Outrageous

Colin Craig has posted an outrageous tweet:

Of course when you are a person who thinks that shortness is because an ancestor has previously sinned I suppose you will say anything.

We don’t need this sort of intolerance in our society.

  • Shaun
  • Guest

    Colin Craig is a dangerous fuckwit with attention issues.

    • grumpy

      Why?  Because he speaks logic and common sense?

      • Guest

        What logic or common sense? Gay relationships are perfectly normal these days. No one needs to pretend anything, they can just accept it as being a form of relationship that some people have, and if we are talking about intelligence, then I’d note that Alan Turing was a damn sight brighter than Colin Craig, who seems to be a noisy loudmouth on how some people are different to him. EG, NZ women are sluts, gays aren’t normal, and short people have sinners as parents.

  • grumpy

    Can’t see anything wrong with his comment.¬† If homosexual relationships WERE normal, civilisation would have died out.

    Not intolerance, just logic and common sense.

    • Chris

      Well here is a logical and common sense answer. As an induvidual you own your life. No body else owns your life and you don’t own anybody else’s life. You have the right to do with that life; this is called your Liberty and property. You may do whatever you want with your life liberty and property as long as it does not involuntarily effect the life, liberty or property of another.

      Therefore if one gay person wants toto marry anoter gay person then it is none of your rightful business. They can call it whatever they want to etc. marriage, partnership, contract..whatever they want but it does not affect your life, liberty or property.

      Just because you do not agree with their lifestyle it doesn’t mean you can prevent them from exercising their liberty. Just like if they disagree with your lifestyle they cannot force you to stop exercising your liberty in manner that does not infringe upon them.

      Personally I believe that homosexuality is immoral. That is my view but just because I can tollerate others around me doing it that doesn’t mean I have to live in that manner and I don’t. But for the sake of my own liberty and so the society can survive can rotate another day’s rotation I choose to defend their liberty and right to do what they wish with their lives so one day when someone tries to ban me from something in my life which is a rightful exercise of my liberty etc.. worshipping the God of my own my own choice then they will stand for my liberty like I did theirs.

      You can have Liberty for all but not Liberty for some people and somethings; it doesn’t work and leads to tyranny.

      • Chris

         Please excuse my typos. I was in a rush. Cheers

      • Salacious T Crumb

        Funny thing “morality”. Homosexuality was well tolerated in Greek and Roman civilisaton, well before¬†the rise of¬†Christianity.¬†But then, torture and execution¬†of people for having differing views¬†was accepted practice by the Christian¬†church in the middle ages. In modern times, overlooking and covering up of paedophilia committed¬†by clergy is systemic. Funny thing “morality”.

      • Chris

        It certainly is Salacious T Crumb…and everyone has different morals. So any free society tolerates differing moral standards by allowing people to live by their morals as long as they don’t harm others. Hence Liberty is the only answer for society where many different people can live in peace and harmony with each other and benefit from the things that society provides. etc.. division of labour.

        The Christian Church of the Middle Ages was hardly a standard of Liberty oriented virtue was it. And neither are Muslim nations that hang people for converting from Islam. The issue is not the beliefs but the forcing of them upon others.

      • Chris

        ¬†Thought I would just add that priests fiddling with boys is not what one considers an exercise of Liberty…rather a crime an violation of the rights of the said victim.

      • grumpy

        Actually, I agree with you.¬† Just don’t try to tell me that homosexuality is ” normal”.

      • Phronesis

        Alcoholism is normal in Russia. Infanticide of girls is normal in rural China.

      • Chris

        And your point is Phronesis? Acloholism is personal choice = Exercise of Personal Liberty. Infanticide is not an exercise of Liberty but a violation of the rights of the infant who is a human being; this is because the infant’s life is taken which belongs only to them. Something like that (which is murder) should be illegal. However whether something is normal or not is neither here or there in determining its moral justification.

