27

Next Labour will be actually saying “Gay Marriage”

by Whaleoil on December 23, 2011

Rappers are giving up on homophobia.

[I]t’s not just hip-hop veterans with impeccable street cred and catalogs of platinum hits who are speaking out against homophobia. Even up-and-coming artists such as Harlem rapper A$AP Rocky are voicing discontent with anti-gay attitudes. Never mind that back in the day, such a public stance would have been a professional liability. “I used to be homophobic, but that’s fucked up,” A$AP Rocky told the influential music site Pitchfork in October. “I had to look in the mirror and say, ‘All the designers I’m wearing are gay.’”

If hard core rappers can give up on homophobia then maybe the Labour party can say “gay marriage” instead of nervously skirting around the issue.

Tagged: • •
  • Lesley

    If they do then they know they will lose core voters. True marriage is between a man and a woman.

    • Kosh103

      LMAO – clearly you have no idea of the history of marriage. True marriage – what a joke.

      • Lesley

        True marriage is no joke Kosh. Where in the history of marriage does man marry man and woman marry woman? What is LMAO?

    • Troy

      Did you have a special communication with a God or something? Jesus, get a life – unless to the contrary there is no international law on what is true and what is not. Geesh there’s some goat’s cocks on here sometimes.

  • Gazzaw

    I am ambivalent on the issue but this would be a dangerous path for labour to follow. They may pick up more votes from the young but they would be jeopardising their chances with the provinces, the Catholics, the Polynesians & conservative Christians. Ardern would now doubt be keen as would Robertson & Street but from a pragmatic point of view there is too much to lose and little to gain. This is one internal battle that Shearer should not allow the labour rainbow faction to win.

  • Bea

    Conservative Christians yes, but not the provinces.  The provinces may be more conservative from an economic policy point of view but not from a personal liberties point of view.

    Its probably about time NZ allowed gay marriage – its where other countries are going and there seems no reason to disallow it. If they’re going to disallow any type of marriage, perhaps it should be arranged marriages.

    Lesley “True marriage is between a man and a woman” – what does that mean? Why?

    • Peter Wilson

      There’s no reason that I can think of not to allow gay marriage. But I can’t see a reason for adult consensual incest to be illegal either, what’s your stance on that? (I’m against both)

      The other point is that if these groups become mainstream, and I’m talking about any minorities, then should their organisations be deemed to be illegal as, by definition, they would exclude other groups.

  • Peter Wilson

    Labour’s bluff needs to be called on these issues. Either they’re for something or not.

    All Shearer says is “there needs to be some discussion.” Gay marriage, changing Parliament’s oath to the Queen, becoming a republic. How does he feel about the opening prayer BTW.

    Right now they are vote losers, so they’re too scared to say what they really think, hoping they can convince people to come around to their way later.

    Why don’t just wait til they get elected again, and do what the last Labour government did. Change things like doing away with the Privy Council without even a hint of a mandate.

  • Groans

    Maybe WO you should read more than your Proverbs to understand what homo’s are about.  Heterosexuals reproduce, homo’s recruit.  These people have got something wrong with them and so do the people who encourage them.

    • Peter Wilson

      Hetero’s don’t all reproduce of course. And if you take your altruistic view to it’s conclusion, reproducing hetero’s should pay a lot less tax. Which they don’t of course, not when you take into account their expenses.

    • Anonymous

      I would interested to know why you are so obsessed with what others do in their private lives. And why you think you should discriminate against people you don`t have a clue about?

      • Groans

        I’m not obsessed about what they do in their private lives, in fact I wish they would keep it at home rather than displaying it in their Gay ‘degenerite’ Parades.  If they want to be treated the same as a heterosexual then they are discriminating against me!

      • Anonymous

        Oh ,you are protesting that they are infringing on your right to be intolerant .
        How the fuck does gay marriage discriminate against you? It is not compulsory FFS.
        Maybe if you stopped reading your Holey Babble  and got a clue ,you would not be such an  intolerant bigot.

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      I don;t see anything in Proverbs that is against marriage. Perhaps you should read the Proverbs a bit more fully.

      • Groans

        I was talking about reading the whole book, not just Proverbs

      • Kosh103

        @ Groans. Being just a tad religious myself, could you please point out the part in the Bible where CHRIST condems homosexuality. Perhaps it is you who needs to review your understanding of what has ACTUALLY been written.

    • http://twitter.com/Jazr0d Jazr0d
      • Groans

        Have had a read, it didn’t win me over but thank you for your concern.

    • Kosh103

      Homophobic much? The only people with something wrong are people like you.

    • Anonymous

      It’s heterosexual couples having homosexual kids, perhaps we should ban reproduction as it is creating kids with ‘something wrong with them’?

  • Urban Redneck

    Traditional marriage between one man and one woman has been a
    cornerstone institution for centuries and is the best way of channeling a
    man’s energies into his family and ensuring one generation is tied to
    the next culturally. Long term monogamous relationships are the last
    thing homosexuals want. (particularly the men)

    In the 80′s, two gay medical researchers McWhirter & Mattison (themselves a couple) did a study of a couple of hundred gay male couples in relation to monogamy. They found that fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior but emotional commitment to eachother. In other words, unlike heteros, gay men to not define sleeping around as unfaithfulness unless one of those liaisons becomes a threat to the core relationship. They found that although 60% of couples began their relationships expecting to be monogamous, those relationships quickly began to include outside liaisons. And giving I could also reference a multitude of studies that show nearly half of all gay men end up with more than 500 sexual partners, this all ties in. They also found that all couples who had been together for five years has brought extra males into the “marriage bed” In fact, they concluded that the single most important factor that keeps couples together is the lack of possessiveness they feel. Many couples learn very early on in their relationships that ownership of each-other sexually can become the greatest internal threat to their staying together. Of those couples surveyed, only 7 had managed to achieve monogamy, and none of these relationships had lasted longer than 5 years.

    This is the danger of opening up gay adoption where we will get into situations where gay couples go in with the best of intentions and find the stress of bringing up a child not related to them drives a nail into their already shake “committed” relationship. Then where for the child while two highly-charged gay “parents” go through a messy break up by throwing themselves back into the gay singles scene with party drugs and random sexual encounters?

    What the homosexual lobby really want is a total redefinition of sexual
    norms in order to make wider society assimilate to THEM. Gay “marriage”
    is merely a bridgehead to legalised incest, polygamy and sex with
    children. As some of the more astute readers may have noticed, the
    Herald has started carrying articles related to the idea of “multi
    partner” marriages . . . it’s the Overton Window syndrome in play and
    this malignant social engineering never abates.

    • Groans

      Nicely written

    • Anonymous

      It is amazing that massive pile of straw did not spontaneously combust.

  • Callum

    My view is marriage is a religious based institution and should be kept that way, it is defined by those religions as between a man and woman and always has been. There should be nothing stopping anyone undertaking a similar ceremony and obtaining the same rights as a legal marriage but there is no need to hijack someone elses rituals.
    Personally I only got married as my wife is religious, otherwise I would have had a civil union as the religious aspects of marriage do not apply to me and I will not live by them.

  • Anonymous

    I you are so obsessed about the “sanctity ” of marriage should you not be focussing more on the Kim Kardashians of this planet?

  • Kosh103

    It never surprises me the number of people who actually have no idea of what the history of marriage really is, or what Christ actually said.

    This is one of those rare occasions where I am with WO 100%.