Peters says he voted against homosexual law reform because of HIV/AIDS

July 10th, 2016 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

A curious story in Stuff:

Thirty years ago if you got HIV it was a case of “you’re dead”, says Winston Peters.

If MPs had known in the 80s there would be such an advance in medicine for treating HIV Peters reckons they would never have voted against a bill to legalise gay sex.

On July 9,1986, the NZ First leader was one of 44 MPs who voted against the Homosexual Law Reform bill, which passed with 49 votes in favour and legalised consensual sex between men aged 16 and older.

Yep Winston voted for consensual sex between adults to remain a crime.

As for whether Peters would have voted differently if he knew then what he knows now – he says he doesn’t deal in hypotheticals.

Other MPs have said they regret how they voted.  John Banks voted for same sex marriage despite having campaigned against homosexual law reform. Peters has an inability to ever say he was wrong on something.

Looking back on that night Peters says “the mass majority who were against the change were facing the crisis of Aids, which at the time had no solution or answer to it and looked like a massive problem was coming and the change in law would facilitate that”.

The criminalisation of sodomy of course occurred long long before HIV was known about.

But Labour deputy leader Annette King who supported the bill, which came up one year after she first joined Parliament, says she never heard the medical argument.

“I’m not saying it wasn’t Winston’s reason as I can’t recall his comments at the time but I don’t believe that was what drove people to oppose it.”

She said the crux of the issue for MPs on the other side of it was “straight out opposition to homosexuality”.


Reminds me of Europe in the 1930s

February 27th, 2014 at 7:00 am by David Farrar reports:

A UGANDA newspaper has listed 200 people it accused of being gay, a day after the president called homosexuals ‘mercenaries’ and signed one of the world’s toughest anti-gay laws.

“Exposed!’’ the headline of the Red Pepper tabloid read, beneath photographs of Ugandans it said were gay, as well as reporting on lurid stories of alleged homosexual actions.

“Uganda’s 200 top homos named,’’ the daily newspaper added.

That’s appalling at the best of times, but in the present climate there is almost inciting their deaths.

On Monday, Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni signed a bill into law which holds that repeat homosexuals should be jailed for life, outlaws the promotion of homosexuality and requires people to denounce gays.

Mr Museveni said he could not understand how one could “fail to be attracted to all these beautiful women and be attracted to a man’’ instead and described in graphic details his particular revulsion to oral sex.

This is not far removed from what the Nazis started in the 1930s. I don’t mean the holocaust, but the jailing people for who they are, and denouncing of them.

I’m not sure if we give any aid to Uganda, but now would be a good time to stop.

What makes someone gay

February 17th, 2014 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Genes play a large part in determining the sexual orientation of men, scientists have shown.

Genetic factors account for between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of what decides whether a man is gay or straight, according to the largest investigation conducted into the subject.

That sounds right. It’s not the only factor, but it is a very major factor.

The US researchers stress that environmental forces, such as hormones in the womb, play a more important role.

But they said this did not imply that upbringing or other social factors, or individual choice, had a bearing on sexual orientation.

“Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice,” one of the lead researchers, Dr Michael Bailey, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said.

One study has suggested that if you have older brothers you are more likely to be gay, as the mother’s hormones try to “feminise” you.

The research involved testing the DNA in blood samples taken from more than 409 gay brothers and their heterosexual relatives.

It confirmed that a region previously linked to male sexuality on the X chromosome, known as Xq28, is more likely to be shared by gay pairs of brothers than siblings who do not have homosexuality in common.

A second genetic region, on chromosome 8, also appeared to increase the chances of a man being gay.

The future is fascinating we we get to understand DNA better.

Not a choice

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

Simon Collins at NZ Herald reports:

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

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

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

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

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

A closet straight

October 15th, 2012 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Timothy Kurek grew up hating homosexuality. As a conservative Christian deep in America’s “Bible Belt”, he was taught that being gay was an abomination before God.

But when a Christian friend in a karaoke bar told him how her family had kicked her out when she revealed she was a lesbian, Kurek began to question his beliefs. Amazingly, the 26-year-old decided to “walk in the shoes” of a gay person in the United States by pretending to be homosexual.

For an entire year Kurek lived “undercover” as a gay man in his hometown of Nashville, Tennessee.

I think people’s beliefs often change, when they have gay and lesbian friends. This is why there is such an divergence by age on some issues. Many people over 45 never grew up with gay or lesbian friends.  But today there would be few who don’t go through school or university without knowing or being friends with people whose sexual orientation is different to theirs.

His account of his year being gay is an emotional, honest and at times hilarious account of a journey that begins with him as a strait-laced yet questioning conservative, and ends with him reaffirming his faith while embracing the cause of gay equality.

Along the way he sheds many friends, especially from Liberty, who emailed him after he came out asking him to repent his sins and warning that he faced damnation. He does not regret their loss. “I now have lots of new gay friends,” Kurek said.

What good friends, telling him to repent his sins or he will go to hell.

In one gay bar, Kurek was stunned to discover gay Christians earnestly discussing their belief in creationism. “I found gay Christians more devout than me!” Kurek says. He became active in a gay rights group and wound up joining a protest outside the Vatican’s embassy to the United Nations in New York.

However, there was a cost. To gauge his mother’s true reaction to the news that her son was gay, Kurek read her private journal. In it he found that she had written: “I’d rather have found out from a doctor that I had terminal cancer than I have a gay son.”

But Kurek’s journey also became hers. Eventually she was won over and changed her views. “My [mother] went from being a very conservative Christian to being an ally to the gay community. I am very proud of her,” he said.

Love conquers all.

Finally Kurek’s journey ended when he revealed his secret life and “came out” again, but this time as a straight Christian. However, he says one of the most surprising elements of his journey was that it renewed his religious faith rather than undermined it. “Being gay for a year saved my faith.”