    • Stroker08

      There have been plenty of gay folk pro create over the ages. Just becuase they dont breed as often as hetros doesnt mean they cant.

    • Polish_pride

      Yet homosexuality exists in many species in the animal kingdom as well. It is as natural as the seasons. What is unnatural is bigotry. It does not exist in the animal kingdom or anywhere else in nature.

  • Michael

     But we do need your intolerance, do we?

    Instead of attacking the man, why don’t you refute his assertion? Do you think that homosexuality is normal?

    How can you define normal to include something that less than 10% of people are?

    • grumpy

      Whale has completely lost his normal objectivity on this subject.¬† There must be a reason behind that……..we hope?

      • Polish_pride

        Grumpy – No he’s just not a bigot thats all

      • Rivoniaboy

        He is probably trying to justify his adultery.

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

        Hey Rivonialadyboy how about you pop back to Rivonia to do some more growing up..instead of polluting Christchurch with your saffer bullshit.

    • Bob

      Precisely. It isn’t the norm. And 10% is putting it generously.
      Tail. Wag. Dog.
      The sooner we wake up to the emperor’s new clothes, the better.
      Go Col!

    • Alloytoo

      How can you define being short when only half the population is of less than average height?

    • Polish_pride

      less than 10% of people are Fijian :)
       

  • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

    Good on you Colin.

    Keep offending these PC Marxist arseholes by saying exactly what you want to say.

    55,000 votes last election.

    With the gutless and progressive National Party selling out traditional NZ you’re looking at doubling that next election.

    • grumpy

      Perhaps that’;s the rationale for Whale’s obsession, that and the fact that he gets a lot of page hits on this topic.¬† Now, Whale wouldn’t be that cynical – would he.

    • Mr_Blobby

      Still struggling with the fact that he got more votes than at least 4 other parties in Parliament and not one seat. The Maori party with less support got 3 seats and the balance of power.

  • Dale

    Cant say I agree with what he says, but he sure is entitled to his opinion. Makes him seem lie a far right christian wanker in my opinion, but I think its a bit rich saying “we don’t need this intolerance in our society’ when Whaleoil, and blogging in general, is all about putting forward opinions . I’m sure that many Labour, Helen Kelly, Sue Bradford supporters would label Cameron’s comments as “intolerant” as well.

    • grumpy

      Not on this subject – they are as one, as it were…….

    • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

      ” I’m sure that many Labour, Helen Kelly, Sue Bradford supporters would label Cameron’s comments as “intolerant” as well.”

      That’s the problem with NZ politics. Too many who pass themselves off as “right wing” are just left wingers in drag. Most of the National Party could easily sit on the Labour Party benches and not be a bit out of place.

      National have totally betrayed their founding principles.

      “To promote good citizenship and self-reliance; to combat communism and
      socialism; to maintain freedom of contract; to encourage private
      enterprise; to safeguard individual rights and the privilege of
      ownership; to oppose interference by the State in business, and State
      control of industry‚ÄĚ.

  • http://elephanza.blogspot.co.nz/ Duncan Brown

    Facts from the news story:
    Colin Craig denied preaching the message…
    An Employment Relations Tribunal found he didn’t make the reference…
    Stiekema was awarded compensation by the ERA after they found Craig’s company didn’t follow process…

    Opinion? that’s a totally dfferent question

  • Apolonia

    So having a different opinion is a crime! George Orwell  here we come.

    • Mike Hunt

      No, reading comprehension is a crime. Colin’s tweet reads as a statement of fact not an opinion. That’s why normal intelligent people have a problem with it. Will be interesting to see if he attempts to qualify his reasoning…

      • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

         Oh gawd.

        Apply that rule to the left sometime.

        Idiot.

      • Mike Hunt

        I apply it to the those idiots all the time

        Fucktard

  • Callum

    Genetically speaking, homosexuality removes you from the gene pool. Is that what nature intended?

