mothers. Regnerus’ study showed negative outcomes for these adult children in 25 of 40 categories including far higher rates of sexual assault (23% of children with lesbian mothers were touched sexually by a parent or adult, in contrast to 2% raised by married parents), poorer physical health, increased depression, increased marijuana use and higher unemployment (69% of children from lesbian households were on welfare, compared to 17% of those with married parents).

    Regnerus’ study debunks an often-cited 2005 American Psychological Association (APA) brief that concluded, “[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”

    In contrast to Regnerus, previous studies compared children of homosexual parents to children of stepfamilies and single parents. Regnerus also relies solely on information directly from adult children rather than opinions from their parents.

    A second new study confirms the studies touted by the APA are unreliable. Loren Marks, an associate professor at Louisiana State University, found the APA’s studies had limited data and focused on gender roles and sexual identities. They neglected to examine the children’s education outcomes, employment, risk of substance abuse, criminal behavior or suicide.

    The discredited APA-endorsed studies have been used in attempts to impact international legal decisions.

    The study itself is HERE

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Azeraph (603 comments) says:

    So we might see the Blind Knight syndrome then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    SO yeh, let’s all just adopt gay marriage and discount all the studies that show how bad it is for children; they don’t really matter, just the sexual satisfaction of adults who more by choice (it is looking like) choose their sexual partners.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    A fucking car needs a certificate, why can’t a couple of humans?

    Is it because one’s a potentially dangerous machine driven on public roads and the others are free human beings?

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

    Fletch, why do you hate homosexuals so much?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. BlairM (2,307 comments) says:

    A fucking car needs a certificate, why can’t a couple of humans?

    But a bicycle is not a car. You may like your bicycle and feel like your bicycle is important enough to have a certificate, or a WOF, or whatever you feel it needs to improve your self esteem and validate your life choice to ride a bicycle instead of drive a car, but it’s still a freaking bicycle, not a car.

    People say that it doesn’t matter, and maybe it doesn’t. Let them call a bicycle a car. Fair enough. But why should the government humour that, when I don’t believe a bicycle is a car? Is my view – that a bicycle is not a car – not equally or of greater merit than those who say they are equivalent? Should the government make a moral choice by changing the definition of a bicycle? I would argue no.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    Rodders, i don’t hate homosexuals AT ALL. What makes you think that?
    I am standing up for traditional marriage, which I believe is best for society, especially the health and well being of children.

    I don’t mind what homosexuals do in their own time. I work with a couple who are very good people. But I won’t stand idly by and watch society’s laws changed to accommodate relationships based on sexual perversions; especially the institution of marriage, which is a critical building block of family and society.

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

    What makes you think that?

    I presume you are the “Fletcher” who posted this?
    http://nzconservative.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/mental-health-and-same-sex-marriage.html

    If not, I apologise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    Rodders, yes I am; and your point?
    I have statistics there taken from the gays own Human Rights Complaint to the Canadian Government. Their own statistics.
    I like to back up what I say.

    And so? How does that make me a “hater”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Andrei (2,532 comments) says:

    But I would have though that that would have made you realise the evil consequence of allowing the state to discriminate.

    Logic fail, wat dabney

    Every unmarried adult male who wishes to enter into matrimony may do so provided he can find an unrelated, unmarried adult female who agrees to join in this estate with him and likewise with every unmarried adult female provided she can find an appropriate male.

    People who are poor, deformed and/or ugly are at a disadvantage but not excluded.

    People who for whatever reason prefer to engage in sexual activity with members of their own gender are only excluded if they cannot or will not conform to what marriage is – the union of a man and a woman

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

    Fletch-

    i don’t hate homosexuals AT ALL

    and

    How does that make me a “hater”

    but on the other hand

    relationships based on sexual perversions

    and

    I’d rather not subject our children to this kind of lifestyle

    People can draw their own conclusions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    Rodders, you might not think so, but I consider sodomy a sexual perversion.
    And I’ve already pointed out the effects of this lifestyle – increased depression; drug, alcohol, smoking use; suicide; disease; shortened lifespan. I am wrong not to want our children subjected to these results of the gay lifestyle?

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

    Fletch -

    I consider sodomy a sexual perversion

    So you are more comfortable for lesbians to marry one another, then?

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

    And the rebuttal to Regnerus is here…

    Karen Golinski versus US Parent Office of Personnel Management, John Berry and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives: Amicus Curiae Criticism of Same-Sex Parenting and Regnerus Study: http://tinyurl.com/7g55hzt

    And as for McVicar’s weird claims about marriage equality and violent crime, is it Paul Cameron that he’s channelling?
    http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html

    I think the statement of Auckland University’s Dr James Oleson on stuff.co.nz is quite an appropriate rebuttal for this ludicrous statement:

    “Criminologist Dr James Oleson, from Auckland University, an expert in deviance, said he was not familiar with any research that would suggest homosexuals would be responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.

    For McVicar’s argument to be plausible, he said, it would have to be proved that allowing homosexuals to marry degraded morality, and that this produced more crime. “But I’m not sure that’s true.”

    The more common drivers of crime were economic issues, alcohol, drugs, education and employment and family dysfunction, Oleson said.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Reid (16,111 comments) says:

    I see the marriage ammedment bill as being a further erosion of what
    I consider to be esential basic values and morals that have stood the
    test of time for centuries. Furthermore the bill represents a further
    decay and erosion of the traditional family [mother & father] that
    society has ben founded on. While many of the proponents of this bill
    also decry the escalation of child abuse, domestic violence, violent
    crime and corresponding prison population they fail [or choose to
    ignore]to see the connection of the social demise caused by the
    policies they promote and the outcomes.
    While much good work has been done recently to reduce crime and
    ensure better treatment of victims this bill has the abilty to
    destroy that good work.
    The marriage ammendment bill will not benefit society at all and will
    ultimately have detremetal effect on crime at all levels.

    That is McVicar’s complete submission. Thanks for the link Rodders. I’m sorry but I don’t see the story as reported in Stuff is valid. It’s a total spin. It is propaganda. And all the braying idiots who think it’s about human wights immediately fall for it. You idiots. Duh.

    Tell me I’m wrong. Tell me how the fuck this idiot Kirsty could possibly read into that submission the angle she took and heavily cultivated by her reporting. And BTW, what the fuck else was Hague ever going to say so why include that to strengthen the “evidence?” What sort of moronic, stupid thinking is that, Kirsty? You’re not blond are you?

    I predict that once same sex marriage is allowed, the only impact on society will be a few more couples will be married.

    DPF’s conclusion is common however it’s based on thinking for the next ten or so years, and that’s the wrong period of time. This is a deep social engineering manoeuvre designed to take place over generations. It deals with the most ancient institution we have. It is the basis of our reproductive partnerships that is being addressed with this manoeuvre. And that doesn’t change in ten years, does it. No. They’re aiming in my view at least three generations from now. First generation over the next 25 years of so beds into the fabric, second generation 50 or so years from now grows up in it, third generation have parents who grew up in it.

