A callous post
February 2nd, 2013 at 10:06 am by David FarrarJohn Stringer at CoNZervative blogs:
In a report on the Select Committee hearing the Redefinition of Marriage Bill -that the media continue to misrepresent as the “Marriage Equality Bill” (a partisan epithet – latest distortion The Press, p. 2 Jan 31)- we are expected to believe that teenage gay people are committing suicide because they cannot marry each other. That really stretches credulity. Even a lawyer maintains this, citing a study.
“The denial of equal rights lies in the background here, as parents are encouraged to see non-heterosexual as properly excluded from the normal institutions of society.” What utter manipulative rubbish.
This tired old untruth is trotted out all the time, as a justification for giving gay people everything they want, hero parades, special support groups. Basically it says, “if we don’t get what we want, we’ll kill ourselves,” or “gays are so persecuted, they are considering suicide.” That is disingenuous, distortionary and demeaning to the gay community.
The only thing disingenuous and distortionary is John’s blog post. It’s appalling. Absolutely no one has has said gays will go out and kill themselves if they don’t get gay marriage passed.
What people have said is that gay teenagers have a high suicide and attempted suicide rate, and any move which makes them not feel that they are “wrong” could help reduce that rate.
If people are so insecure about being different, or about their sexuality, to the point of ending their lives, they have a mental health issue, and need support and care, not “marriage” being redefined. If the claim were true, then bisexuals and people in multiple partner relationships would also be dropping like flies. New Zealanders also have a high suicide rate; should we all get Australian citizenship?
The lack of empathy in this paragraph is truly appalling, and worse from someone I normally have a lot of time and respect for.
To just state that it is just a mental health issue, if you are a suicidal gay youth suggests no idea at all of what it must be like to be young and gay. Most of us can only imagine what it is like, but only a small amount of empathy is needed to understand how agonising it must be to be say 15 or 16 and realising you are different from your mates. You like guys instead of girls. How do you tell your parents? How do you tell your mates? Should you tell them? Will they dump you as a mate because they’ll think you fancy them? Will you get called a faggot? Will you be beaten up? Will you have a happy life? Will you ever have kids? Will your parents disown you? Of course you’re going to be fucking insecure if you are a gay youth.
I recall from when I was at school, the terrible teasing effeminate kids got about possibly being gay. Rumours (almost certainly untrue) that x and y had been caught doing something weant around the school. They were called names. They were asked outright if they liked cock. I think back and wonder how fortunate it was there were not some suicides. Now thankfully many kids today are more enlightened (mainly due to legal and societal changes of the last 20 years) and are more accepting. But hell, anyone who thinks because you are insecure over being a gay teenager you are suffering from a mental health issue – well words fail me.
And yes I for one absolutely think that a law which allow gay couples to marry, will have a beneficial effect on young gays. It is a powerful sign of acceptance, and of saying that even though you are different, you may be able to one day also marry the person you fall in love with.
Of course no one commits suicide solely because they can not marry. But no one has suggested that. All the suicide experts know that suicide decisions have many factors. But acceptance is a factor.
Treat us, the public, with respect and don’t insult our intelligence with representations like this. What utter nonsense. Young Christians are hassled, mocked, derided and picked on constantly in schools, the media, on TV, for their faith. Only this week Green MP Keith Hague said teenage Christian Grace Carroll was “outrageous” and “offensive” because she mentioned “virtue.” Black really has become White. Christian teenagers don’t commit suicide. They soldier bravely on, shouldering the mockery and having the courage of their convictions, often to death in overseas countries. I’m sure many teenage gay people do too.
First of all people choose to follow a faith. Does John think, as Colin Craig does, that people choose to be gay? And is he really saying that is it harder being a teenage Christian than a teenage gay?
And finally John not content with saying that any insecure depressed gay youth just has mental health issues, also claims:
There’s no doubt that many gay teens are harassed and bullied (a study published in the January 2010 issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health suggested gay and lesbian teens get bullied two to three times more than their heterosexual peers), and some of them may take their lives because of it. But there’s little evidence that gay teens have a dramatically higher rate of suicide than heterosexual teens.
Really? There is no definitive prevalence rate for gays and lesbians so no definitive suicide rate, but over a hundred studies have found higher rates of suicide attempts. Look at this or this or this list of 100 or so studies.
February 2nd, 2013 at 10:11 am
Let’s just compare the number of gays in parliament, and the number of gays cast on TV shows, versus fundamentalist Christians. The last number is 0, or if greater than 0, only their to be made fun off. That’s probably enough said about discrimination and acceptance.
If a member in parliament starts citing Nero as an example I think people should start to feel uneasy.
February 2nd, 2013 at 10:21 am
Why restrict a comparison to fundamental Christans, Berend? Why not compare how many christians are there in parliament? Because all of a sudden the numbers don’t work for you?
Do you compare the number of gingas and lefties in parlaiment vs christians?
Why is gays vs christians in parliament relevant?
And never mind that being a christian is a choice.
February 2nd, 2013 at 10:40 am
Stringer states:
How fortunate, then, that Young Christians have available to them extended support networks of like-minded believers, extending to providing educational institutions explicitly founded on the tenants of that faith, which the State empowers to join them in legally-recognised life-unions whilst at the same time exempting them from the requirement to pay tax on the funds they raise to pay for their activities.
Not to mention that the founder of their faith explicitly stated that “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved” (Matthew 10:22); and “Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake” (Luke 6:22). Which always makes me wonder when Christians complain about being persecuted/discriminated against … didn’t you read the instruction manual?
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 10:45 am
“Gays” are not victims, they do not require special treatment nor handling with kid gloves.
I am not going to buy into this left wing victimology – I actually think its rich that people born into good homes and given every advantage in life are claiming a victim status the same as or even greater than someone born into extreme poverty in the Southern States of the USA in the 1920s or 30s with a black skin.
In fact that is offensive and should be the thing that engenders outrage – though in me it just engenders scorn
February 2nd, 2013 at 10:56 am
Really? There is no definitive prevalence rate for gays and lesbians so no definitive suicide rate, but over a hundred studies have found higher rates of suicide attempts. Look at this or this or this list of 100 or so studies.
DPF, yes really.
If you’d read further along in the link John posted to Live Science, you would have found that many so-called “studies” on gay suicide have a huge fudge factor.
The truth is, no one really knows the rates of gay suicide, but it’s certainly not 30% of all youth suicides.
February 2nd, 2013 at 10:59 am
Utter BS.
February 2nd, 2013 at 11:07 am
ha ha again,. he farrar thinks his political master can take this electoral 2014 without anyone else.
no Conservative or NZ First
it can not happen farrar, take up your words now,
[DPF: Off topic 20 demerits]
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 11:16 am
pq – capable of commenting on-topic?
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 11:17 am
ps, will passing gay marriage laws bring the suicide rate by gays down? Not likely. As an example, Canada has had legalised gay marriage since 2005. Is suicide still a problem for gays there? Yes.
Here’s a quote from gay magazine Xtra in Canada, in a column by Julia Garro, dated Tuesday, February 17, 2009.
If there is a higher suicide rate among gays, it’s not because of the lack of gay marriage; nor, I would say, a lack of acceptance. Gays are more accepted now than at any time in history because of the prevalence of gays in movies, tv shows, presenters etc (thanks to liberal Hollywood).
Again, from their own literature, here’s part of a submission by gays to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, outlining some of their problems –
As I’ve said before, do we really want to promote this kind of lifestyle to others (especially children) as being normal?