    • grumpy

      Sort of like a bulk “Darwin Award”?

    • le sphincter

      .. plenty of gay couples have children from a previous relationship

      • Callum

        I have nothing against homosexuality at all and you are free to do as you please in your own home. What I find funny is the constant claims that you are born gay but no consideration of the implications of that, if that is true then it is a genetic defect designed NOT to be passed on. Your point about children from past relationships does raise an issue, where they just lying to their partner at the time or didn’t know they were gay then? Or is their a component of choice involved? Or is it a bit of both? More likely sexuality is a continuim where you have a preference both ways with only the balance varying.

    • Mediaan

      We need the facts established before assuming this. Sperm donors banned if homosexual? Bi-sexual men never procreate?

  • Groans

    Good on you Colin.  By the way to the queers and their supporters out there; whose property are you going to wreck when you lose the vote?

    • Polish_pride

      Who’s will you wreck when they win. Furthermore what will you do when the legislation is passed and the sky doesn’t fall and society doesn’t crumble.¬†

      • Groans

        Don’t know where you live.¬† Society’s alrealy falling apart and crumbling.¬† Bit unfair to give it a push don’t think.

      • Polish_pride

        Groans РYou know what I would actually have to agree with you on that one.  

    • http://elephanza.blogspot.co.nz/ Duncan Brown

      I don’t get the reference to “wrecking property”

  • Pres Kennedy

    Good on you Colin Craig for not being afraid to say what you think. It galls the shit out of me when your devout catholics like English hide behind the party line.¬†The problem¬†with national and Labour now days is, you can’t tell them apart. ¬†

    • Stroker08

      For a start this will be a conscious vote  (unless you are in the Green Party who have stated they will vote in a bloc in support of the Act) so dont confuse this as a political issue.

      This is for all intents and purposes generational conflict. The youth of New Zealand that will inherit the country overwhelmingly support this move, with I suspect a decent chunk of the Gen X and older. Even the National Youth wing have come out in support of the bill.

      If it doesnt get passed now it will in the future. The inevitability of this change suggests to me we should get on and implement the change now and focus on other stuff. A bit like settling Treaty greavances.

  • Guest

    Young Nats are nasty militant liberals

    • Apolonia

      David Caygil was a member of the young Nationals and was quite at home in Labour.
      Red Labour or blue Labour, there both the same.

  • Michael

    Is having green eyes normal? Less then 50% of the population have them (worldwide I would guess less than 10%), so are we comfortable having laws that discriminate against people with green eyes? Or politicians who decry their abnormality?

    The issue here is not really what is normal, it is what is bigoted. Gays are an abomination to the fundies, so they will attack them in any way they can.Maybe one day they will be treated just like people with green eyes…..

  • In Vino Veritas

    There those about that would say:

    “It‚Äôs just not intelligent to pretend that believing in a¬†single, or any¬†deity is normal.”

    • grumpy

      It’s “normal”, just not “intelligent”.

  • J_j

    Describing homosexuality as “not normal” is, by the technical definition, correct, in the same way as saying that choosing not to own, say,¬†a television is not “normal”, however I’m yet to hear one good reason why this should not become law, and lots of fair and reasonable reasons why it should.

  • Guest

    Even Dan Savage (
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Savage) says that homosexuality is not normal, if you stick to the definition of normal as ‘typical, usual or regular’. But I’d guess Whale is commenting on the spirit of Craig’s comment, that is inferring that to be abnormal is wrong. However if to be abnormal is wrong, then we are all pretty wrong… everyone has something about them that is atypical or unusual.¬†

  • Blokeintakapuna

    The same mentality / argument was put forward back in the days of slavery ‚Äď where any ‚Äúblack person‚ÄĚ was considered a second class citizen and treated as such¬†‚Äď kind of like how woman are treated in the likes of KSA, Afghanistan, Syria and most likely North Korea.
     