    And it’s your grandchildren at stake here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    Logic fail, wat dabney. Every unmarried adult male who wishes to enter into matrimony may do so provided he can find an unrelated, unmarried adult female who agrees to join in this estate with him and likewise with every unmarried adult female provided she can find an appropriate male.

    Again, all you are doing is describing the existing descriminatory state definition of marriage.

    You’re kind of making my point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Andrei (2,532 comments) says:

    Again, all you are doing is describing the existing descriminatory state definition of marriage.

    You’re kind of making my point.

    Proof that you are dumb

    ♂ + ♀ ≠ ♂ + ♂

    ♂ + ♀ ≠ ♀ + ♀

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    If this man is allowed to marry then I don’t see why gay people can’t:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Reid (16,111 comments) says:

    If this man is allowed to marry then I don’t see why gay people can’t:

    Gay people can wat. Der. It’s called a civil union. What about this simple fact is hard for you people to get through your heads? This fact, this thing that exists, it really does, is why, der, there are no “rights” that are being infringed.

    You’da thunk wouldn’t ya that this simple reality would have penetrated some skulls by now but no, the idiocy goes marching on, unabated.

    It’s about human wights you see they plaintively bray and bray and bray as if hoping the more braying they do will change the logical futility of their position. That is, there are no rights being infringed anywhere and there never has been since that civil union bill was passed. That took away the discrimination, they said so at the time, so fine. But no they said a decade or so later, there’s still some discwimination and it’s tewwibly dweadful in evewy way. And the people turned and listened, and started braying and braying and braying, at something that doesn’t exist and never has.

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

    Urban Redneck:

    “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.”

    Monogamy? What proportion of straight married men are monogamous? And don’t kid yourself, it’s a huge proportion. I know it is because in my 48 years I’ve had many “straight”/married men make a pass on me, and I’m gay. (I respect marriage, I always say no and on more than one occasion I’ve told the guy to go home and respect his wife. By your definition any non-monagomous relationship is not genuine, but remember this includes natural marriages.

    Take a wider perspective. The debate over gay marriage is occuring because the very concept of marriage as a societal institution is not what it should be. The concept of monogamy is no longer respected, porn is everywhere, divorce is common.

    I’m gay, I don’t believe in gay marriage with one exception, this being when children are present from past relationships, in which case I think gays and lesbians should get married – and commit to monogamy. Apart from that, I think the idea of gay marriage is ridiculous – ultimately because marriage should be mainly between 2 people who can naturally procreate. Civil ceremonies are just as good for the purpose.

    I am also a Christian, and I ask a couple of questions. To explain: it is one of the 10 Commandments that adultery should not be committed. Adultery is defined repeatedly and explicitly in the Bible as occuring when a man looks at a woman not his wife with lust in his heart. I note, homosexuality is not defineded in such definitive terms. Again explicitely and repeatedly, the Bible states that if adultery has been committed, the man concerned should sever his right hand and blind his right eye.

    My question is, where are all the clinics in our neighbourhoods? Get-rich-quick scheme, set up a franchise deal, little clinics cutting off hands and striking out eyes. Wow, a society in which not only gays are punished for their sexuality and sexual habits, but straight men as well.

    What about it straight men? Ready to stop heading behind your veil of hypocrisy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Reid (16,111 comments) says:

    howdarethey you make an interesting point about porn, which is ubiquitous. All part of the corrupting influences we live with courtesy of the lovely Travistock people.

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

    Reid you’ll know the stats. The amount of money men spend on porn online, and the way we men’s brains are structured, we always want an escalation in what we watch. No longer happy with one on one, onto groups, other situations. Over time, porn generally has become far more explicit, extreme.

    The big way to deal with the situation with marriage is for men to front up, realise there is a virtue in seeing life through with only one partner.

    Fletch, you idiot. Sexual perversion? Straight anal sex is everywhere, indeed some of the specialist sites are the most popular internet sites.

    What is perverse is when two people couple for sex without any long term commitment. I hope you know the feeling of making love, not just having sex. If so, I am sure as a human you can never see it in yourself to deny others the potential to feel the same as you.

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

    ps to previous note.

    All information relating to knowledge of internet porn is of course from third parties, not from personal internet usage.

    Thanks

    HowDareThey

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Scott (1,739 comments) says:

    I totally agree with Garth McVicar and disagree with DPF who sadly has been all for gay marriage for a number of years now. What we are seeing is the demolition of society based on Christian values and it’s replacement with old age paganism. We appear to be returning to the value system of ancient Greece.
    Marriage is a basic building block of our social order and is the setting in which children are socialised and the next generation of responsible citizens are nurtured. Single parenting, living together and no fault divorce has weakened marriage already. Gay marriage, an abomination against God, can only weaken it still further.
    A Christian or a conservative can see that families are falling apart. In many school classrooms the number of children being raised by their married biological parents is a minority. Single parenting leads to more crime. Fatherless families feature heavily in crime statistics. The majority of incarcerated criminals come from fatherless families. So McVicar is absolutely correct. DPF who is a brilliant policy wonk but hopeless on marriage and helplessly in thrall to the gay lobby is once again shown to be a left wing progressive who for the sake of the soul of conservatism should out himself and join the Labour party, which is his true home.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Rex Widerstrom (5,330 comments) says:

    So the point of the post, which was about the alleged link between gay marriage and crime becomes a tired re-working of the debate on gay marriage. What a pity. I shall persevere regardless, and those who wish to attack/defend teh gayz and/or the institution of marriage can just scroll by…

    BlairM suggests:

    The bulk of criminals come from broken homes. It’s his belief that the bill does that.

    And therein his first piece of lunacy. A man “marrying” a man (or a woman marrying a woman or indeed a man marrying his blow-up doll or his cat) does not break a single home, other than in the tiny percentage of cases where a male or female in an existing relationship, who have had children, announces that they have been suppressing their homosexuality and they are leaving the marriage (or civil partnership or de facto relationship) to go live with a person of the same sex. Certainly that happens, but it’s not the case with the bulk of homosexual relationships by any means.

    Homosexual couples adopting children is a separate issue. And since, for whatever reason, the children being adopted do not have a stable family unit which is capable of caring for them, their home is already “broken”. I’d like to see more research (not anecdote as quoted above) of the effects on children brought up in same sex households compared against those raised in a succession of foster homes and orphanages, but I’d imagine any stable, supportive family unit probably has better outcomes than a life where no one other than the state is your dad and mum.

    It is neither bigoted, nor homophobic.