And to enshrine these relationships in law? To what end? Marriage is not a prize or a merit badge that you get as the conclusion of a relationship to say you’ve made it (although that’s what some seem to think of it as); it’s the beginning of something else – the start of a family; the rearing of children: THAT is why the Govt’s of the past took an interest in it, because they had an interest in supporting this building block of society; not some notion that marriage is there to affirm yours or my romance.
February 2nd, 2013 at 11:19 am
No David.
What is appalling is your continued bias and support of the Redeifintion of Marriage bill – John Stringer is right on the button.
February 2nd, 2013 at 11:20 am
Rodders I wish, hard nights often,but Bangkok Wan she said I fuck you hard now, what can I do
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 11:22 am
pq – time you had a cuppa and a lie down.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 11:27 am
ok
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 11:43 am
“And is he really saying that is it harder being a teenage Christian than a teenage gay?”
Maybe it is.
The bigotry against young Christians, or Christians of any age is terrible, and homosexuals have said many nasty thing about Christians and we’ve never heard a peep from you Mr. Farrar.
Even on this site, some of the things said to Lucia Maria have been appalling and not a demerit issued.
Where is your criticism of the stacked Committee on the redefinition of marriage. Do you think this dishonest charade, this cheap fraud being played upon the people of NZ should be applauded? Or is deceit OK as long as it ties in with an objective you support?
February 2nd, 2013 at 11:44 am
Same-sex “marriage” and adoption must always be strongly opposed.
The promotion of homosexuality as a way of life comes from the left of politics. When the fourth Labour government repealed the laws that outlawed buggery in the mid 1980s, many people at the time were opposed to such a law change. Sodomy is no less a dirty and unhealthy practice now than it was then, despite the propaganda efforts by the left-driven homosexual lobby to promote it as part of as a healthy lifestyle choice.
There is some behaviour that should be kept illegal in order that it is not overtly encouraged. Buggery is an example of such behaviour.
One of the arguments being promoted in favour of homosexual “marriage” is that traditional marriage is already a crumbling institution, so it is futile to try to save it from further demise.
The institution of marriage has been in decline for some time, with the introduction of the DPB, no-fault divorce and the uncertainty in the property laws associated with de-facto relationships. Politicians, particularly those on the left, have contributed in no small way to the decline by meddling with the laws and conditions related to traditional marriage.
The campaign to legitimize homosexual “marriage” by left wing politicians is an example of further meddling. If people wish to indulge in aberrant behaviour, there is not much that can be done to stop them, but must such behaviour be state sanctioned?
It is not clear to what extent any of this benefits homosexuals. Not all homosexuals believe that same-sex “marriage” is a good idea. Homosexual MP Chris Findlayson voted against it. Clearly this same-sex “marriage” campaign is being driven by more than just homosexuals.
Homosexuals appear to make up less than 2 percent of the general population. However, aided and abetted by the left, they have now become a political force to be reckoned with.
If the homosexual lobby get their way with their version of “marriage”, where to next? Will they go off and live happily ever after and shut up about their so-called “rights”?
That seems unlikely. The homosexual lobby are perpetual complainers.
Most churches have said that they will refuse to officiate in any “marriage” ceremony involving two people of the same sex. For now, the politicians are saying quite loudly that churches will be exempt from endorsing such unions under the proposed law. However, nobody can give an assurance that this will not change in the future. The left never sleeps. Their record of attacking time tested traditional institutions is well documented. The left-wing homosexual lobby will continue to grumble about discrimination, and will campaign for the kind of law that will make any and all discrimination against homosexuals illegal. Watch this space.
Some years ago there was a cult commune set up in NZ called Centrepoint. The leader, Bert Potter, was eventually jailed for child sexual abuse along with some of his followers.
Most child sex abusers hang their heads in shame in at least a token gesture of remorse when they are up before the beak on charges of child sex offending, but not Bert Potter. He was defiant. He claimed that sexually interfering with children was beneficial to them and in their best interests. Many of Potter’s followers agreed with this. Some parents on his commune even permitted their children to be sexually molested by Potter and some of the other adults there.
It is not clear what percentage of the population have an unhealthy fondness for children. There would be very few who would openly admit to such a proclivity. This means that other than perhaps a few rare exceptions, the only ones that who been identified are those that have been arrested and charged. The majority of men who cannot get sex are not rapists, so it is reasonable to assume that most of those who are sexually attracted to children have not offended either.
The left would waste no time in encouraging child abuse perverts to “come out” if they believed that it would be to their political advantage. The left have no morals or conscience. Leftist agenda comes first, last and everything in between. The silence and cavalier attitude from the left-dominated educational establishment as a response to warnings from the police about the serial child sex abuse offender James Parker was very telling. This should not surprise anyone who has looked further than the mainstream media at what really motivates the left, of course.
The kiddy-fiddlers will be watching the progress of this homosexual “marriage” legislation with great interest. There would not be many of these perverts who are anti same-sex “marriage”. It certainly does nothing to harm their own agenda. It should not be forgotten that the homosexual lobby are owe a debt of gratitude to those pedophiles who stood beside them in their campaign for legitimacy. If homosexual “marriage” legislation is passed, two pedophiles could get “married” and therefore be eligible to adopt children.
It is also not inconceivable that some time in the future, some pedophile who is young, charming, charismatic (perhaps someone like James Parker), and who holds a degree in psychology or sociology (degrees that are mostly run and attended by leftists), could promote Bert Potter’s ideals to a more widespread audience. Such a person could quite possibly gain respect as an authority on the subject by parading his university credentials before an increasingly dumbed down public. If such a campaign ever gains any traction, one can only hope that closet pedophiles are far fewer in number than homosexuals.
The media scrum surrounding the release from prison of Stewart Murray Wilson is also worthy of comment in that it was arguably more newsworthy than the event itself. Wilson is not the only pedophile to have been released from jail after serving a lengthy sentence. However none have inspired the sort of lurid voyeurism displayed by the media the way Wilson has. What is it about this pathetic, dirty old man that inspires such fear and media fascination? Could it be because his charge sheet includes a conviction for bestiality?
Perhaps that will be next.
Why stop at homosexual “marriage”?
What goes on between a man and his hamster in the privacy of their own home is none of anyone else’s business.
That is the test, isn’t it?
Bill.
February 2nd, 2013 at 12:10 pm
No, evidence-based, reputable multiple scientific studies are the real test as to the verifiability or rebuttal of a particular proposition. Merely cherry picking countervailing studies tells us nothing meaningful.
However, in Stringer’s case, that’s not really the point. Like most religious social conservatives, he seems to be an utter scientific illiterate. Even conservative Christians admit that they are anti-science, as this piece on the conservative Catholic website Mercatornet indicates:
In a recent book, the Magicians Nephew, a screed of pieces that lionise overrated fundamentalist Anglican children’s author C.S.Lewis, one apologist for scientophobia complains that the following things have turned fundamentalists away from scientific literacy and evidence-based rigour and standards of proof:
“genetic engineering, eugenics, the misuse of science to debunk religion and traditional ethics, the misuse of science to curtail personal freedom, reductionist views of personal responsibility, the education of our children, and the debate over unguided Darwinian evolution and intelligent design.”
Oh, I see. Note the “misuse” of science to *debunk* religion and traditional ethics comment. If they are not verifiable through evidence-based scientific evaluation, then religious nostrums are just that-mythology, and traditional “ethics”
are not provided with legitimacy, particularly if they cause harm against others.