    It‚Äôs now been proven that regardless of where you live, what your preferences may or may not be, a tear cried in anguish is still a tear cried in anguish and a drop of blood is always red and still a drop of blood ‚Äď just the blood type may differ.
     
    Regardless of where you finish or start from, we are all in the only race that matters ‚Äď the human race. We are all uniquely different from everyone else ‚Äď just the way God intended. For human kind to attempt to ‚Äúknow‚ÄĚ better than God‚Äôs plan for the human race and God‚Äôs judgement ‚Ķis an exercise in futility and conceited arrogance.
     
    It‚Äôs far better to just accept that everyone is different and if it‚Äôs not happening under your own roof and if it‚Äôs between 2 consenting adults ‚Äď it‚Äôs none of your business what 2 other consenting adults prefer to do or not to do.
     
    Reminds me of the saying ‚ÄúWhat someone thinks of me is none of my business‚ÄĚ
     
    Besides ‚Äď with more gay men around ‚Äď that means there‚Äôs gotta be more boobies for¬†us straight guys! YEHA!
     
     

    • grumpy

      Sorry to disappoint you bloke, but there won’t be any more chicks.¬† The guys who went poofter did so because they struck out with chicks – so, no change.

    • jonno1

      Interesting to raise slavery as an analogy. This is where an immoral practice was finally put to rest through the efforts of Wilberforce and others. OTOH, the immoral practice of sodomy is now being touted as somehow “normal” and therefore OK. An inversion of good and evil perhaps?

      I see also that the 10% meme has been trotted out. Now I don’t have any links but I understand that more recent research suggests the incidence of homosexuals in society is in the 1-2% range (and not all are practicing, for example¬†I have a gay friend who agrees it is immoral, despite her leanings). No doubt someone can support or refute this percentage.

      So if 2% of the population, or even 10%,¬†choose to behave in a way that the vast majority don’t, that’s hardly normal by any reasonable definition of the word.

      • grumpy

        Correct, the current incidence of homosexuality is 1 in 38 – about 3%.

        Also, the incidence of pedophilia, (although numerically higher in heterosexual men), is over 6 times higher in homosexual.

  • Johnny T

    I have some sympathy for Colin’s position, but as I have said before, who am I to dictate to consenting adults what they should or should not be doing in the privacy of their own homes.

    We should not however encourage homosexuality, as it weakens our society.

    • Alloytoo

      You can’t encourage homesexuality, it just happens.

      • grumpy

        Course you can;

        first, ¬†adopt a male child…………………

      • Alloytoo

        @9354ddce450ad28663ba50c18544bcae:disqus 

        And he’ll have a 1/10 chance of being gay, about the same as his sister.

      • grumpy

        Alloytoo

        Really….??????

        http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAH050.pdf

      • Alloytoo

        @9354ddce450ad28663ba50c18544bcae:disqus 

        Yes grumpy, really.

        And I urge to refrain from fundy FUD.

        Just say NO to organised religion. 

  • Scanner

    Wall grafiti once seen -”My mother made me a poofter” and writen underneath it was “if I got her the wool would she make me one to”

  • MASH_4077th

    Personally I’m not outraged. It does surprise me that the majority of comment here may seem in favor of his views.

    • Blokeintakapuna

      Conceited arrogance and ignorance compounded by intollerance and misplaced sanctimony. Haters gonna hate…

      • http://elephanza.blogspot.co.nz/ Duncan Brown

        Just cos I disagree with your point of view doesn’t mean I hate you

      • http://elephanza.blogspot.co.nz/ Duncan Brown

        And here’s a thought. If having a different opinion from you makes me intolerant, doesn’t your having a different opinion to mine make you intolerant? Isn’t it better to at least try and understand the other’s view?

    • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

       You should pay less attention to the left wing liberal media and more to the average man in the street.

      There’s a massive gap between what the two think and believe.¬† Even though the lying cowards in the former often claim to be speaking for the latter, they don’t.