Kurek feels his experience should not only show conservative Christians that gay people need equal rights and can be devout too, but can also reveal another side of evangelicals to the gay community.

“The vast majority of conservative Christians are not hateful bigots at all. It is just a vocal minority that gets noticed and attracts all the attention.”



The ducks will get you in the end

October 4th, 2012 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

This letter to the editor warns that if same sex marriage leads to an increase in homosexuality, then ducks could take over the world as they always nest in pairs. Jasmin doesn’t want humans to compete with ducks and warns us that the ducks may get us in the end.

Sadly for Jasmin, I think her homeschooled education may have overly romanticsed the duck. I’d heard somewhere that duck sex often involves rape, but didn’t realise quite how bad ducks are in the sex stakes. I relayed my findings over Twitter last night to both amusement and horror.

Around one third of duck sex is duck rape. And we’re often talking gang rape of ducks when a group of drakes will basically subdue a female duck. Wikipedia says:

When they pair off with mating partners, often one or several drakes end up “left out”. This group sometimes targets an isolated female duck, even one of a different species, and proceeds to chase and peck at her until she weakens, at which point the males take turns copulating with the female.

One site makes the point:

They’ll hump any species, any gender, anytime.

Even worse for Jasmine who implied ducks may evolve further as they don’t do same sex stuff, well one Dutch researcher saw a drake ravage another male’s lifeless duck-corpse for seventy-five minutes.

Male Mallards also occasionally chase other male ducks of a different species, and even each other, in the same way. In one documented case of “homosexual necrophilia”, a male Mallard copulated with another male he was chasing after the chased male died upon flying into a glass window.

Sure he may not have married the dead drake at the end of it, but …

Basically ducks are nasty little creatures. I feel rather guilty for all the times I have fed them.

Interesting rep Todd Akin may have been right about females not getting pregnant if they are raped – if he was talking about ducks.

Some vaginas had spiral channels that would impede sex by twisting in the opposite direction to that of the male phallus. Others had as many as eight cul-de-sac pouches en route, that could prevent fertilisation by capturing unwelcome sperm. Moreover, these features were only found in species renowned for forced sex. All other species had simple male and female genitalia.

“These structures are wonderfully devious, sending sperm down the wrong road or impeding penetration,” says Birkhead.

He says that the features demonstrate an evolutionary “arms race” in which control over reproduction alternates between the sexes. If the male develops a longer, more elaborate phallus to force copulation, females wrest back control by developing features to thwart males who rape.

I will agree with Jasmine that we don’t want to live in a planet ruled by our duck overlords.

Incidentally the duck penis is rather large. In some ducks it can stretch to 40 cm or so, which if they were a human would be a 3.5 metre penis.

Many dolphins are also rapists, and like mallards do either gender.

Superb hypocrisy

May 5th, 2010 at 11:57 pm by David Farrar

This is George Rekers. He a leading US anti-gay activist who is one of the founders of the Family Research Council and a director of NARTH – the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, which teaches men how not to be attracted to men. He has testified in court that the Bible is the infallible word of God and that homosexuality is a sin.

This is Lucien. He is a male prostitute, or a rent boy, and as you can see is available on Lucien is 20 and claims to ave an eight inch uncut cock. I am no expert on these things, but understand most rent boys claim this size. Anyway back to the main story.

The Miami New Times reports that Mr Rekers and Lucien have just returned from a 10 day vacation in Europe. They were photographed arriving back in Miami together.

Now I know you are all assuming the worst, but there is an innocent explanation for all this. No Mr Rekers is not a hypocrite of the highest order. He did not spend ten days sinning with Lucien. He had a perfectly good explanation for their holiday together.

Rekers recently had back surgery and needed someone to help him with lifting his luggage!!!

I think there is a Tui billboard looking for a home.

Poll on Morality

September 14th, 2009 at 7:53 pm by David Farrar

I’ve just blogged at curiablog, on a morality poll by UMR. Respondents were asked how morally acceptable (or unacceptable certain activities were. Below is the morally acceptable score for each activity and the net acceptable score (acceptable less unacceptable)

From most to least acceptable, they were:

  1. Divorce 81%, +68%
  2. Sex outside marriage 77%, +59%
  3. Having baby outside marriage 71%, +48%
  4. Stem cell research 63%, +38%
  5. Homosexual relations 61%, +29%
  6. Euthanasia 55%, +18%
  7. Abortion 55%, +21%
  8. Gambling 52%, +10%
  9. Animal medical testing 52%, +12%
  10. Wearing or buying fur 48%, +4%
  11. Death Penalty 43%, -7%
  12. Animal Cloning 27%, -40%
  13. Suicide 20%, -48%
  14. Married people having affairs 13%, -70%
  15. Polygamy 11%, -74%
  16. Human cloning 7%, -81%

Now this was asking about moral acceptability, not legality. So while only 55% think abortion is morally acceptable, that doesn’t mean only 55% think it should be legal.

Now what would my answers have been. None of the first ten I would regard as morally unacceptable. I do regard the death penalty as unacceptable – not keen on states being able to kill it citizens. Tend to regard suicide as morally unacceptable in most circumstances but not all (ie terminally ill). While generally I think it is not a good idea for married people to have affairs (and if married I would not), I’m wouldn’t label it as morally unacceptable as it is between those two people. I don’t think polygamy should be legal but nor do I regard it as morally unacceptable. And finally I don’t believe human cloning is automatically morally unacceptable.  I favour very very tight restrictions on it, but think there are potential benefits.

So bottom line is there is very little I believe is always morally unacceptable. Mainly just the death penalty really.

I’m sure very few here will agree with me!