” Science is, if anything, still used as a trump card in public policy debates.” Oh, boo hoo. See my comments above. Newsflash- then why the hell should unsubstantiated religious prejudice and nostrums? We don’t live in a fundamentalist theocracy, and this isn’t medieval Europe and the time of De heretico carborandum, despite how much some would obviously like it to be.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/exposing_scientism
To which I provide the following excellent rebuttal, from the latest issue of the Skeptical Inquirer:
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/indignation_is_not_righteous/
February 2nd, 2013 at 12:10 pm
The notion of high rates of homosexual teen suicide was born out of a study conducted by a San Francisco social worker by the name of Paul Gibson. His study “Gay Male & Lesbian Youth Suicide” was incorporated into a 1989 report published by the US Dept Of Health & Human Services. The study has been routinely criticized for it’s methodological weakness – it was never subjected to rigorous peer reviews which is a requirement for any publication in a scientific journal. For example, he didn’t properly distinguish between suicide attempts and actual suicides. He also took statistics from homosexual sources then applied them to the general population by using long discredited Kinsey figures. (The 10% are gay myth).
A 1994 panel convened by t CDC (Centre For Disease Control), the APA (American Psychological Association) and the American Association of Suicidology made the following findings:
One study published in in the medical journal “Pediatrics” in 1991 examined 137 youths who self-described as gay. The study concluded that bisexuality or homosexuality per se was not associated with suicidal acts. They found that fewer than one in ten homosexual youths who had attempted suicide did so because of their homosexuality.
These myths of high homosexual suicide rates keep getting repeated because they serve the overall cause of the militant homosexual lobby: to get mainstream acceptance of homosexuality. Indeed, by using skewed statistics, homosexual activists are seeking to win over societal approval. This strategy was outlined in the influential homosexual publication After The Ball, by Marshall Kirk & Hunter Madsen. In the book the authors urge homosexuals to cast themselves as victims and “invite straights to be their protectors” This strategy is obviously working.
February 2nd, 2013 at 12:17 pm
Chadonnay, it might surprise you to learn that many scientific discoveries were by religious people, especially the Jesuit priests. The science vs religion argument is largely made up by liberals.
For more info, read How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
February 2nd, 2013 at 12:17 pm
The homosexual lobby are perpetual complainers.
Which lobby is it that lacks a skerrick of self awareness or, for that matter, an appreciation of irony?
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 12:17 pm
. . . unless they are homosexuals: then in that case, their sexual choices should be taught in the public schools, celebrated in the media, have the right to cavort around in Stetson hats and speedos on the ratepayer’s dime or warrant preferential treatment in the workplace. And of course, all this should be backed with the full force of legislation to criminalize your thoughts if you dare have a difference of opinion with these nihilistic sexual militants.
February 2nd, 2013 at 12:18 pm
Gosh, you do like sitting on both sides of the fence eh Fletch? When it suits one argument you’re all “the studies have a fudge factor” and then when it suits a different argument you’re all “gays have a suicide problem, do we want to promote their lifestyle?”. You’ll adopt any premise as long as it supports an argument that is anti-gay. Which is characteristic of you given the idiotic shite you post about Obama. Doesn’t matter how stupid it is, if it’s anti-Obama then it resonates with you.
February 2nd, 2013 at 12:22 pm
Fletch, a well-considered and researched post. Re the book you cite at the end, here is another in same vein (impact of Christianity on learning and science) also by a Thomas.
“How the Irish Saved Civilization (Hinges of History),” Thomas Cahill. Excellent read.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 12:25 pm
Which is not the same thing as saying that they made such discoveries because they were religious. Indeed surveys of the scientific community show that it is far less religious than society in general. Superstition has a tendency to fall over in the face of actual knowledge.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 12:26 pm
Weihana, what Fletch is saying is that the maths in the “gay suicide” studies is dubious and has failed under peer review (methodology, definitions, size of sample, especially re Kinsey, etc); but that even amongst gay academics, there is a problem but it is recognised as multifarious, not just related to “being gay” (the central point).
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 12:26 pm
Weihana, I am just reporting on what has been said, particularly from the mouths of gays themselves.
You will notice I also said –
If there is a higher suicide rate among gays…
I didn’t say there was or there wasn’t. Really no one knows.
It is not only the suicide problem that there may or may not be, it is the high incidence of substance abuse, disease, lowered lifespan, depression, etc that gives concern.
Are you OK with a lifestyle characterised by these problems being promoted to children and practically endorsed by the State?
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 12:37 pm
and what iMP said…
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 12:38 pm
Suicide rates of gays in Sydney, Melbourne, London and NZ are the same as in San Francisco – the most ‘gay friendly’ place on earth. Health studies by US Gay Health have reported that!
In other words -gays kill themselves- not society!
The assualt and/or murder rates of gays[for being gay] in NZ are non-existant – unless the media is not allowed to report on them – and the courts don’t act on them!
Gay teenagers -just like older gays- are nothing more than confused hetrosexuals!
February 2nd, 2013 at 12:38 pm
Fletch,
You’re trying to have it both ways. The fact that you say “if” doesn’t stop you from using that premise as a basis for questioning “Do we really want to promote this lifestyle”. You’re constructing a position such that if gay suicide is a problem then it goes to show it’s not something that should be promoted, and if it’s not a problem then gays should quit complaining.
I reject your implied premise that these problems are an inherent characteristic of being homosexual.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 12:39 pm
Sorry, I still prefer evidence-based cumulative scientific proof to the ravings of a militant fundamentalist political wannabe.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 12:44 pm
I reject your implied premise that these problems are an inherent characteristic of being homosexual.
Weihana, it’s not my premise. It came from a submission by gays themselves to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. You can follow the link yourself. As such, it is their premise that these are problems around the homosexual lifestyle – so much so that they made a submission to the Govt.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 12:50 pm
It’s unthinkable for some but the evidence suggests a link between *homosexuality* and suicide. Insisting the problem is one of lack of acceptance and bullying alone doesn’t change the underlying reality at work. Hoping for universal acceptance was always deluded thinking, just as is hoping bullying based on physical appearance will end.
One could be a bit cynical and say that ‘gays’ demanding acceptance is evidence on their own self-loathing. As unthinkable and offensive as that is to some, I think it’s closer to the truth, in some cases at least.
February 2nd, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Quoting statistics is not the same thing as saying that it is an inherent part of being homosexual any more than if Blacks complained about the disproportionate number of black prisoners would imply that they believe that being a criminal is an inherent part of being black.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 12:55 pm
People choose whom they have sex with, therefore homosexuality is a choice.
[DPF: Good God. It is like arguing with a five year old. Do you not know the difference between sex and sexual orientation?]
February 2nd, 2013 at 12:56 pm
Most Catholic Priests who ‘abuse’ are NOT pedophiles – as pedopillia is an act that involves ‘prepubicent children’.
By far the largest amount of so-called ‘child sex’ acts by priests involved ‘teenage’ boys, which as we know is ‘gay sex attraction’ of ‘adolescent’ males! AMBLA says so to!
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 1:06 pm
“….People choose whom they have sex with, therefore homosexuality is a choice…”
Exactly – as some women too, sometimes, allow themselves to be sodomised!
But gay males ONLY allow themselves perverted sex acts.
Gays are either liars or confused hetrosexuals as they have the same fertility rates as the general population – but they then deny themselves of the NATURAL act of procreation – natural order sex.
Gays place the ACTS of sexual perversion above their true sexuality – hetrosexuality.
Gaydom is just another religion.
February 2nd, 2013 at 1:22 pm
Physically healthy people who commit suicide are mentally sick. No two ways about it. To pretend that teenage gays are somehow forced into this is bullshit, just as it’s bullshit to suggest that changing the marriage laws will alter this.