      Newspaper, television and the entertainment industry are all just propagandists for the liberal cause, and they can’t work out why they’re gradually losing favour.

      Its because they don’t speak for the average person. They’re elitist liberals who try and force their views down other people’s throats.

      • J_j

        So if you don’t support a move towards this becoming law, let’s hear why not.¬† I’d love to hear a good reason for it being a bad thing – how it’ll negatively affect you or your family, or anyone else’s for that matter.

      • Apolonia

         Can you hear an echo?

      • Polish_pride

        See Redbaiter I don’t listen to the MSM¬†nor do I listen to their opinions. I prefer to think for myself and associate with like minded people. Those same people are my friends and are tolerant of¬†many things….including gay marriage. ¬†
        All your example shows is that your friends i.e. the people you associate with are more closed minded and less tolerant of others. Do not make the mistake of believing that the views held by you and your friends is likewise held and shared by the rest of society.    

  • Mitch

    The guy’s a bible thumping retard… thinks gay marriage is bad, probably uses the “what’s next – polygamy?” argument, and forgets that his book gives the green light on taking many wives and concubines. Pretty sure that suit he’s wearing on his Twitter pic has polyester in it.

    I wonder if his brain damage is actually genetically handed down from his ancestors, who were probably all punched in the head through the ages for being fuckwits?

    • Michael

      ¬†Where exactly does the bible give the green light to those things? Don’t confuse reporting the facts with endorsing the conduct?

      And since Colin isn’t a Jew living under the Abrahamic covenant, why isn’t he allowed to wear polyester?

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

      The only problem I can see with polygamy is that you end up with multiple mothers in law….if that doesn’t put anyone off then¬†what¬†will?

  • Lion_ess

    No problem with Civil Union or Gay Marriage but¬†I get stuck on extending the same rights as heteros to adopt children.¬† Don’t mind if they surrogate though

  • Hombre

    Intolerance, no mate, two roosters don’t make a chicken.

    • MASH_4077th

      Spot on. 

    • le sphincter

      Hens still lay eggs without them ! Are you saying chickens arent normal ?

      • Polish_pride

        That is because an egg is a hens period ….and one of the reasons I am now vegan. :)

      • In Vino Veritas

        Polish, I’ve heard that veganism is an illness. There are some people in the States that have received government grants and are researching a cure.

      • Polish_pride

        VV Рinteresting,  what do you think my chances of getting a government grant for a similar study here in NZ would be?. 

      • grumpy

        Polish_Pride; better if the Greens get to form a coalition with Labour in 3 elections time……

      • In Vino Veritas

        Pretty high Polish, ‘specially if the Greens were the ones applying for it……

      • Travis Poulson

        Don’t be dumb Le Craphole, an egg doesn’t create another chicken without fertilization from a rooster. Please tell me you aren’t dumb enough to think another egg is another chicken?

    • Polish_pride

      Hombre – So two homosexuals getting married affects your life how?
      Perhaps you’re concerned it would make your choice to marry that much more difficult as you will¬†first have to decide whether you’d like to marry a man or a woman, before deciding exactly who to marry…?¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†

  • DangerMice

    Live and let live I say. Who gives a flying fuck what is normal. Normal is always changing with the times

    • Random66

      Our society, family structure and core values have all drastically¬†changed in the last 50 years or so.¬† Change will always happen but do you honestly think society is moving in the right direction? Are we as a society better off now by re-defining normal?¬†¬†Think about this¬†before you fly off the cuff.¬† When you watch the news do you think¬†our young ones are behaving better, our parenting is as loving and firm as it used to be, are our marriages as strong, is¬†our tolerance to all things, including¬†the abuse of our children making for a better society?¬†¬†¬†What changes we make now as a society will impact upon both yours and my children.¬† Who’s interests do we really have – ours or theirs?