    Like all McVicar’s views it is bigotry because it is informed only by his view of what is right and wrong and not by any evidence. It is a three paragraph expression of opinion, unsupported by any fact and contrary to at least some established research. It is, in short, a mirror of his bigotry on crime and punishment.

    And no, I’m not saying that because I disagree with him. I disagree with David Garrett too, but as I’ve said repeatedly on here I can at least debate him on the facts; often I can point to reesarch he hasn’t read, but I’ve found he usually then looks at it even if he doesn’t agree with its conclusions; he has also pointed me to research I haven’tr read, and I can see how its conclusions would support some of the stances he’s taken. I still believe he’s profoundly wrong on most of it, but he’s got there by a process of thinking, not bigotry and emotion like McVicar.

    Commentators should cut him a break, especially on the right where there is no reason to get on the left’s bandwagon of demagoguery and demonization.

    Actually, I’d have thought commenters on the right would want their “side” represented by a conservative with equivalent education and experience to Kim Workman, not an ill-educated bigoted buffoon who ensures the stance they’d no doubt like promoted can be ridiculed so easily because it’s presentation is not backed by any research and is so obviously the result of emotion, malevolence and ignorance.

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

    Fletch:And I’ve already pointed out the effects of this lifestyle – increased depression; drug, alcohol, smoking use; suicide; disease; shortened lifespan.

    The distinction between causation and correlation still passing you by.

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

    Agree Scott, mostly. Not sure about the abomination against God comment. Please reference a previous msg from me and argue why you aren’t being hypocritical in believing that gays should be judged against by people like yourself while you ignore your own responsibilities – namely the removal of your right hand and right eye for committing adultery.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. BlairM (2,307 comments) says:

    I’m more worried about the values of modern Greece than the values of ancient Greece. The Left seem to think buggery is more important than balancing the budget.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Actually, I’d have thought commenters on the right would want their “side” represented by a conservative with equivalent education and experience to Kim Workman, not an ill-educated bigoted buffoon who ensures the stance they’d no doubt like promoted can be ridiculed so easily because it’s presentation is not backed by any research and is so obviously the result of emotion, malevolence and ignorance.

    Rex,

    Given the reference to Kim Workman is related to crime and punishment/rehabilitation, “their “side”” is equally represented by one David Garrett – particularly when it comes to rebutting Workman’s ideas and practises. By your own admission, he would not be categorised as a “bigoted buffoon”

    As for this particular submission of McVicar’s, the adage as to being thought a fool and actually proving it springs to mind.

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

    What we are seeing is the demolition of society based on Christian values and it’s replacement with old age paganism. We appear to be returning to the value system of ancient Greece.

    Scott, Why do you assume “christian values” are superior to all others ?

    No one is asking you to compromise your values or beliefs. No one is asking you to approve of gays getting married. No one is suggesting your rights should be diminished in anyway. You believe in your christian values and good on you. This is about others being able to choose their beliefs and lifestyle. It is not an attack on christian values.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Sofia (831 comments) says:

    Kea – It is not an attack on christian values.

    Indeed, one clould consider it is the other way around …

    Pope Benedict Takes Anti-Gay Marriage To New Level In Christmas Speech On Family Values
    VATICAN CITY — The pope pressed his opposition to gay marriage Friday, denouncing what he described as people eschewing their God-given gender identities to suit their sexual choices – and destroying the very “essence of the human creature” in the process.
    ____________

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that all nuns are mystically betrothed to Jesus Christ. In this actual marriage ceremony a young woman dressed in white, makes a public vow to the Church. After this public profession, the young woman is told that she has become the bride of Christ and must consecrate herself to God “until death”. In this the Catholic Church is offering to the young woman a substitute for marriage to a real man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. tvb (4,261 comments) says:

    Don’t silence McVicar. The man is a total idiot. He has not one damn clue what the drivers of crime are. But he is dealing with a serious issue. But he has nothing intelligent to say about it when he says gay marriage will lead to an increase in crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Andrei (2,532 comments) says:

    Kea – It is not an attack on christian values.

    Indeed, one clould consider it is the other way around …

    Another fool being led by the nose Sophia?

    I can almost guarantee that you haven’t read what the Pope actually said and being gulliable you are prepared to accept drivel from the internet and news accounts as being an accurate representation of what he said.

    If I ever had any doubts that my feelings on “gay marriage” being wrong the one thing that dispells that is the lies being told by those who support it and the deceit involved.

    We all know who the Prince of lies is don’t we?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Azeraph (603 comments) says:

    Rex Widerstrom (4,888) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    Great post

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    Reid,

    Gay people can wat. Der. It’s called a civil union. What about this simple fact is hard for you people to get through your heads?

    So you have no objection to gay people being allowed to officially marry, since they already can in all but name.

    I’m glad we got that cleared up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    Andrei is right. The Pope’s comments, while referencing man and sexuality, were in no way directly attacking gays – he made no reference to gay marriage. You would do well to read the speech before condemning it.

    Here is what he said:

    Man’s refusal to make any commitment – which is becoming increasingly widespread as a result of a false understanding of freedom and self-realization as well as the desire to escape suffering – means that man remains closed in on himself and keeps his “I” ultimately for himself, without really rising above it. Yet only in self-giving does man find himself, and only by opening himself to the other, to others, to children, to the family, only by letting himself be changed through suffering, does he discover the breadth of his humanity. When such commitment is repudiated, the key figures of human existence likewise vanish: father, mother, child – essential elements of the experience of being human are lost.

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

    According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves.

    According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned.

    From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain.

    When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Rex Widerstrom (5,330 comments) says:

    bhudson says:

    [...] “their “side”” is equally represented by one David Garrett – particularly when it comes to rebutting Workman’s ideas and practises. By your own admission, he would not be categorised as a “bigoted buffoon”

    Granted I don’t see and hear all NZ media but I consume a great deal of it online. And it seems the media have decided that Mr Garrett’s ancient bit of youthful reckless stupidity (and who hasn’t indulged in that, in one form or another, and just never stepped over the law or else not been caught?) is sufficient to condemn him to Coventry forevermore.

    Instead, McVicar is wheeled out to hover like a vulture over the victims whose raw grief he manipulates and then keeps re-wounding them (rather than practising restorative justice to the benefit of all concerned, as superbly illustrated by another of DPF’s posts today) to provide the media with emotion-laden soundbites.

    As for this particular submission of McVicar’s, the adage as to being thought a fool and actually proving it springs to mind.

    If someone running any other lobby group authored such a document the media would ignore them, especially when there are others, as we agree, more erudite and educated on the topic with broadly similar views. But I guarantee you they will not.