A healthy person’s response to being bullied is not suicide.
Now if gays teens are over-represented in the suicide statistics then it might be the case that whatever is “wrong” with the teen that causes then to top themselves is also causing them to believe that they are gay. I find it preposterous to have young teens “outing themselves” and declaring themselves gay. How on earth can young teens know anything much at all about their sexuality. It’s common knowledge that many boys have crushes on other boys in early teenage years, but they turn out to be normal heterosexuals when they are 18
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 1:24 pm
After the way homosexuals behaved in the so called “Hero” parades I have found it very hard to muster any sympathy for their cause. If they are mentally (or physically) inhibited by their homosexuality, it sure as hell did not show up then.
February 2nd, 2013 at 1:28 pm
“….Everyone has suffered from the no-holds-barred approach to sexuality which was unleashed in the counter-culture of the late 60s.
Vote:As Mark Steyn put it in After America: “The wreckage is impressive. The Sexual Revolution was well-named: it was a revolt not just against sexual norms but against the institutions and values they supported; it was part of an assault against any alternatives to government, civic or moral.
Utopianism, writes the philosopher Roger Scruton, is ‘not in the business of perfecting the world’ but only of demolishing it: ‘The ideal is constructed in order to destroy the actual.’ Who needs families, or marriage, or morality? Who needs nations, especially nations with borders? We’ll take a jackhammer to the foundations of functioning society and proclaim paradise in the ruins….”
February 2nd, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Another dreary post reading all about the subject of human relations as the self rightous pontificate and decide for others instead of allowing others to decide for themselves.
Classic hypocrisy of the God botherer’s. Don’t do as I do do as I say.
Worse we have a few who think people should be able to decide things for themselves BUT then proceed to deny them that right.
Just bugger off out of other peoples lives and allow those same people to make their own decisions.
Thanks and you can keep your twisted decisions to yourself becuase as long as they make those decisions without causing harm to another person then neither you nor I have got an issue that’s any of our business.
Simple enough policy really.
February 2nd, 2013 at 1:50 pm
Redbaiter#
And Farrar is telling US that we are callous?
“THIS BILL FOR GAY MARRIAGE IS PURE SELFISHNESS. THE LAW BELONGS TO PROTECTION OF THE WEAK, NOT TO PANDER TO THOSE WHO ARE STRONGEST. Mothers and fathers exist for children, not the other way around.”
“The orphan – He dreams of his future parents. He imagines them. The desire comes from the depths of his being, this desire for a mother and a father: For an orphan, there must be a father and a mother………….The difference here is between ‘needing’ and ‘wanting.’ The orphan needs a mom and a dad. The gay couple ‘wants’ a child. Between ‘needing’ and ‘wanting,’ I leave it to you to choose.”
“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……… he explained…… gay marriage would be ‘institutionalizing a situation that had scarred me considerably.
February 2nd, 2013 at 2:03 pm
DENYING CHILDREN THE RIGHT TO A MOTHER AND A FATHER IS NOT EQUALITY!
IT IS NOT ‘PARENTING’ EITHER!
Gays are soooooooooo delusional……no wonder suicide figures prominantly!
February 2nd, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Red and talking of the so called “hero ” parades that reminds me of how the MSM self censor to present only what they consider to be the presentable side of such parades where the excesses are deliberately censored .
And they pretend to be fair and balanced . They are performing an important function though………..advancing a “progressive agenda”.Important to the left.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 2:11 pm
“…..as long as they make those decisions without causing harm to another person then neither you nor I have got an issue that’s any of our business….”
Viking2 is another that admits that gays shouldn’t have kids in their custody!
Farrar is now out on his own when it comes to being CALLOUS!
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 2:11 pm
I find it hard to have much sympathy for homosexuals when I know the sick view Keven Hague has about not legally requiring someone who knows they are HIV+ to inform their sexual partners.
If a married person passes on HIV to their partner there should be libel for a severe penalty.
Why should I feel sorry for homosexuals when many of the militants oppose thing like HIV being a notifiable disease?
Why should I feel sorry for homosexuals when many of the militants want my grandchildren indoctrinated as schools without parents knowledge or consent?
February 2nd, 2013 at 2:16 pm
What people have said is that gay teenagers have a high suicide and attempted suicide rate, and any move which makes them not feel that they are “wrong” could help reduce that rate.
People do think that. IMO the politically correct educational climate sadly anchored into today’s schools surely takes care of a lot of that issue, these days. As one young gay said the other day, it’s one’s parents who are often the largest factor. It’s a sad thing that people are so hopeless at analysing human behaviour that they somehow hallucinate that a gay child coming out would possibly consider gay marriage was an example of “discwimination” by themselves. Of course they wouldn’t. Why would a 12-13-14-15-16-17 y o child link anything to do with their coming out, with “marriage?” That’s just mental. I mean the only way a child could possibly come to that conclusion and feel sad about yet more “discwimination” (which doesn’t exist), is if someone told them there was. “Look over there Timmy, that’s discwimination, it’s a gweat big meany.”
And that’s what seems to be happening. However it’s bullshit, in exactly the same way that some to most of the hysterical reactions to “anti-semitism” are bullshit, made up fabrications of “discwimination” exploited because they represent a fertile social engineering opportunity.
BTW, of course I get the tragedy of it, and nothing I say above affects my empathy with that. My point is, if people stopped pretending the use of a word is real discrimination, no-one would suffer, for it isn’t, it never has been, isn’t now, and won’t be discriminatory in the future. Of course gays are telling us it’s discrimination, but they would, wouldn’t they. This doesn’t mean it actually exists.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 2:16 pm
“Even on this site, some of the things said to Lucia Maria have been appalling”
She deserved every thing that came her way. Remember this is the person (she sure as hell ain’t no lady) who thinks that couples who have a child via IVF are evil. The female who thinks that condoms are evil, denies that the catholic church aided Nazi’s after the end of WW2 and the person who is an apologist for pedophilic priests.
Nah, deserves all she gets and more.
February 2nd, 2013 at 2:30 pm
big biggot#
“….Lucia Maria…….She deserved every thing that came her way….the person who is an apologist for pedophilic priests….”
Why is it that you atheists NEVER talk about ‘same sex attraction’ when it comes to priests and ‘teenage’ boys who had sexual encounters with priests?
‘Pedophillia’ is to do with prepubicent children – while ‘teenage boys’ are the majority of cases that went to court!
It is also said to the courts, police and media by the teenage boys that “I went on to become gay”.
So much for gays being ‘born that way’ – the NZ Courts have already ACCEPTED that they arn’t!
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 2:33 pm
Homosexuals do not procreate – they recruit!
February 2nd, 2013 at 3:10 pm
Oh – DPF – please. – for crying out loud this is getting very boring.
Gays make themselves victims.
When I hear the MP who is pushing this bill wail on on TV and radio about discrimination and ‘rights’ etc it makes me want to throw up. She goes on the other day about gays in schools for christ sake – why doesnt she put some of her efforts into her ethnic group and get a few more of them to worry about getting an education and forget this gender crap.
While fewer and fewer heterosexual couples arent getting married, the gays are wanting to get married. Whats up with them? they are completely out of step with whats happening in the rest of society.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 3:54 pm
“Most Catholic Priests who ‘abuse’ are NOT pedophiles – as pedopillia is an act that involves ‘prepubicent children’. By far the largest amount of so-called ‘child sex’ acts by priests involved ‘teenage’ boys”
Brilliant.
The crazies are out in force today but that ‘defence’ of priests is sublime.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Glad to see so many posts by KBs own trany
Vote:Harry It The cross non de plume poster.