    • http://elephanza.blogspot.co.nz/ Duncan Brown

      And there lies the crux of¬†the argument… One side has an adaptable variable¬†morality, where over time anything goes. The other side chooses to base morality on a written set of principles, even if it can be interpreted differently by different people.

      Therefore it’s not so much the gay marriage that is at stake, but whether as a society we should live according to morals or whether we should all just do our own thing. And that’s not a road I want to go any further down.

  • Magoo.

    After a few generations of our children being conditioned¬†in school that¬†homosexuality is normal, by teachers who are more interested in pushing their liberal political agendas than teaching, we have now reached the point were anyone who says it’s not normal is branded as some kind of bigoted freak leper. We’re currently seeing the same thing with the climate change indoctrination of our society’s children.

    A girl I went to uni with said the only reason she was bisexual was because it doubled her chances of getting laid. Classy.

    Sorry, but I don’t think it’s normal. It only becomes normal in a society with declining morals that tries to excuse itself behind the definitions such as progressive, modern, or whatever else people use to delude themselves. Who knows, in a few decades we may be so unbigoted, progressive & modern as to accept incest & fucking animals, and teaching our kids in school that it’s ok as well. Anyone who disagrees, well they’re just evil. The animal or family members were loved after all.

    In the meantime though, little Johnny (who was conceived and carried by a surrogate mother for a gay couple) can take both his 2 mummy’s or daddy’s along to the parent/teacher interviews at school with all the other children and their 2 mummy’s & daddy’s. Just another nice, NORMAL parent/teacher evening.

    • Mitch

      Life’s a bastard when you become the minority being ridiculed and discriminated against rather than the gay community, huh?

      • Magoo.

        Tell that to the incestuous brothers & sisters, and animal fuckers in a couple of generations Mitch when someone wants to marry his dog.

      • Random66

        Oh Magoo you have way too much faith in your fellow man.¬† You don’t have to wait a couple of generations for this to start to happen.¬† I googled ‘marry your dog’ and you would be amazed at how common this is.¬† Won’t be long before it is ‘normal’.

      • Mitch

        Inter-racial marriage wasn’t considered ‘normal’ for a long time. But polygamy was.. oh the irony. I could bring up the Old Testament, and people would cry “Oh but the times have changed! We don’t follow the Old Testament anymore! We follow the New Testament!”

        Yup, times have, are, and indeed will continue to change. If we didn’t change with them, we’d be stoning people in public, slavery would still be rocking, and women wouldn’t be allowed to vote.

      • Magoo.

        Holy shit Random66, you’re right. In the words of Wacko Jacko – ‘It’s a beautiful & natural thing’. They could use genetic engineering to splice the genetic code of the dog and it’s owner for some test tube babies as well, I mean puppies, I mean ….

        All perfectly normal.

  • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

    All your example shows is that your friends i.e. the people you
    associate with are more closed minded and less tolerant of others.

    Opposition to homosexual marriage has nothing to do with either of those, (close mindness and intolerance) and that you think it has is the reason why trying to argue the point with you is a complete waste of time.

    I might as well try and paddle a canoe to the next galaxy.

    • Polish_pride

      Bigotry perhaps then? does that work better for you?

      • Groans

        All laws are discrimatory.¬† Why shouldn’t Redbaiter be allowed to have a point of view without the sactimonious crowd abusing him.

      • Polish_pride

        Groans – He (and anyone else) is allowed to have whatever view he wants. That is of course freedom of speech.¬†It is when he starts imposing that will on others that becomes an issue for others who will inturn exercise their freedom of speech and tell him (and anyone else) what they think of his views. – you can’t put up the argument you did (which was a good one btw) and not have it go both ways.¬†

  • gazzaw

    I don’t give a flying fuck about Colin Craig’s views on gay marriage as the issue is in all probability always going to be the subject of a conscience vote. I would far rather have Craig and a few of his colleagues sitting on the Nat’s right shoulder than the disparate bunch of political liabilities that currently make up the coalition.