    Given that I’ve seen the media running op-eds supposedly authored by McVicar, I now have to ask just how much of it they write for him and how much polishing they have to do. Because in just 146 words of a submission to Parliament (which you’d assume you’d take a bit of care over) I find:
    - “ammedment” x 2
    - “has ben founded on” (which makes my eyes bleed with its wrongness)
    - “abilty”
    - “detremetal”
    and “esential”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Instead, McVicar is wheeled out to hover like a vulture over the victims whose raw grief he manipulates and then keeps re-wounding them (rather than practising restorative justice to the benefit of all concerned, as superbly illustrated by another of DPF’s posts today) to provide the media with emotion-laden soundbites.

    Ah Rex, but I think you’ll find Monsiuer Garrett in the background there somewhere, feeding the lines which are, perhaps, fluffed by a poor actor. Perhaps he needs to insert himself a little more into the process – think ventriloquist and hand [metaphorically only, of course]

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

    The Pope’s comments, while referencing man and sexuality, were in no way directly attacking gays – he made no reference to gay marriage

    I doubt the Pope is anti gay. After all, he is the head of the worlds largest and oldest homosexual pedophile ring.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    Kea, so much wrong with that statement, but good to see you recognize the “homosexual” component in what constitutes your “pedophile ring”. That it largely isn’t the straight men who have the problem in that regard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    fletch,

    Outraged by the bill, 66-year old Jean-Dominique Bunel, a specialist in humanitarian law who has done relief work in war-torn areas, told Le Figaro he “was raised by two women” and that he  “suffered from the lack of a father, a daily presence, a character and a properly masculine example, some counterweight to the relationship of my mother to her lover. I was aware of it at a very early age. I lived that absence of a father, experienced it, as an amputation.”

    And where was his father and how is that the fault of his mother? Maybe this idiot could be a little bit grateful that someone raised him. If he had a genuine complaint that would be something. But all he has is that his two parents weren’t ideal in his eyes. Well what parents are perfect? Never mind they wiped his ass, never mind they put food on his plate, never mind they put a roof over his head. This all means nothing cause he has daddy issues. Prick.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    Fletch, you do realise the proposal being discussed here is not about allowing priests to marry?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Rex Widerstrom (5,330 comments) says:

    @bhudson

    If you’re right, and all the evidence suggests you are, then that doesn’t leave a very flattering impression of Mr Garrett,as it suggests he lacks the courage to make some of these sorts of statements himself. I do hope that’s not true, as aside from anything else it means I’ve been fooled into crediting him for a level of reasonableness he doesn’t truly possess.

    But if that submission is the raw, uncoached McVicar (which it clearly is) then I reiterate: how much leeway have the media given him?!

    “Alright, take 27… I’m sorry, but if you could just keep sobbing please Mrs Jones, that’s it. And Garth, try to remember it’s detrimental, not metal, okay? Rolling…”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Garth is, of course, a media creation and as such will eventually fall out of tune with the times. The ‘Sensible’ Sentencing Trust has had its day and attention can move away from policies pandering to fear and emphasising retribution towards policies based on facts and encouraging restoration.

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

    Weihana

    Although I too reject many of Fletch’s views, I do agree with the views he quoted from the guy who missed having a Dad growing up. My own parents divorced early in my life and my paternal relationship became distant, I suggest to my long term detriment.

    I do think that gay people raising children should make especial efforts to ensure there is a positive and long term role model of the opposite sex to the couple who is present in the life of the child/ren. It seems to me that most balanced (definitely not all) adults have been raised by males and females working together to instill values.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    Still. Lesbianism, eh? Whoar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Fletch,

    The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned

    Absolutely. Our nature, our genetic code, was programmed by millions of years of evolution and molded for a prehistoric man. A man who didn’t know where his next meal might come from so his body stores fat. It is idiotic to believe that this programming is somehow ordained by a supernatural being. It reflects merely an evolutionary advantage. Similarly sexuality is likewise an evolutionary trait. But just as I am not concerned about whether my next meal is coming from, neither am I concerned about human reproduction. If people choose to redefine their sexuality, assuming it is a choice, it means little and is none of my business.

    Besides if the pope wasn’t such an ignorant fool he would realize that the environment only sustains our population because we have manipulated the environment to our own ends.

    With the biotech revolution just getting underway and the coming nanotech revolution we haven’t even scratched the surface of manipulating our nature and if the Pope doesn’t want a part of it that’s fine by me.

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

    Fletch, I stand by my statement, however to clarify, I was not suggesting all Catholics are part of a pedophile ring. I was saying there exists such a thing inside the church and it has been there a very long time. The Catholic chruch brings this on themselves by making sex a sin and not allowing clergy to have normal sexual relations. It is a magnet for weirdos for that reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. nasska (10,917 comments) says:

    Rex

    I have no information that remotely suggests that David G has or is coaching McVicar but even if he was….so what? David G has learned to be media savvy through the school of hard knocks (witness the ambush over the sterilisation comment) & Garth McVicar would be torn to pieces left to his own devices.

    If the media want to do shark tank impressions to raise their precious egos & ratings it behoves anyone to seek media management advice before granting any sort of interview. A former broadcaster & wannabe politician has been teaching Labour politicians to prevaricate for a couple of generations even though their comrades in the media give them a free ride.

    We would be better off if coaching wasn’t needed but no sane person is going to be flayed alive by partisan news jocks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    ‘a magnet for weirdos’
    So the Sensible Sentencing Trust and the Catholic Church have a bit in common then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    mikenmild,

    You think it’s okay that people with a list of convictions as long as your arm are not receiving custodial sentences when they re-offend?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    howdarethey (10) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 6:46 pm
    Weihana

    Although I too reject many of Fletch’s views, I do agree with the views he quoted from the guy who missed having a Dad growing up. My own parents divorced early in my life and my paternal relationship became distant, I suggest to my long term detriment.

    I do think that gay people raising children should make especial efforts to ensure there is a positive and long term role model of the opposite sex to the couple who is present in the life of the child/ren. It seems to me that most balanced (definitely not all) adults have been raised by males and females working together to instill values.

    There are countless ways in which parents can improve the life of their children. Of course, all things being equal, it’s ideal to be raised by ones natural parents. But how about being grateful for what you do have rather than bemoaning the fact that life wasn’t perfect?

    You know many kids grow up with alcoholic parents. This is often to their detriment. But there is no law which says that drinkers can’t marry and I would suggest that is far more significant than an insecurity about ones masculinity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    wat
    I think lots of things are okay. I expect people to receive a custodial sentence when necessary. I also expect that the number of previous convictions is one factor for a judge to consider when determining the sentence given to a convicted criminal. You might like to run us through the other relevant factors, just for fun, and then ask some even more stupidly rhetorical questions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Scott (1,739 comments) says:

    How dare they – no idea what you are talking about. However I can assure you that I am not committing adultery. Kea, I do think Christian values are superior because they come from God who is the creator of all things. Christianity is also the bedrock of our western civilisation. With contribution from the Greeks to a lesser extent.
    So the imposition of gay marriage is a frontal attack on Christian morality and marriage and the family as understood for millenia.
    The world view that is being foisted on us is atheism, the belief in evolution and the desire to destroy the things of God. The family is being destroyed and we are reaping the harvest of broken homes, lost young people and yes increased crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    mm,

    Just calling you out on your “clever” remark about the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Rex Widerstrom (5,330 comments) says:

    @nasska

    I have no problem with someone who has thought about an issue, read widely on it, and generally formed their views through consideration of facts and research and opposing points of view getting some media coaching to help them express those views. Even politicians.