As our own Trany do you like it when people tease you about being a male using a girly name because as a male you were not recognized.
February 2nd, 2013 at 4:01 pm
wart dumbney says ,looking into the mirror,”the crazies are out in force today”.
Speak for yerself .
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 4:04 pm
Someone’s having a good cry…must attack all opposition to the sodomite agenda, in spite of the reasonable post.
Perversion is always difficult to justify…keep pissing into the wind!
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 4:08 pm
The New Mental Disorder: Supporting the Government’s Celebration of Dying Gays!
The law historically has done one of three things: it has prohibited something, permitted something, or promoted something. And we often see a certain behaviour or activity go through these three stages. Sometimes they can go from being promoted or permitted to being prohibited, as with cigarette smoking.
With smoking, governments intervened heavily and were quite happy to step on individual liberties in the name of protecting the health and safety of its citizens. Given that smoking not only harms the smoker but can harm others, as in passive smoking, the state took often draconian steps to reduce the risk and save lives.
Homosexuality is of course an equally destructive lifestyle, which results in very real harm, and even in premature death. But instead of seeking to deter this dangerous and high-risk lifestyle, along with it’s associated health care costs, governments now are actively promoting it and celebrating it.
The double standards here are mind boggling. The power of the law to change opinions and behaviour is well known. We rightly speak about the normative effect of the law. When an action is given legally acceptable status, the state is sending out strong social signals that such activities are good and to be embraced.
So when governments promote and encourage homosexual behaviour, they are urging their citizens to accept and celebrate this unhealthy lifestyle. Soon almost everyone is getting in on the act, pushing the radical homosexual agenda, and mercilessly seeking to crush any remaining opposition to it.
Some NZ MP’s believe that being gay is better for your health than eating a couple of Big Macs each week or drinking 4 beers a day!
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 4:11 pm
Viking2 points out:
Ah, but free market principles should apply only when a lack of application would mean those same people pay more taxes.
When issues of morality arise, in which there is no cost to intervention – no fiscal cost, anyway – then the cries for the state to regulate quickly reach a clamour.
Of course that by no means characterises all the opponents of gay marriage but it does several of them, and the only thing more astounding than their hypocrisy is their lack of awareness of its existence.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 4:26 pm
Harriet,
Of course, using your smoking analogy, the state would be equally justified in banning religion to eradicate the bile and hatred it engenders.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 4:50 pm
And the poor old kleptomaniacs, have a horrific suicide rate. You pity them, poor things. I remember at school how they got persecuted and physically hit with a stick by Masters for nicking the odd pencil. They knew they were different, but they had no support. Following their genetic orientation they would subconsciously help themselves to other students lunches and as a result suffer the ignomy of collective abuse. Later they would end up in prison for merely following their tendencies, victims of total social exclusion because of their DNA. We must legislate to re-include this forgotten minority and stop them killing themselves. What about redefining the definition of private property to allow for a “tithe” to this neglected caste. What about starting support groups, give them a Klepto parade through central Auckland -masked men in converted cars- and maybe even a “wing” in the Labour party.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 4:56 pm
Andrei shakes his head in belwilderment
This is not a matter of morality Rex and nor are those with a conservative viewpoint on this matter asking the “state to regulate”
Au contraire it is those who want to change the fundamental and until now universally accepted understanding of marriage who are asking “state to regulate“.
See despite the rhetoric “gays” can in fact marry and are not denied and never have been but if they wish to marry they have to do so within the existing boundaries (which exist for reasons to do with the public good, particularly the protection of the young and vunerable).
But this is way too complicated for those of small brain to grasp I fear and they will continue to allow themselves to be manipulated by Oprah style emotionalism and the irrationality of the stirred up mob mind
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 4:59 pm
How’s this then watty?
It is absolutely outrageous that every packet of cigarettes carries a health warning: “SMOKING CAN KILL YOU.”
When will smokers demand from the Advertising Standards Agencies that this statement be banned. Clearly this is incitement to fagophobia, causing yet more smokers to die in their thousands, because not enough funding is being made to teach them how to smoke without any consequences. We see thousands of these poor victims of prejudice, stigma, discrimination and lack of inclusion, being driven out of their office buildings, work places, onto the streets and into dangerous places like doorways and back alleys, to puff on their fags.
It is here where they develop internalised fagophobia caused directly through society’s lack of acceptance and unconditional love. The more anxious they become; the more they smoke without taking due precautions. It’s a sight to melt the heart of the most hardened fagophobe.
We must get all major companies and organs of civilisation, such as the government, Home Office, Police, banks, Armed Forces, Airways, Health Services, unions, Department of Education to support a fagopride parade, where smokers can march, strut, puff, cough, belch and wheeze, dressed in their uniforms, through our cities, with rainbow smoke billowing out of every available orifice. Only then will society accept smokers as we readily accept the LGBTs.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 5:06 pm
“…..as long as they make those decisions without causing harm to another person then neither you nor I have got an issue that’s any of our business….”
Viking2 is another that admits that gays shouldn’t have kids in their custody!
Farrar is now out on his own when it comes to being CALLOUS!
———————————————-
HARRIET. YOU STINKING TROLL. DON’T BOTHER TO TRY TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I AM CAPABLE OF SPEAKING UP FOR MY OWN OPINION. ONE OF THE POINTS I WAS MAKING.
Youy mind yopur own business. That you are a bigot isn’t my issue its yours.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 5:09 pm
Stealing word for word from Muehlenberg’s hate site and passing it off as your own, classy.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 5:21 pm
Okay gay haters
Vote:If you get your fucking beaks out of other people’s relationships you’ll be a tripeload ‘appier. And yo’all are confusing being gay with the socialist agenda.
The social pressure to conform is a powerful beast. Yes it doesn’t just kill gay kids but if the suicide rate can be impacted by a more normalized view of gay relationships then that is positive.
Trouble with Christianity is that it’s just a collective like anything else. Fantastic if it helps you to live well. Or helps you in a collective endeavour for more widespread acceptance of your rights like, oh, I don’t know, gay rights or part of a workers union forwarding worker’s rights. . At the moment it appears that Christianity is charting for you a course of judgment and persecution. Some of these posts suggest that your blogging home is over at The Standard.
A gay kid I started school with offed himself at the age of thirteen. He was bullied by the same kid who threw stones at me. My mate killed himself. I extracted rewenge in another more subtle manner that isn’t fit to repeat here. Those years are just awful and there is no political agenda at the age of 15.
February 2nd, 2013 at 5:23 pm
“……HARRIET. YOU STINKING TROLL. DON’T BOTHER TO TRY TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I AM CAPABLE OF SPEAKING UP FOR MY OWN OPINION. ONE OF THE POINTS I WAS MAKING…….Youy mind yopur own business. That you are a bigot isn’t my issue its yours….”
DENYING CHILDREN THE RIGHT TO A MOTHER AND A FATHER IS NOT EQUALITY!
IT IS NOT ‘PARENTING’ EITHER!
Surely you can work that out Viking……if being denied the likes of marriage is damaging to gays……then children would certainly then be damaged without the right to a mother and a father!
Bigotry is now back in your court….cha’s too!
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 5:27 pm
Monique#
I haven’t used the ‘r’ or ‘g’ words at all – the case against gay marriage can and has been won without them!
It’s all about the kids and their welfare as FARRAR is SAYING… but not just gay kids!
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 5:32 pm
wat – a question. Is it possible for a Christian to disagree with something without it being, in your regularly aired opinion, a display of ‘bile and hatred’?