  • Travis Poulson

    Good on ya Colin, someone that has the nads to come out and say it finally. 

    A caller on ZB this morning raised the argument that several others have regurgitated on this blog before in support of homosexuality, the idiotic argument of “it’s not unnatural, it happens in the animal kingdom as well.” Well yes, it does happen in the animal kingdom, but so does mating within the family, fighting to the death over a female or food, and females killing the male after the act of mating has been completed. Should we make those acts ok in mankind as well, and label anyone that opposes those perversions as ‘bigots’ and ‘haters’?

    I don’t really care if Homosexuals want to get married, but they can have a different name for it, marriage is between a man and a woman.¬†

    People worried about homosexuals taking over the world need not worry, as another reader said a while ago, “homosexuals can’t breed, they have to recruit” or something to that effect. Either way, two men having anal sex and getting a dirty dick/tongue is still a disgusting perversion, married or not.¬†

    • gazzaw

      Trav, this will be no walkover. The third reading will be in 2014 and far too close to the election for any MP who is sitting in a marginal seat to risk making the wrong call. This will be a conscience vote in name only. There will be more than a few ‘liberal’ labour MPs in fundy Christian areas like Roskill or PI electorates who will be voting against their conscience to guarantee their continued seat¬†on the gravy train. ¬†¬†

      Banksy won’t be standing again and in all likelihood the Nats big white hope in Epsom¬†should they choose not to go it alone will be Craig so this will be an interesting story to watch unfold.

      • Travis Poulson

        Heh, and Epsom will be the talking point 2 elections in a row, hopefully minus the meetings in public cafe’s and has-been pollies making short lived comebacks.¬†

    • Mitch

      If you think the thought of homosexual sex, anal or other, is perverse or disgusting, stop watching it.

      As for a homosexual couple being married, and being called a married couple, it affects you, me, or the man down the road not one single bit. Your marriage isn’t degraded, devalued or affected in the slightest way shape or form. That insecure logic is like saying that your car loses value if the gay guy next door buys the same make, model and colour as you did.

      • Travis Poulson

        Poor comparison using cars, Mitch. Also poor job at reading the last part of my comment. I neither said nor implied the “watching” or “thought of homosexual sex”.¬†

        If you are a homosexual and engage in this perverse act, good for you, that’s your right. If I choose not to like it/agree with it, that’s mine. I don’t expect you to stop it just because I don’t like it, but I don’t have to like it, and I will continue not to like it.¬†

        You can have some kind of marriage if you want, quite happy about that, just call it something else, because it’s not the same.¬†

        You’re quite happy being ‘different’ being gay, but want the same name as a heterosexual marriage? ¬†Either way, I won’t be changing my mind, and neither will you.¬†

        I’m not implying you are, but you can call me all the names you like: hater/bigot/homophobic etc I couldn’t care less. It still won’t make me support making something abnormal into something deemed normal by a vote.¬†

      • Mitch

        Sorry, I thought that by calling it a disgusting perversion, you had some qualification to back that up. How do you know it’s a disgusting perversion? It could be quite beautiful, for all you know. It’s really not that aesthetically different from a man and a woman going at it. If you’ve ever been aroused watching a straight porno, you could actually be gay without knowing it.. the only difference between that and gay porn is 50% less penis.. give or take.

        Also I’m not gay.. but I can understand the confusion.

        Gah.. so many puns.

      • Travis Poulson

        “Sorry, I thought that by calling it a disgusting perversion, you had some qualification to back that up.”

        Great, now I’m talking to Maggie Barry.

      • Mitch

        Well how do you know, Travis? ‘Disgusting perversion’ is quite arbitrary. You could be doing (what I’d consider) disgusting, perverted things with your wife at night, but how would I know? I could be a fan of the gimp suit and spinning sex swing, which would be a disgusting perversion to the nice old lady next door, but she doesn’t have to watch me having sex, she (hopefully) doesn’t think about me having sex, and none of the disgusting perversion that could be happening in my bedroom affects her (we’re not that loud), her marriage, house price or her way of life.

      • Travis Poulson


        Well how do you know, Travis? ‘Disgusting perversion’ is quite arbitrary. You could be doing (what I’d consider) disgusting, perverted things with your wife at night, but how would I know? I could be a fan of the gimp suit and spinning sex swing,”

        except you’re making assumptions, whereas I’m not.¬†

  • Polish_pride

    History of Traditional Marriage in the States
    1691 - Whites only
    1724 – Blacks with the permission of the slave owner
    1769 – Wife is Property
    1899 – Polygamy made illegal (legal prior to this)
    1900 – Wife can own property
    1965 – Contraception legal
    1967 – interracial marriages legal
    1975 – Wife can have credit in her name
    1981 – Husband owns all property removed
    1993 – Marital Rape made illegal (legal prior to this)

    Anyone opposing Gay Marriage will be looked back¬†no different to those who opposed Blacks being allowed to marry, Interracial Marriages being made legal and many of the other things on this list. If you want freedom….. do not deny it to others ….including freedom to choose who to marry ….male or female. ¬†¬†

  • Steve and Monique

    Ok,marriage is a term used to discribe a joining/mixing of two objects,and also by the Church/law to discribe the joining of a man,and a woman.What word best suits the joining of two members of the same sex if marriage is so inflammatory????.Myself,I dont have an issue if it is used,as I am not hung up on the word,only the reason for doing so,pledging ones love for our partners.And before you ask,I love my wife.

  • Alex

    Yes CC is entitled to his opinion in a democracy. 

    But tell me why those of us in same sex relationships should continually find ourselves the subject of public comment by people like CC?

    Why are heterosexual relationships not the subject of similar scrutiny?¬† To those in heterosexual relationships would you like it if politicians publically opined your relationships were “not natural”?

    Why do so called “real right wingers” come out of the woodwork whenever homosexuals are mentioned?¬† Is it some sort of therapeutic catharsis?

    The National Party was never founded on intolerance.  (Indeed some of the first attempts at decriminalising homosexuality were made by National MPs.) 

    The National Party is meant to be a Classical Liberal party — ie, small state, and no religious influences.¬†¬† Accordingly, it is quite within the National party’s founding principles to say that people should mind their own business, that consenting adults should be able to agree to the relationships they wish to create; that the State should not regulate sexual conduct between consenting adults, and that it is the State — not religious groups — that defines marriage.

    CC and his fundy sect-cum-party will be the electoral death of National.¬† For god’s sake, wake up.¬† One of the key reasons Labour held power for 3 terms was that it appealed to the liberal, tolerant — live and let live — ethos of your average NZ’der.¬† Labour was easily able to portray National as being full of intolerant and uncaring bigots.¬†
     

     

  • MrV

    Why does marriage require state protection? If it is such a good thing then people will opt for it as a private contract between loving, consenting individuals without any special state mandated protection. If the state removed itself from marriage, all these stupid arguments would be moot.

  • GregM

    About 10 pm this evening, a gay couple who I have known for 26 years asked me” if we are allowed to be married , will you be prepared to be best man”.
    My reply was ” It would be a privilege to be both of you’s best man”.
    My daughter ( 15 ) is all exited about her “uncles” chance at marriage, and is still deciding whether to be bridesmaid or groomsman!
    I am 100% in support of this, and I will die in a ditch to support my friends more than 30 year relationship.
    Religious claptrap has nothing to add to this subject, basic humanity , and tolerance is what we need to move forward.

  • Mediaan

    Bible disapproval of homosexuality is clear. Romans 1:20+

    Concubines, Abraham and David had lots.

    Samuel 5:13
    Chronicles

84%