    But this submission suggests McVicar’s arrival at a conclusion is based entirely on his feelings: “I think this is abhorrent, it makes me feel bad, therefore I oppose it”. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that – similar lines of thought are displayed on blog comments multiple times a day – but I do have an issue with the media not challenging him enough to expose how thin is his intellectual grasp of the things for which he argues.

    Far from being “flayed alive by partisan news jocks” as you suggest, anyone else whose thinking was as simplistic and semi-literate as that displayed in McVicar’s submission would have been held up to ridicule very quickly. McVicar has been coddled by the media in a way David Garrett could only dream about. I’m not sure why, though keeping a contact book full of easily provoked extremists is a lazy way to generate a headline if you don’t have the resources to fill a newspaper or bulletin with proper journalism. Whatever the reason, this man should stop being given any credibility, now.

    @mikenmild

    The ‘Sensible’ Sentencing Trust has had its day and attention can move away from policies pandering to fear and emphasising retribution towards policies based on facts and encouraging restoration

    I wish you were right, but the symbiotic relationship between McVicar and the media won’t let that happen. “Offender avoids jail, victim offers forgiveness, everyone happy with the outcome” does not make a good headline. It especially does not fuel tomorrow’s talkback or provide dramatic “weeping survivors” footage for television.

    I could point a news crew to any number of exceptionally succesful restorative justice practices in the UK and elsewhere, supported by police, victims and others in the system. But I’m never asked, because everyone involved is happy, and happiness is not, judged by today’s values, newsworthy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    But if that submission is the raw, uncoached McVicar (which it clearly is) then I reiterate: how much leeway have the media given him?!

    Rex,

    Yep, a bad representation indeed – a real facepalm. I was suggesting that perhaps DG should push himself to the front more, to prevent those ‘raw’ messages.

    As it happens, DG has tried to steer well clear of the gay marriage debate here on Kiwiblog. He’s made a couple of references that suggest that he is against the move, but nothing directly to the point, or outside of GD as I recall. And certainly nowhere near the bizarre dot-joining of McVicar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    I disagree Rex: McVicar will become ever more a figure of fun and will probably resort to ever-more desperate claims to keep the spotlight on himself and his despicable cause.
    wat
    Whatever. I’m game for a serious discussion also if you have one in you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Whatever. I’m game for a serious discussion also if you have one in you.

    @mikey,

    You do realise those two sentences are incongruous, don’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Judith (8,466 comments) says:

    Rex Widerstrom (4,891) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 7:24 pm
    ———————–

    Spot on Rex!

    For some reason, I guess its the desire for retribution, we believe that long terms of imprisonment will punish the offender, and make them rethink their offending ways.

    However, we know it generally doesn’t work, and other than the serious violent offender, who naturally must be kept separate from society, the people most effected by terms of imprisonment are the taxpayer, and the family’s of the ‘lucky’ offender.

    Restorative justice appears to be more successful at reducing recidivism than most other offender management methods. Unfortunately, despite much effort, it has generally not been adopted in NZ, and received very little support. It is a pity, because those that benefit most from the method are the victims and the community.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. nasska (10,917 comments) says:

    Judith

    I prefer the term punishment to retribution but either way one thing is certain. Serious & repeat offenders are not reoffending & therefore society is a better place when they’re inside.

    Restorative justice is touchy feely crap worthy of mad feminists…..victim impact statements are similar fluff.

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

    Fletch:but good to see you recognize the “homosexual” component in what constitutes your “pedophile ring”. That it largely isn’t the straight men who have the problem in that regard.

    More of your anti-gay propaganda? Most pedophiles are not gay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Christianity is also the bedrock of our western civilisation

    Baloney. If “western civilization” means anything it means Skyscrapers, industrial manufacturing, jumbo jets, computers etc. Etc. All these things are possible because of scientific inquiry in a liberal democracy. They aren’t the product of some theistic ramblings of people who lived thousands of years ago and barely understood the world around them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Judith (8,466 comments) says:

    Restorative justice is touchy feely crap worthy of mad feminists…..victim impact statements are similar fluff.

    I can understand you feeling that way, as it is often presented via the media as such, however that is mostly not the case.
    In fact, facing ones victims can be very hard on the offender. Harder than any prison sentence. Imprisonment does not bring the victims of crime and the offender together. The offender does not get to see the results of their offending, or hear and see the effect it is has had on other people.

    The victim feels they have been heard. Often their wishes regarding future treatment of the offender are followed. They get a say in decisions, and often received some form of compensation, that they system would not otherwise, not cough up.

    Believe me, victims do not sit there and swallow the fake apologies etc. It is a long grueling process for all concerned.
    And then, the offender also faces the Courts. Going through the restorative justice program, does not cancel out court action. Although it is often taken into account when sentencing the offender.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    Interesting discussion, which touches on the State and marriage.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3LnVa7zXgc

    Yes, it’s Glenn Beck.

    When was the last time the supposedly superior state TV in New Zealand had anything approaching this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Sofia (831 comments) says:

    Andrei or Fletch – In the Pope’s speech talking of personal sexual choice destroying the very “essence of the human creature” in the process, if as you say Fletch “the Pope’s comments, while referencing man and sexuality, were in no way directly attacking gays – he made no reference to gay marriage”, what if not gays do you think he was talking about?

    I admit world-wide headlines may have been a little more emphatically, but what else was it about, if not gay marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Nasska,

    Restorative justice is touchy feely crap worthy of mad feminists

    And yet touchy feely Norway has recidivism and offending rates far below punishment heavy USA. Perhaps it is merely a cognitive bias that makes you opposed. It does seem that it would be an evolutionary advantage to have a strong emotional reaction against those who threaten your own survival. But if you do let people out perhaps it’s best to treat them how we expect them to treat others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Scott (1,739 comments) says:

    Weihana, not baloney at all. The whole concept of science comes from the idea that we were created by a rational God who made the universe in a rational manner. That’s why we can discover laws of science because firstly there was a lawgiver.
    There are two cities that formed western civilisation, Athens and Jerusalem. To suggest that our civilisation does not come out of a Christian world view is just denial of reality quite frankly.