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 5:36 pm
Monique the question is and always has been where is the discrimination? The right to use a single word, is what it boils down to and how can the right to use a single word, possibly equate to being a psychologically damaging phenomena, discwimination, or anything else? How could it possibly ever become that? What about a word, is discriminatory? If you can answer that you’re better than anyone else here because so far no-one has ever even attempted it.
Given the fact there is no discrimination, IF and only if, there really IS some psychological damage out there, that should be addressed, not by addressing some imaginary discrimination that no-one can point to because it doesn’t exist, but by teaching those young people that there’s nothing to be ashamed about and in particular, both you mum and your dad will always continue to love you, no matter what. This psychological phenomena wouldn’t exist if every kid knew that for a fact as they entered puberty. And that’s all they need to know and the only thing they need to know to stop this in its tracks. Gay marriage doesn’t enter into it.
It’s being used, yet again, as a propaganda opportunity to drive the campaign forward.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 5:42 pm
MW – you don’t get it. We (I any way) don’t hate gays. What we object to is having a behavioral aberration that has been regarded as such for millennia, being put forward as the new normal. Being gay is “in the mind” to what extent genetics versus environment form this mindset has been debated for years. I am sympathetic with people that have problems in their mind and certainly don’t support persecuting them. They need help. And it certainly doesn’t help to tell them they have a gentically enforced condition that imprisons them in the Gay mindset for life, to be taken advantage of by persons that for there own gratification promulgate this myth.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 5:46 pm
We wouldnt be talking about this if parents – especially mothers – gave their baby boys BOYS toys instead of forcing them to play with girls toys.
All this anti Cowboys and Indians crap from the halfwit mothers forcese their male babies to go all queer. They dont know how to be boys. They have been forced to be girls – but they are all fucked up because it doesnt feel right…..
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 5:55 pm
It is a shame young people kill themselves. But is not the higher rate of suicide an argument against the gay lifestyle? Let’s approach the issue from the other direction. If gay youth were happier and lived longer and had better mental health than heterosexual youth, would that not be used as an argument for the gay lifestyle?
Vote:So perhaps the gay lifestyle is inherently unhealthy and bad for our mental health and spiritual peace of mind?
February 2nd, 2013 at 6:09 pm
Denying someone’s reality is known as gas lighting
Vote:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gaslighting
And I do believe it is a form of bulling by the individual and hate speech by the wider Christian fellowship to deny gay rights.
February 2nd, 2013 at 6:13 pm
We wouldnt be talking about this if parents – especially mothers – gave their baby boys BOYS toys instead of forcing them to play with girls toys.
Remember the kindy who made the kids check the toys guns out and only aim them at targets like a rifle range. What sort of girly bullshit is that?
It should be compulsory to give boys a new laser cannon or some weapon or other, every Christmas, by law. IRD should take it out of the parents payroll taxes and request the receipt in their annual tax return. I wonder what the media would say if a politician said that was their policy.
I imagine Campbell Live would react humorously.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 6:19 pm
‘Bullying’ and ‘hate speech’ by ‘Christians denying rights’?!?
In the rights-filled and liberated world that Monique yearns for, Christians should not be permitted to speak. Based on the tone of this post, and others critical of anything uttered by a Christian, I should expect DPF’s views are close to this.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 6:21 pm
Some thoughts on gay marriage. Marriage is a sexual relationship between a man and a woman that is committed for life. Until death do us part. It is sexual, involving sexual intercourse, and it is a commitment to look after each other and any children that may ensue.
Vote:So to sum up, marriage is between a man and a woman, involving sexual intercourse in a committed, life long monogamous relationship. Let’s look by contrast at the concept of ‘gay marriage’.
It is between man and man, does not involve sexual intercourse and will not even be monogamous. According to the Daily Mail, gay couples will not be expected to be monogamous and it will not be grounds for divorce in gay marriages only.
So gay marriage is not between a man and a woman, does not involve sexual intercourse and will not be expected to be monogamous.
How can it be called marriage, when it has none of the characteristics that define marriage?
But gay marriage, so called is nothing of the sort.
February 2nd, 2013 at 6:40 pm
“Okay gay haters”
Stopped reading after that.
Part of the growing backlash against the homosexual movement and their plans to redefine marriage is as a result of their propensity to call anyone with a different view on the subject a bigot or a hater.
Such misnomers, and always uttered so readily and profusely, only harden resistance.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 6:41 pm
“And if you think my Christian free will, live and let live philosophy is draconian, you are just gonna love Sharia Law”
That is Andrei’s comment (see the link). We must always remind Andrei of this little piece of hypocrisy when it comes to homosexuality. “Live and let live”? You lying swine.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/01/free_contraception_uptake.html#comment-1089449
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 6:43 pm
Scott,
An amendment to the Marriage Act that recognises same-sex committed unions will obviously mean that the same grounds for divorce apply to all. And same-sex couples engage in sexual intercourse. No amount of hands over ears and humming loudly changes that.
Note that you put so much effort into defining/describing marriage and didn’t use the word “love” once.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 6:43 pm
If sexual deviants have a high suicide rate then its a logical consequence of the guilt of living a sick debauched life.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 6:46 pm
@ Redbaiter. I did clarify my opening shot; “okay gay haters”, with a following post.
Vote:Read both at your pleasure.
Oops I mean leisure.
Monique
February 2nd, 2013 at 6:47 pm
But gay marriage, so called is nothing of the sort.
If those who don’t agree this is a good idea were to offer a compromise solution, it could be along the lines of a new, really special word, specifically to describe gay unions, invented especially for them. And why wouldn’t anyone be pleased with that? A new word, entering the lexicon, especially for them. Isn’t that wrapping the whole thing with a great bundle of cuddly love in every single imaginable way?
So what could that word be?
“Garriage” doesn’t quite have the right sound does it. “I’m getting garried on Saturday” doesn’t really do it, does it. But regardless of the details, how’s that for a deeply cuddly and wonderfully warm wrap-around solution, which I understand Paula Bennett is so keen on, she mentions it often enough.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 7:22 pm
“….And same-sex couples engage in sexual intercourse….’
Ryan we have been thru this before – you need complementry sexual organs to engage in sexual intercourse, mouths and assholes are not sexual organs. That is why the names sodomy, cunnilingus, and fellatio are in the dictionary.
Anal sex and oral sex is just gay propaganda.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 7:31 pm
You all seem to have missed the point that I made:
If gay youth get troubled enough by being denied the right to get married, and they then commit suicide, it then follows that children would be MORE troubled if they are denied the right to a mother and a father.
Farrar believes that childrens’ welfare matters – but ONLY that of gay children[teenagers] – he never even bothered to think of children who are 5-6-7 yrs of age and are not allowed the rights to a mother and a father.
Farrar and the gays can’t have it both ways, EITHER the welfare of ALL children is of concern or none.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 7:38 pm
Harriet – Anal sex and oral sex is just gay propaganda.
Vote:What a relief for President Clinton ?
February 2nd, 2013 at 7:42 pm
It’s intimate activity that results in sexual pleasure for the parties involved. The names bass, salmon and snapper are in the dictionary too. They’re still all fish.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 7:46 pm
If gay youth get troubled enough by being denied the right to get married, and they then commit suicide, it then follows that children would be MORE troubled if they are denied the right to a mother and a father.
You meant “denied the right to a mother and a father” as is one quarter of New Zealand Families with one parent already, and in the UK: one third of all families being single parented?
Vote:Gay adoption here will make about as difference as New Zealand’s CO2 emissions against the rest of the world – nearly nil
February 2nd, 2013 at 7:48 pm
The leading question is: Are more gays commiting suicide now, than in the 1950s?