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

    For example:

    Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Scott (1,739 comments) says:

    Now if you want to talk baloney you need look no further than your evolutionary assumptions. Thank God it has only been around for a hundred years. There is no way you can base a civilisation that lasts on evolutionary principles. There have been attempts of course, the third reich and the USSR are two that come to mind. And they didn’t end well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Rex Widerstrom (5,330 comments) says:

    nasska says:

    Restorative justice is touchy feely crap

    Tell that to the Jewish community, as noted by DPF today in another post. Tell it to the thousands of victims and their families who’ve been healed by programs such as The Sycamore Tree Project and others like it. There’s much research on it, including a study that included NZ which I’m afraid I don’t have time to precis because I’ve got to go collect someone from the airport.

    Would you deny victims like this woman the healing they deserve, which they reach only by letting go of the anger and vengeance, not holding onto it as McVicar encourages?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    The whole concept of science comes from the idea that we were created by a rational God who made the universe in a rational manner.

    Grow up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. nasska (10,917 comments) says:

    Weihana

    No sale.

    In “touchy feely Norway” crime doesn’t approach the levels it does in NZ or for that matter the USA. It is a largely homogeneous nation & ignoring the recent Moslem infestation doesn’t seem to have groups of people predisposed to serious & violent crime.

    If I was unfortunate enough to be the victim of a crime I would certainly resist any attempts to involve me in any form of restorative garbage. My reasons:

    1) Most people who commit serious crime lack empathy & I would vomit watching someone feign it.

    2) Few would have the means to pay any restitution.

    3) Regardless of what you & “Judith” opine the only sane reason for an offender to take part in restorative justice meetings is to obtain a reduced sentence…..in most cases in NZ the sentence for violent crime is so manifestly inadequate that I would never give anyone the chance to reduce it further.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    What sort of crimes have you been a victim of, nasska?

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

    Sofia:what if not gays do you think he was talking about?

    Its hard to say for sure, but reading the extract that Fletch posted leaves me wondering if the Pope is responding to people like Judith Butler, popular with the post-modern sociology crowd, who argues that gender is something we perform.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    What sort of crimes have you been a victim of, nasska?

    Well there was certainly the legislated theft of higher taxation under Clark and Cullen, mikey. And you got no bloody thanks for it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Were the tax cuts restorative enough for you, or did you want the perpetrators to serve some hard time?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. nasska (10,917 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    With the exceptions ‘bhudson so rightly pointed out I been pretty lucky so far. Had a Quad flogged a few years back & the odd fuel theft but that’s about it. Not so all the others I know & I’ve heard some horror stories & seen the aftermath.

    It is not necessary to experience personally everything that life can throw at you to understand cause & effects.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Azeraph (603 comments) says:

    Weihana (2,739) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 8:03 pm

    Look up the theory of “Motivated reasoning”, you might find it interesting but in no way is it a subtle hint towards anything and if anyone else wants to. I just didn’t want to come across as “Shepherding” “Biased” “Agendist” “Indoctrinator” if i threw a link. It’s best if people make up their own minds.

    I went Eeni-Meeni down the list of posters and landed on you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    or did you want the perpetrators to serve some hard time?

    I am quite happy for Ms Clark to have her role at the UN and for Sir Michael to have his honour. One shouldn’t be overly political about such things (although it would appear that some are.)

    I found the tax rebalancing to be quite neutral really, but I remain very supportive of the change to allow kiwi workers to decide for themselves what to spend their earnings on (including paying down debt) and letting those who choose to spend pay more consumption tax.*

    * And, of course, we recall that those on low incomes and benefits were given subsidies at the time to address the fact that a higher percentage of their incomes is consumed with necessary expenditure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. nasska (10,917 comments) says:

    mikemild

    Do you have some inside info that suggests that Dr Cullen & Dear Leader are prepared to turn themselves in & admit the heinous crimes they perpatrated on at the innocent taxpayer? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    More of your anti-gay propaganda? Most pedophiles are not gay.

    I think you’ll find that there are more male pedophiles than women, and that most of their targets are boys.
    If that does not make them gay then what does it make them?

    In a 1988 study published in the Archives of
    Sexual Behavior, 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual
    or bisexual.

    Aside from support for NAMBLA by the mainstream gay
    community, there is a wealth of evidence that homosexuals are the
    prime force behind the escalating child molestation epidemic. Indeed,
    over the last fifteen years the homosexual community and its academic
    allies have published a large quantity of articles that claim sex with
    children is not harmful to children but, as stated in one homosexual
    journal, “constitute an aspect of gay and lesbian life.”
    28

    Such articles
    have appeared in pro-homosexual academic journals such as The
    Journal of Homosexuality, The Journal of Sex Research, Archives of
    Sexual Behavior, and The International Journal of Medicine and Law.
    The editorial board of the leading pedophile academic journal, Paidika,
    is dominated by prominent homosexual scholars such as San Francisco
    State University professor John DeCecco, who happens to edit the
    Journal of Homosexuality.

    Indeed, the Journal of Homosexuality is the premier academic
    journal of the mainstream homosexual world and yet it published a
    special double issue entitled, Male Intergenerational Intimacy,
    containing dozens of articles portraying sex between men and minor
    boys as loving relationships. One article states that parents should view
    the pedophile who loves their son “not as a rival or competitor, not as a
    theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone
    to be welcomed into their home.”
    29

    Similarly, mainstream gay publications make no effort to hide their
    pro-pedophilia views. For example, BLK, a leading black homosexual
    publication, defended pedophilia with an article entitled, “Must Men
    Who Love Boys Be Guilty of Sexual Misconduct?”
    30

    San Francisco’s
    leading homosexual newspaper, The Sentinel, bluntly editorialized, “The
    love between man and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality.”
    31

    In 1995, the homosexual magazine Guide stated:
    We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few
    voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are
    naturally sexual, that they deserve the right to sexual expression with
    whoever they choose . . . [w]e must listen to our prophets. Instead of
    fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is
    good, including children’s sexuality . . . . We must do it for the
    children’s sake.
    32

    MORE – http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Azeraph (603 comments) says:

    chiz (883) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 8:22 pm

    “who argues that gender is something we perform.”

    Interesting.

    Could you explain further I’ve heard of this somewhere.

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

    Fletch – I see you are still enlightening us all with your non-hatred of homosexuals.

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

    Fletch:If that does not make them gay then what does it make them?

    Try reading the link I posted before:

    Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as “homosexual molestation.” The adjective “homosexual” (or “heterosexual” when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim’s gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator’s sexual orientation.

    The link also debunks the 1988 study you quote and Cameron’s work, quoted in your link.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    Rodders, I’m just speaking to a statement that chiz made.

    Now, how can my cut’n’paste be hateful if it contains quotations and data from gays own periodicals? As well as papers from publications that deal with sexuality. I’m not condemning anyone. If you consider what I pasted to be condemnatory, then that comes from gays own magazine articles.

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

    Azeraph:Could you explain further I’ve heard of this somewhere.

    Not really. The wikipedia article on her, summarizes one of her books:

    The crux of Butler’s argument in Gender Trouble is that the coherence of the categories of sex, gender, and sexuality—the natural-seeming coherence, for example, of masculine gender and heterosexual desire in male bodies—is culturally constructed through the repetition of stylized acts in time. These stylized bodily acts, in their repetition, establish the appearance of an essential, ontological “core” gender. This is the sense in which Butler famously theorizes gender, along with sex and sexuality, as performative. The performance of gender, sex, and sexuality, however, is not a voluntary choice for Butler, who locates the construction of the gendered, sexed, desiring subject within what she calls, borrowing from Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, “regulative discourses.” These, also called “frameworks of intelligibility” or “disciplinary regimes,” decide in advance what possibilities of sex, gender, and sexuality are socially permitted to appear as coherent or “natural.” Regulative discourse includes within it disciplinary techniques which, by coercing subjects to perform specific stylized actions, maintain the appearance in those subjects of the “core” gender, sex and sexuality the discourse itself produces.

    A significant yet sometimes overlooked part of Butler’s argument concerns the role of sex in the construction of “natural” or coherent gender and sexuality. Butler explicitly challenges biological accounts of binary sex, reconceiving the sexed body as itself culturally constructed by regulative discourse. The supposed obviousness of sex as a natural biological fact attests to how deeply its production in discourse is concealed. The sexed body, once established as a “natural” and unquestioned “fact,” is the alibi for constructions of gender and sexuality, unavoidably more cultural in their appearance, which can purport to be the just-as-natural expressions or consequences of a more fundamental sex. On Butler’s account, it is on the basis of the construction of natural binary sex that binary gender and heterosexuality are likewise constructed as natural. In this way, Butler claims that without a critique of sex as produced by discourse, the sex/gender distinction as a feminist strategy for contesting constructions of binary asymmetric gender and compulsory heterosexuality will be ineffective.

    Thus, by showing both terms “gender “and “sex” as socially and culturally constructed, Butler offers a critique of both terms, even as they have been used by feminists. Butler argued that feminism made a mistake in trying to make “women” a discrete, ahistorical group with common characteristics. Butler said this approach reinforces the binary view of gender relations because it allows for two distinct categories: men and women. Butler believes that feminists should not try to define “women” and she also believes that feminists should “focus on providing an account of how power functions and shapes our understandings of womanhood not only in the society at large but also within the feminist movement”. Finally, Butler aims to break the supposed links between sex and gender so that gender and desire can be “flexible, free floating and not caused by other stable factors”. The idea of identity as free and flexible and gender as a performance, not an essence, is one of the foundations of Queer Theory.

    I really can’t figure out what she’s on about, from the summary above, or the few bits of her I’ve tried reading. Its possibly significant that she once won an award for her bad academic prose – see the wikipedia for the sentence in question if you have a strong stomach.

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

    Fletch – I guess it depends what articles you choose to cut and paste. Do you post many that don’t depict homosexuals as perverted?

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

    Fletch:Now, how can my cut’n’paste be hateful if it contains quotations and data from gays own periodicals?

    Because it is selective. It quote from publications and some studies which back up the author’s prejudices, and ignores other publications and studies that contradict the author’s prejudices. The fact that you are willing to post it – again and again and again – without realising this, or even double-checking it speaks volumes about your own prejudices.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Scott (1,125) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 8:05 pm
    Weihana, not baloney at all. The whole concept of science comes from the idea that we were created by a rational God who made the universe in a rational manner. That’s why we can discover laws of science because firstly there was a lawgiver.
    There are two cities that formed western civilisation, Athens and Jerusalem. To suggest that our civilisation does not come out of a Christian world view is just denial of reality quite frankly.

    Lol. You make up a supernatural being, for which you have no empirical evidence (other than your own logical fallacies and circular arguments) and then proceed to tell me about “reality”.

    To address your argument, the concept of God is superfluous to the idea that objective physical laws exist and more importantly civilization has endured millennia of people believing in religion without appreciable scientific advancement, at least compared with what has been discovered in more recent times.

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

    There is no way you can base a civilisation that lasts on evolutionary principles. There have been attempts of course, the third reich and the USSR are two that come to mind. And they didn’t end well.

    No the National Socialist Workers Party (Nazi) & the United Soviet Socialist Republic, were based on socialism, not evolutionary science.

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

    Muslims in the middle ages also did scientific research even though they don’t require Allah, or his actions, to be rational or understandable by human minds.

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

    The whole concept of science comes from the idea that we were created by a rational God …

    I see that the Sunday joke session has begun in earnest :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Nasska,

    No sale.

    In “touchy feely Norway” crime doesn’t approach the levels it does in NZ or for that matter the USA. It is a largely homogeneous nation & ignoring the recent Moslem infestation doesn’t seem to have groups of people predisposed to serious & violent crime.

    Homogenous? is that a nice way of saying it’s the blacks fault? :)

    However, while that argument may or may not have merit, I fail to conceive how it would explain lower recidivism. As you yourself contend, criminals have a certain inherent bad nature about them so that should be true of Norways criminals as much as America’s. While one might argue that homogeneity makes one less likely to be a criminal in the first place, if one already is a criminal why would the homogeneity of society make you less likely to be a recidivist offender.

    I think if you take a look at the atrocious conditions in America’s prisons and what inmates must do merely to survive it is no wonder that they come out unable to function in normal society. Of course the drug war deserves it’s share of the blame and that in particular hits the black community hard and “predisposes” the community to crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Azeraph (183) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 8:31 pm

    Thanks.

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

    Homogenous? is that a nice way of saying it’s the blacks fault?

    Ask yourself:

    Norway distinguishes two kinds of rapes: rape and attack-rape. In rapes, the rapist and the victim know each other beforehand, while an attack-rape is when the two do not know each other before the rape. In Oslo, 100 percent of the attack-rapes are committed by non-Western immigrants with a “view of women” that makes them rape, according to the leading police officer, Hanne Kristin Rohde.

    With 76 rapes during the first 91 days of 2012, the number of rapes in Oslo has increased by an alarming 69 percent compared to the same period last year.

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

    Weihana, this is the sort of thing they hide in European countries, to make it look like there is no problem. This is far from an isolated instance.

    In accordance with §12.1 of its code, the Federal Republic press has put a gag order on this story.

    http://www.presserat.info/index.php?id=87

    “A 16-year-old girl was tormented, beaten and gang-raped in a parking garage in Worms. But that was not enough for her tormenters. They raped her with a bottle and then broke the bottle and jammed it into her, severing her intestine and slicing open her womb. She was found unconscious, severely wounded and unclothed. Only an emergency operation saved her.
    The results: Because of the severe mutilation in the genital area, a permanent ileostomy was performed (creating a permanent, artificial anus). She will never lead a normal life, have a sexual life, have children.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. nasska (10,917 comments) says:

    Wehana

    Re recidivism…I’ve been reading Rex’s links & its true that the rates for offenders who have taken part in restorative justice programmes are lower. The jury will be out on by how much as the data was taken from a very small sample & obviously only those who want to get & stay out of prison will be highly motivated to take part.

    Agree wholeheartedly with you on the incredibly negative effects of the Drug War on prison musters…..especially blacks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Azeraph (603 comments) says:

    chiz (885) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 9:06 pm

    Deconstructionism? So how does mirror neurons fit into the picture? That was a headache, which goes to show my level of intelligence.

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

    I don’t think mirror neurons have anything to do with Butler’s theories if that’s what you’re asking.

    (And lots of very intelligent people also get headaches when trying to figure out Butler is on about).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    But back to McVicar: bitter, deluded old fool or truth-speaking sage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. RRM (9,670 comments) says:

    http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6846855/gay-men-will-marry-your-girlfriends

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Azeraph (603 comments) says:

    chiz (888) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 10:18 pm

    Yeah, The joke was abstract like her prose or lack of it.

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

    OK, I see :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    As for the argument that same sex marriage would lead to increased domestic violence, child abuse and crime.

    Is there any evidence from countries where same sex marriages has been allowed?

    One of the drivers of increased crime is family breakdown, another is income and employment rate disparity connected to ethnic difference (now a factor in Europe derived from immigration). Same sex marriage is not connected to either factor.

    Basically the only way same sex marriage would led to a increased risk of family breakdown is because there were more families as a result of these marriages. But this risk occurs each and every time a family forms.

    It would seem that the attempt to link same sex marriage to negative outcomes is a desperate attempt to rationalise opposition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    As for child abuse in particular, the higher levels are in de facto couple families and re-marriage families – usually where the birth mother has a partner who is not the birth father. The same dynamic occurs in the animal kingdom, but this impluse only occurs when a new breeding couple forms. Homosexuals are not part of this dynamic. All the evidence suggests children raised by birth parents and same sex partners would be the safest from child abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. laworder (278 comments) says:

    For Your Information

    Media Statement re Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill

    (20th January 2013)

    The Sensible Sentencing Trust wishes to clarify that the recent submission regarding the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill was made by Garth McVicar in a personal capacity and does not represent the view of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, or the wide range of views our members will no doubt have on the issue.

    Regards,

    Ruth Money
    Sensible Sentencing Trust.

    http://www.safenz.org.nz/Press/2013mediastatement.htm

    For what its worth, I strongly disagree with Garth on this particular issue.
    Believe it or not, dissension IS permitted within the Trust!!!

    Regards
    Peter Jenkins
    Webmaster for Sensible Sentencing Trust

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. David Garrett (6,786 comments) says:

    As is usually the case, this thread has moved a long way from where it began, viz. Garth’s submission on “marriage equality”. I note with amusement that it only took about three comments for “the dead baby” to be brought up…I have not commented before because I have been away camping with my kids…both conceived out of (heterosexual) wedlock as it happens.

    But for the record, if anyone is still interested, I do not “coach” Garth…I often give my view, or advice on particular points…sometimes he takes it, often he doesn’t. Like my friend Peter Jenkins, I disagree with Garth on a number of issues…we are allowed to do that in the SST – we are not the Labour Party caucus or the Stalinists who run The Standard.

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

    Scott

    You wrote “How dare they – no idea what you are talking about. However I can assure you that I am not committing adultery.”

    Really? If you are unmarried, then in Biblical terms no worries about checking out women – for example, thinking nice legs, nice breasts, whatever.

    My point is, in Biblical terms if a married man looks at a woman not his wife with lust in his heart, he should sever his right hand and remove his right eye. Only when married does this Commandment apply.

    I just wonder at the hypocrisy of straight people who attack gays while refusing to accept their own sexual thoughts and actions have no consequences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. kowtow (7,976 comments) says:

    Truth speaking sage.

    And if only a few couples “marry” what’s the point of redefining this ancient institution?

    It’s homosexual activism,dressed up as equality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Scott (1,739 comments) says:

    How dare they – I think I understand where you are coming from. The point Jesus is making is about lust and the need for our thoughts and our actions to be in alignment. So we need to guard our hearts, what we look at and think about as well as what we actually do. So point taken.
    However that does not mean that gay marriage is right or that we must be perfect before we comment on an issue. If we waited till we were without sin before we commented on this blog then I would suggest we would be very short of contributions!
    If we take the biblical reference as authoritive then homosexuality is a sin, indeed an abomination and will lead to bad consequences, even if we decide to call it marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    French homosexuals demonstrate against same-sex ‘marriage’

    NEW YORK, January 18, 2013, (C-FAM) – Perhaps as many as a million people marched in Paris last Sunday and at French embassies around the world against proposed legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage in France. One of the surprises in the French campaign for traditional marriage is that homosexuals have joined pro-family leaders and activists in the effort.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/french-homosexuals-demonstrate-against-same-sex-marriage

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    hinamanu, I guess that those gays who do not have children do not consider themselves to be raising families. And if they see marital commitment as related to an intent to have children – do they then think older couples who marry should just have a civil union?

    Those who look at the link can follow a link to a study. Actually a link about the study. From there they can follow a link to the actual study. They can then look up the name of the person who did the study and find out stuff like the research has been challenged (the researcher is known for linking their faith to their work) and it was financed by the Witherspoon Institute.

    Mark Regnerus the researcher concerned claims that men who support same sex marriage are porn users. He does not comment about why more women than men support it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (340 comments) says:

    howdarethey – what Bible do you have that suggests the intending adulterer should sever his RIGHT hand or remove his RIGHT eye?

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

    Oh no!! Catholic bishops in France endorse homosexual unions:

    [...]the French Bishops’ document states that “the Catholic Church calls the faithful to live a [homosexual] relationship in chastity, but it recognizes, beyond its sexual aspect, the value of solidarity, of attention and of concern for the other that can arise in a durable affective relationship. The Church intends to be welcoming regarding homosexual persons and will continue to make its contribution to the struggle against every form of homophobia and discrimination.”

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

    Newsflash. Had a look at this fake “French anti-marriage equality “gay”” website, Homovox. It seems to consist primarily of celibate Catholics with gay desires who don’t put it into practise, or fundamentalist ‘exgays.’ So much for authentic “lesbians and gays” opposing marriage equality…

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

    And as for the gays-are-pedos argument, read this, please…

    http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

    http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html (the author is a member of the centre-right US Independent Gay Forum).

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

    And newsflash two- pedos sexually abuse children regardless of gender and are usually married straight men. Remember Graham Capill? And not all the victims of Catholic clergy pedophilia are male, either.

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

    Good to see SST distancing itself from McVicar’s outburst, too.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.