Vote:If the answer is yes,(as I suspect it is) it proves that 5 decades of liberalisation has been detrimental to the health of gays!!
February 2nd, 2013 at 7:49 pm
And that is exactly what we should be looking at fixing
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 7:54 pm
Harriet,
“When will smokers demand from the Advertising Standards Agencies that this statement be banned. Clearly this is incitement to fagophobia”
As expected, when Harriet tries to contrive a logical argument she falls flat on her disapproving face.
Monique,
“If you get your fucking beaks out of other people’s relationships you’ll be a tripeload ‘appier.”
Not so. These small-minded bigots revel in this shit. Don’t you understand that their belief system is a license to be judgemental, to wallow in smugness and and to consider oneself superior to others?
Show me a “Christian” and I’ll show you a bigot whose smug sanctimony is surpassed only by their nauseating hypocrisy.
Here they are egging each other on in support of policies directly comparable to the Nuremberg anti-miscegenation laws, and with precisely the same justification: the claim that such laws are necessary for “the good of society.”
Remember, these people ignore and dismiss any and every law in the Bible which would inconvenience themselves in the slightest way, yet rush to propose discriminatory laws on others.
“200 Bible Verses about Hypocricy”
http://www.openbible.info/topics/hypocrisy
That’s 200 verses completely ignored then. They should save paper and edit them out of the next edition.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 7:54 pm
This bill is the most appallingly written piece of nonsense I have seen in a long time.
- Sexual orientation and gender identity are not defined. In legal fact, anything will go. Pg 10 of an 2005 APA report admits that the transgender movement has followed in the footsteps of earlier homosexual activism (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/policy/gender-identity-report.pdf). Who knows who will come next if this bill passes? Its a real and valid concern.
- The prohibitions of Schedule 2 are re-written in “gender neutral” language which makes it look stupid seeing as the rest of the 1955 Act will be gender based.
Finally, this opportunistic, scheming and selfish piece of legislation, dreamed up and pushed by a know nothing list MP, has come at a time when ChCh is on its knees and the economy needs serious attention.
Thanks Labour and the Greens, and the liberals in National. You’ve shown you care nothing about anything but your little cosy “influence” and sinecures so your faux outrage is rather boring and irrelevant.
Pathetic
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 8:00 pm
Why is it, when people are losing an argument they become abusive?
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 8:07 pm
@Harriet.
Re:
“Ryan we have been thru this before – you need complementry sexual organs to engage in sexual intercourse, mouths and assholes are not sexual organs. That is why the names sodomy, cunnilingus, and fellatio are in the dictionary.”
@Harriet: Any body part can be a sexual organ and bring pleasure. Believe you, me.
The only meaningful sexual organ in the human body is the brain.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 8:10 pm
Ryan, generally when we use the term sexual intercourse we are not talking about sodomy. My point, which I think is a really good one, is that marriage is about a man and a woman in a permanent committed relationship that involves sexual intercourse, to consummate the marriage. Gay marriage is not between a man and a woman, cannot involve sexual intercourse and it seems will not even involve monogamy!
Vote:Like marriage is being strained by any reasonable definition to appease a tiny gay minority.
February 2nd, 2013 at 8:29 pm
Now we have marriage is all about fucking.
jeez you anti homosexual marriage people are sexually obsessed
Marriage = loving couple with a commitment for the future.
I have memories of my dad marrying late in life
sex?
Not particularly in your seventy’s
Kids biologically imposable.
Marriage?
Definably.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 8:31 pm
Monique#
Mouths and assholes could be described as sexual ‘aids’ but they are definatly not sexual ‘organs’ – your local GP will confirm that.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 8:39 pm
Yeah – procreation, as against masturbation – single or plural. Now what?
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 8:49 pm
Sofia# Monique#
“…Harriet – Anal sex and oral sex is just gay propaganda.
What a relief for President Clinton?…”
From memory Clinton wasn’t asked directly if the act of ‘fellatio’ was performed…but rather “were ‘sexual relations’ performed?”
And his reply was something like “I did not perform ‘sexual relations’ with that women.”
Most blokes will ask their mates “Did you have sex with that chick you took home from the pub last night?” or “Did you ‘root’ her?”
‘Sex’ or ‘rooting’ is generally taken as meaning ‘sexual penetration’ while ‘oral sex’ is generally taken as meaning FOREPLAY!
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 8:49 pm
Griff, marriage is of course about sex. It is a sexual relationship. In many countries non consummation of the marriage is grounds for annulment. Like this is obvious people. You guys say you are all about reason.
Vote:Marriage is distinct from 2 people who love each other but are not in a sexual relationship such as two siblings, two friends etc. Marriage is distinct and to broaden it to 2 men who cannot have sexual intercourse and according to newspaper reports have no intention of being monogamous is to destroy what actually makes marriage distinct.
February 2nd, 2013 at 8:54 pm
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oexua5lszk8icpm/Marriage.jpg
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 9:06 pm
Are you implying that the marriage of my father was void that is offensive.
Vote:Its about a commitment by a loving couple in 2013 not sodomy, clit licking, breeding or coitus.
If sex is your entire motivation stick to masturbation its cheaper cleaner and does not expose others to your warped world view.
February 2nd, 2013 at 9:11 pm
Griff, you know I would never say anything mean about your dear old Dad!
However you may not know everything about what the old boy got up to when the lights were low and the mood took him?
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 9:12 pm
Indeed they are Griff , and the marriage of Ada Bryant and Robert Haire who got hitched last Saturday.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 9:13 pm
Griff
The poor buggers aren’t even allowed to wank…..something in the Good Book indicates that The Big Guy Upstairs frowns on those who cast their seed on the ground.
It’s the frustration that warps their thinking.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 9:15 pm
Scott
You’re human!!! I’m sure I detect the spark of a sense of humour there.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 9:24 pm
sounds like you’ve got nothing to worry about then Harriet.By your definition, no-ones having sex other than traditional couples. #thankgoodness
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 9:30 pm
Scott
Vote:I do not question whether they “done” it was not my business, however the physical limitations his new wife experienced resulting from age properly ruled out coitus.
As did the marriage of a paraplegic friend of mine with no feelings lower than his waist.
Your argument: Marriage = Coitus. is regularly defeated by many successful marriages.
Successful as in public affirmation of continuing into the future a loving union . To death parts us in the case of my father.
You all seek to lesson the humanity of gay people by refusing to recognize they have the same desires as any couple for trust, honesty, support, mutual respect , Eros. The things that define marriage This standpoint is bigotry.
February 2nd, 2013 at 9:33 pm
Anyone detect a spark of a sense of humour here?
Vote:I like your case in point Griff. Very human
February 2nd, 2013 at 9:47 pm
properly x dyslexia = probably.
Thats why its called humanist Monique
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 9:47 pm
Mr Farrar I request your reversal of 20 demerit points. You introduced a political land mine and you demerited me for writing true
FARRAR pq (532) Says:
February 2nd, 2013 at 11:07 am
ha ha again,. he farrar thinks his political master can take this electoral 2014 without anyone else.
no Conservative or NZ First
it can not happen farrar, take up your words now,
[DPF: Off topic 20 demerits]
Vote:Vote: 1 9
February 2nd, 2013 at 9:53 pm
The total potential of reproduction of all the exclusive ‘loving’ homosexual relationships in the world is zero.
Gays can’t even exist without heterosexual relationships, and yet I am supposed to consider their relationships as equal value to society?
I don’t have to accept them as equal -not because I don’t want to- but because they simply arn’t equal.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 9:55 pm
No Griff-again let’s just keep things simple. Marriage is between a man and a woman in a sexual relationship that is monogamous and committed for life.
Now while some couples due to age or infirmity may not be able to perform sexual intercourse. that does not invalidate the notion that marriage is a relationship of a sexual nature and sexual intercourse is normally part of marriage. Like isn’t this obvious?
While people may want “trust, honesty, support, mutual respect” these are not what specifically define marriage. The qualities you refer to can exist between friends or between brothers. Those relationships do not constitute marriage.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 10:06 pm
Incorrect. A male homosexual couple can help female homosexual couple to have children. Happens all the time, i know several examples.
However that’s beside the point.
Do you think that heterosexual marriages without children are not equal to marriages with children?
It’s just the same old nonsensical argument that marriage is solely about the ability to have children. Or solely about coitus.
Vote:Amusing to see the anti-gay-marriage crowd trying to redefining marriage to suit their agenda.
February 2nd, 2013 at 10:12 pm
I thnk Scott above immediately has a strong point , marriage is sexual.,
\
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 10:19 pm
“trust, honesty, support, mutual respect, eros
Vote:Do you propose that a successful marriage can exist with out these things?
February 2nd, 2013 at 10:20 pm
“……Do you think that heterosexual marriages without children are not equal to marriages?…”
They are equal as MOST people who get married and don’t want children eventually DO have children. These people who don’t want children are not refused marriage, as if they change their minds after getting married the child is then in the best enviroment to develop into an adult.
Some don’t go on to have children but they are known as a statistical abberation – hardly a sound arguement to base ‘equality’ on.
Good try ezette
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 10:21 pm
eszett- again it’s very simple. Marriage involves sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. They commit to each other in a monogamous relationship to look after each other and any children that ensue. That is what marriage is.
Two men cannot naturally produce children,neither can two women. Indeed if the gay men “help” the gay women to naturally have children they are not being monogamous. Which is where my posting on this thread started!
Sure some heterosexual couples cannot have children. Usually they find this out after being married for some years. Of course we don’t require them to divorce. That would be cruel. But heterosexual couples have the potential to have children. Gay couples do not.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 10:24 pm
Thank you pq. I am pleased someone agrees with me. I thought what I was saying is blindingly obvious.
But then again if the advancement of gay rights is your overriding objective then obviously not.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 10:28 pm
Harriet – what happened to your offensive comment about “depressed gays hanging themselves”?
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 10:32 pm
Harriet – what happened to your offensive comment about “depressed gays hanging themselves”?
I didn’t notice that…….David must have removed it…..no demerits, so it must be valid.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 10:44 pm
Turkey baster Scott Google it
Vote:You dont need sex to reproduce you just need the right time in the cycle, a willing wanker and a turkey baster!
February 2nd, 2013 at 10:55 pm
http://lezgetreal.com/2009/03/woman-attacks-her-wife-with-turkey-baster-full-of-sperm/
Vote:Rape?
February 2nd, 2013 at 10:55 pm
Fletch:
So, in other words, many suicide studies may be underestimating the proportion that may be gay.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 11:05 pm
Fletch:If there is a higher suicide rate among gays, it’s not because of the lack of gay marriage; nor, I would say, a lack of acceptance. Gays are more accepted now than at any time in history because of the prevalence of gays in movies, tv shows, presenters etc (thanks to liberal Hollywood).
Just because gays are more accepted than at any time in history doesn’t mean that they are universally accepted. There is still a fair amount of homophobia, taunting and even gay bashing here in NZ. Nor does it mean that have reached some sort of maximum level of acceptance. As some of the comments in this very thread demonstrate there is still considerable room for improvement.
do we really want to promote this kind of lifestyle to others (especially children) as being normal?
Yet it is this kind of attitude that helps cause problems. People do not choose to be gay, and it therefore meaningless to talk of “promoting” this lifestyle as though there was some sort of recruitment going on. Teaching kids about homosexuality is about explaining to them that it is a normal part of human society, like left-handedness, and not some sort of icky repulsive moral degeneracy.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 11:09 pm
Hear, hear!
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 11:13 pm
Ok, so I laughed at that one. How exactly? Marriage has always* been about a man and a woman committing together with the objectives of monogamy of sexual commitment, permanence of relationship and creation & nurturing of family.
The liberal gay agenda in this matter is nothing more than a hijacking of the title ‘married’. It creates nothing, solves nothing. It devalues the relationship type that is optimum for creating and raising the next generation. All so a few gays and their fellow travellers can congratulate themselves this stories of how ‘normal’ and ‘progressive’ they are.
For the record, I’m married. Committed to my wife for life. We have raised two well balanced children who are now your independent adults, educated, stable, wise(!) and socially mature. The institution of marriage, which defines the married relationship type, and it’s ideal outcomes is important to me. The minute the term married is redefined to mean any realationship type between any people (or animals or objects) is the minute the value I place in the term married is damaged.
Which is, I think, the objective.
*I’m sure you’ll find irrelevant examples to the contrary to try to discredit this assertion. But you’ll just look desperate, so don’t bother.
Vote:February 2nd, 2013 at 11:28 pm
Irrelevant how? The fact that there have been societies in the past that allowed gay marriage or that there are and were societies where husband and wife don’t live together and don’t raise their children together.
Vote:February 3rd, 2013 at 12:05 am
I would have thought the ‘value’ you place in marriage has more to do with the kind relationship you have with the other half. The feelings you have for each other. The tightness of the bond you share. The loyalty. The amount of trust you place in each other.
To value marriage based on who else they’re handing out marriage certificates to seems a bit strange to me.
In that context, the last few decades must have been very tough on you. With the divorce rate skyrocketing, ever more marriages of convenience, cheating, mail-order brides, elderly marriages, repeat offenders marrying for the 4th/5th/6th time etc.
I guess by the time Britney Spears had her drunken 55 hour marriage anulled, you were already using your marriage certificate as toilet paper.
Vote:February 3rd, 2013 at 8:31 am
I am afraid the joke’s on you, kk.
In your very own post you admit there is more to marriage than your own narrow definition. And immediately dismiss them as irrelevant.
That exactly is the redefining part.
Truth is, marriage has always had many facets and attributes. In order to exclude gays from marriage, you try to eliminate those attributes that would apply to homosexuals and narrowly redefine it to the ones that that don’t: Coitus and naturally conceiving children.
You are the very one who is not only redefining marriage, but devaluing marriage by reducing it to this bare-bone definition, insulting the marriages of all those couples who don’t meet that definition.
And all that merely to exclude a few people from getting married.
Vote:February 3rd, 2013 at 1:23 pm
Eszett, once again marriage is between a man and a woman. It has always been so. Redefining marriage is what this bill is about. It is after all called the redefinition of marriage bill. It will redefine by government fiat what has been ordained by God and handed down from generation to generation.
Vote:It is an act of parliamentary arrogance and pride. We are praying, and did so today, that this ungodly act of hubris and pride will be extinguished from parliament never to be raised again.
February 3rd, 2013 at 3:34 pm
scott, marriage has been around a lot longer than your god and is also around in places where your god doesn’t exist.
What arrogance to claim it is only of your god. And what act of hubris and pride is it to claim to know what that god wants.
Surely if this offends your god so much he is not that impotent that he cannot prevent a law being put forward.
Who knows maybe your god wants gay marriage to happen.
Marriage is a human social construct and has changed and morphed in its meaning over the centuries and cultures. And will continue to do so.
In what way will your marriage be “redefined” once this goes through? How will it change?
Vote: