An email from a reader

One of my regular readers/commenters emails

Hi Cameron

First of all, kudos to you for developing such a great & varied blog…..there is always something comment worthy on there & your seemingly endless supply of information is interesting & entertaining!

But more than this, thank you for continuing to fight for gay marriage. I am impressed that someone who calls themselves a Christian (I have the same faith but just don’t feel the label applies to me), is able to see this issue for what it is; law abiding people who deserve the same rights as other law abiding people. I was a late comer to the issue of gay marriage primarily because I thought Civil Unions sorted it and because I never really gave it much thought. This I think is something too many people have done; we have taken for granted a civil right that we have never had withheld, never had to fight for.

But the depressing thing is that you are never going to get these anti gay people on your blog to go away and the silent majority will remain silent. I love defending the underdog and I am a real stickler for the principle of the issue, but even I am just amazed how, despite putting some rather obvious facts out there, these so-called clever people (they seem to be on other issues), just skirt around them and bury their heads deep into the sand.

So I think you have two choices here: block these people who continue to espouse the same myths, crazy, bigotry and general hate or stop these posts as honestly, so many of these comments are so offensive and I hate to think how they are affecting some gay people – especially the young ones. I have yet to decide which comments are worse – the outright offensive ones (like Redbaiter et al) or the gentler toned ones full of patronizing comments that reek of condemnation and judgment (such as Lucia or Random66). It is so demoralising that so many people have so little empathy and kindness for their fellow man.

These people just don’t seem to understand that the issue is not about whether homosexuality is normal; it is about giving law-abiding people the same full societal rights that other law-abiding people enjoy.

You seem to get this, Polish seems to get this & the lefties who come on here seem to get it, but the core of these commentators (not necessarily your squillions of readers) are just never going to get it. I am not sure if it is because that they are too blind, stupid or just plain scared of something they don’t understand.

Either way these posts are showing how ugly some people really are and what concerns me is the vulnerable person struggling with their sexuality reading this and harming themselves.

However, if you do decide to keep fighting the good fight via your blog, then perhaps you should get someone like Margaret Mayman to do a guest post. She and a Catholic priest shared their views on Stuff a couple of weeks ago. See http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/7378904/For-and-against-Same-sex-marriage.

I would imagine that few people would dare to write hateful comments to a minister – or at least one would hope!

I don’t believe in banning, though the few I have banned have just been personally abusive. I am in favour is having the offensive and outrageous commenters comment. They do not realise that that they do their cause no end of damage. I for one think that their ideas should be shouted from the rooftops ¬†instead of hidden. The more people see of intolerance the more they can oppose it and mock it.

Silly ideas should be laughed at, not hidden. Our society would be the poorer for it should any government decide that it wants to restrict speech with so-called hate speech laws. I would oppose such measures with every breathe in my body and all of the influence this small blog can muster.

  • SalParadise2012


    the gentler toned ones full of patronizing comments that reek of condemnation and judgment (such as Lucia or Random66)”

    I was thinking exactly the same thing yesterday as Lucia referred to Brigette O’Connor as a naive young woman.

    • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

      She is naive.¬† I was pretty similar when I was her age, and believed in all the trendy causes that the culture benders were engaged in changing.¬† It was only as I got older and saw that some things just didn’t work (and that takes time and experience rather than just the exuberance of youth), that I started questioning the messaging that I was exposed to in the media and in the culture.¬† And when I had my first child, everything changed even more dramatically.

      The problem is giving young people’s opinions the same weight as someone who has done more than just grow up successfully.¬† Who would want a 20-something as a boss?¬† Very few I bet.¬† That is not to disparage the young person, it’s just a fact of life that their inexperience means that they’d make some very poor decisions.

      • http://wasteddays2012.blogspot.co.nz/ SalParadise2012

        Lucia, the way you tar everyone with the same brush is incredible.

        Some young people are naive and some aren’t naive. Some 20-something’s would make terrible bosses and some would make great bosses.

        Plenty of older people support marriage equality. Is time and experience helping them to make good decisions or bad decisions in your opinion?

      • Polish_pride

        Perhaps Lucia she is just more enlightened.

      • Dean Gray

        Have you ever considered voting for NZ First? You’d be an excellent candidate too.

  • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

    The guest poster, like most on the left, completely misses the point.

    There are two camps- The first camp buys into propaganda about “rights” and ‘equality”.

    Tthe second camp merely requires that marriage remains as it always has been and that is an alliance between a man and a woman.

    There is no hate involved in belonging to the second camp. Merely a desire to protect an old age institution that is considered valuable.

    And if one really desires the mythical Marxist concept of “equality”, and is concerned with so called “rights’, then one can rest assured it already applies, in that every man has the “right” to marry every woman and every woman has the same “right” to marry every man.

    In this guest post we have the same old left wing totalitarian mindset, where anybody that opposes left wing social mores is a hater and therefore their views should be forcibly suppressed.

    Surely anyone with any sense can see where such subjective ideas can lead.

    I don’t care who he/ she claims to be, the person who wrote the guest post is just another intolerant neo-communist progressive, and if there is any real problem in our society,today, it stems largely from the totalitarian mindset of these people.

    I want their views heard, and I will protect their right to freedom of expression.

    They want to shut me down.

    There is the real difference.

    It should not be hard for any person who claims to respect liberty to choose their side in this debate.

    • Apolonia

      ¬†Well said Red. The “I don’t like your opinion, therefore you shouldn’t have the right to speak” is typical of the left and their supporters.
      We need a referendum on this issue. Then all our voices can have a say.

    • grumpy

      …and meanwhile, in Australia, the new sneering insult¬†from the left is “heteronormative”.

      The odd thing Red, is that Whale would agree with your well laid out arguments on any subject EXCEPT poofter marriage, in which case he has thrown his lot in with the extreme left.

      Won’t be long before he starts banning commenters here, and the “guest post” above may just be the stalking horse.

      • http://wasteddays2012.blogspot.co.nz/ SalParadise2012

        Thrown his lot in with the extreme left? I didn’t know they constituted 60%+ of the country.

      • grumpy

        SalParadise2012,

        If you really believe that to be true, why do you not support a referendum??????

        Thought so, bullshit!

      • guest

        Anytime now I reckon grumpy

      • Polish_pride

        Grumpy I do, but I don’t agree with the money it costs – given the state of the country… do you?¬†

      • grumpy

        Polish_pride, what a pathetic cop out.  When we have petitions trying to force a referendum on partial asset sales straight after an election where the issue was a major policy plank????

        Just shows how totally dishonest the Left are.¬† To them poofter marriage is an “article of faith” like benefit entitlement without working, police are evil, Islam is good, Jews are bad etc. etc.

      • Polish_pride

        Grumpy again given the state of the country I don’t agree with those referendums either. As I said, happy to have one just not happy about the cost.
        If you are happy about the cost your probably on the wrong blog.

      • grumpy

        Polish_pride

        heh

      • Polish_pride

        Grumpy – Right wing, conservative, less govt, less spending….and so on.¬†¬†

      • grumpy

        Polish……yeah, yeah, you’ve made your point……………….

    • Random66

      Thank you Red for saying that so nicely.¬† While it is true that I have expressed my opinion that I don’t think Gay marriage is a good idea, I don’t believe I have ever done it in a manner other than to say I don’t agree with it and here is my reason why (I am happy for others to read my past comments to decide for themselves).¬† I have not resorted to name calling etc ¬†and it would seem that to have an opinion at all that does not agree with the reader is completely unacceptable.¬† As I have said previously let there be a referendum and let the majority speak and I will accept the outcome whatever that may be, but to allow just a few the opportunity to speak and to promote the banning or silence of all others should be unthinkable.¬†

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        Random the problem is that when you say things like homosexuality is akin to incest, polygamy, child molestation & the downfall of society there is no way a gay person can possibly ever read that and not read it as hate, bigotry & ignorance. 
        Like I said, it’s all very well having a nice tone, but if you are writing pure venom it can still hurt. It’s just toxic and nothing good will ever come from it.Maybe you should say your views on here as if your gay nephew was looking over your shoulder.

        You say you love him so perhaps you should remember that other gay people are nephews, sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, grandaughters, grandsons, fathers & mothers.

      • Random66

        Unsolicitedious, I have previously asked where is the line drawn, at¬†what point¬†can society say no and to whom,¬†because there are many excluded from marriage under the current system¬†and if the law changes for one group¬†how can¬†it be argued to¬†deny¬†the wants of another.¬†¬†If personal freedom¬†trumps all then¬†I believe it will be to the detriment of society.¬† You are a master at twisting other peoples words to suit your own agenda.¬† You also are the one that has seen fit to make this personal by¬†questioning my sexuality, insult me as a parent and to constantly try to drag my nephew into your discussion.¬† It is my view my family is off limits to you, however I will say my nephew is more than capable of fighting his own battles and doesn’t require me to do it for him.¬† I do however truely take issue with your tactics of writing to WO with the hope of silencing any dissenting view to your own under the guise that any negative comment made could cause those who are struggling with their own¬†sexuality to self harm.¬† It would seem to me that WO in general is not for the faint hearted and reading his blog and the comments associated is not compulsory, so if you don’t like what you are reading – don’t read.

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        Random I haven’t twisted anything – I have merely regurgitating what you have said. You made your views very clear; f you don’t like my reference to your comments then don’t write them in the first place!¬†

        Interesting that your family is off limits yet you want to impose your moral code on other families.Re referring to my writing to WO as tactic – thank you. I hadn’t thought of it that way – clearly you only see it as such because you feel threatened by it.¬†Once again – it was not about censorship, it was about the futility of continually posting about this issue only to find the same people making the same uninformed, misguided and often hateful comments time & time again, and the potential harm this might be doing.¬†Sure gay youth have the option of not looking at this blog – or any online forum debating this issue, but it gets to the point where you have to ask what the pay-off is.And that is something you need to ask yourself every time you suggest that homosexuality and/or gay marriage will be to the detriment of society.

    • JimboBug

      Surely if you want to use history to provide an unchanging definition of marriage then¬†polygamy¬†should be allowed; as should treating the bride as one of her father’s chattels; as should victims of rapists being forced to marry their tormentor.

      Its fine, and indeed right, to have your own views; but you should also allow others to have their own views. My view is that arguing based upon the definition of marriage being unchanging shows a lack of historical awareness of the institution of marriage.

      From my opinion the main argument seems to boil down to “homosexuality is not normal and quite a bit icky” so gay marriage should be banned. I agree with the former but don’t believe that the latter follows.¬†

    • Robert

      ¬†“…every man has the ‘right’ to marry every woman and every woman has the same ‘right’ to marry every man.”

      You’re wrong when saying “every man” has the right to marry “every woman” they don’t, and I know because when Helen Clark and Heather Simpson told me to get stuffed after I told them I had the right to marry both of them and for all three of us to live together in domestic bliss I sued them under the Bill of Rights and I lost because the court said that there was in fact no such right. So Red, while I’d been under the same the illusion for so long you’re wrong. There’s no such right at all. And I had to find out the hard way.

      • DJ

         Holy Fuck!

        What would you have done if they had said yes?

    • Polish_pride

      Redbaiter unfortunately it is you who do not get it.
      It has nothing to do with Left vs Right
      It has nothing to do with socialism
      It has nothing to do with Marxism or Communism or Totalitarianism
      It has nothing to do with being a neo-communist progressive.
      It has nothing to do with wanting to shut down your views
      you also clearly do not understand the concept of ‘Liberty’ as if you did you would understand that you cannot apply liberty to a selected group of society and not to others because of the way¬†you feel.
      Understand this….. I do not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. An old quote but a very valid one.
      The only actual understandable arguement in opposition to this issue is the one you have put forward that ‘Marriage’ is between a¬†Man and a Woman. Historically this is correct but then Marriage and its definition has evolved over time in a number of different areas becoming broader each time and now it is time for it to evolve again to include same sex marriages. Not for any of the arguements you have posted above. But simply because in what should be an open, free and democratic society it is the right and just thing to do.
      add all of the other arguments in favour of same sex marriage here…….

    • Robert

      “…every man has the “right” to marry every woman and every woman has the same “right” to marry every man.”

      Might appear logical or fair to say this but it isn’t. It’s the wrong analogy.¬† The correct question should be: Do any two people have the right to marry each other?¬† Any other conceptualisation assumes a belief that same sex couples should not have the right to marry – plain and simple.¬† Attempts at using “logic” (whatever logic means because even that depends on value judgements) aren’t necessarily useful in this debate because at the bottom line is the question about whether denying same sex couples the right to marry is justified or not. I don’t think it is, Redbaiter does.¬† And it’s not just a matter of discrimination.¬† There’s discrimination everywhere we look, some’s good and some is bad. It just so happens that denying marriage to same sex couples is bad therefore it’s wrong.

    • Gazzaw

      “I want their views heard and I will protect their right to freedom of expression.

      They want to shut me down”

      Absolutely says it all RB as does the support for your post.

      • MASH_4077th

        Finally!

    • Unsolicitedious

      Hence “Silly ideas should be laughed at, not hidden. Our¬†society¬†would be the poorer for it should any government decide that it wants to restrict speech with so-called hate speech laws”

      Well said WO. Unlike the few readers who agree with this fool, I & the rest of your readers get your point completely!!!!!!!

      Redbaiter: seems to me the poster hit a nerve & a good one too. Funny too that you go on about neo communism this & yet fail to take responsibility for the way you might impact others with your snide, idiotic & completely ignorant remarks. Sounds to me that the “red” in your alias is very much indicative of red – left – leanings!!!!!

    • Pukakidon

       Redbaiter, Lucia 

      I dont necessarily agree with you at times and we have a difference of opinion on this gay marriage thing.  However I would always protect your right to express you view.  

      This person is typical of the leftist back door dealers, this is what they do at the Satandard ban anyone with an opposing view.   They were the ones that always went crying to the teacher with spiteful manipulative fibs.  Never face up with relevant argument, just wheedle their way through life like a worm.

      Waste of oxygen and would contribute as much as a turd on a breakfast bar.

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        No Pukakidon, it isn’t about censorship, it is about calling it a day – this is a battle that will not be won online, no one on here is going to change their mind.¬†

        WO has been posting on this issue since forever and I just don’t know how¬†continuing to give these people & their ignorant comments so much oxygen can be good, especially if young people struggling with their sexuality are reading them. Hence the point of the email.

        “Never face up with relevant argument, just wheedle their way through life like a worm” – that is how I see the anti gay marriage group on here. They skirt around the issue and just keep declaring their anti gay stance whilst regurgitating the same old cliches, myths & general crazy like a broken record, as if following the old mantra “if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth’.

  • Andrei

    Silly ideas should be laughed at, not hidden.

    And as silly ideas go “Gay Marriage” is right up there with them.

    It is not only extremely silly – it is dangerous

    • Mike Hunt

      you know what is sillier?

      and far more dangerous?

      religion

    • Polish_pride

      Based on what Andrei….? Apart from your own prejudices, based on what?

      • Andrei

        Based on the need of the species to perpetuate itself.

      • Polish_pride

        BS Andrei is that seriously the best you can come up with. What, you think that if Gay Marriage is legalised you will catch ‘The Gay’ and therefore no longer be interested in heterosexual¬†sex!!??!!
        They are about 10% of the population. The other 90% (who are the ones creating all the gays in the first place) are more than capable of continuing to perpetuate the species.
        Try again! 

      • grumpy

        Wrong Polish, now you are being silly.  Poofterism is between 2 and 3% of society.

        No need to exaggerate ……

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

        Andrei, it isn’t compulsory….you know that don’t you?

  • Pixiefj

    What Redbaiter said.  Hear Hear!

  • Guest

    Oh Dear Minister banning people because they have differing views tut tut.
    Ban me I have a different view and not all gay people are law abiding citizens,.You make it sound like gay people are holier than thou and can have free rein here.
    Perhaps if I could direct your attention to the openly gay MPs, some of them are the nastiest underhanded people around, we have had openly gay people on here abusing people calling them fucktards? Is that different because they are gay? you don’t mention banning gay people who abuse others? or is that different?

    • grumpy

      You mean the radidly heterophibic Kosh, Sphincter etc. etc.

      Whale seems to attracting them from somewhere.¬† Never mind, when this issue is over we’ll never see them again.

      • Polish_pride

        Unfortunately for you Grumpy as much as you’d like me too I’m not going anywhere and I’m certainly not a heterophobe. Someone needs to be here to educate you. Lord knows the school system has failed many of you miserably. You guys should be the poster children for why charter schools might be worth a shot.¬†

      • grumpy

        Polish_pride,

        I’ve seen some very astute comments from you on other issues.¬† Perhaps, like Whale there is something we don’t know about that steers you in a temporary incomprehensible trajectory on this issue……..???

      • Polish_pride

        Grumpy I¬†will always find me on the side championing fairness and equality no matter what the issue….. and at night I return to the Bat Cave.

        The funniest thing is probably all of the guys on here would love to have¬†Ali Mau and her partner in bed with them for a 3 way in a heartbeat. But let them get married ….. When hell freezes over!!?!! Hell if I was Simon Dallow I’d have tried to get polygamy legalised as soon as Alison said they might have a problem.
         
        The other funny thing is that all of the guys on here including myself go out of their way NOT to think about two guys plugging each other in the butt, but posting on these topics those very images have popped into your heads more times than the rest of your entire lives and that is hilarious.

        Again I like the idea of bigots not being allowed to marry and being denied a number of other rights but then thats inconsistent and I am a big fan of consistency.        

      • grumpy

        Jesus Polish…….(if you will forgive the association)….you’ve got a dirty mind…….

    • Robert

       Tim Barnett was a nasty piece of work.

      • grumpy

        Poofterism at it’s finest!

        Now head sherang (or is it shirtlifter) at the Labour Party.

  • John Minnee

    Homosexuality, and lesbianism to me is abnormal. In my eyes (and it is my opinion only) I see no difference between that and bestiality. I cannot see how somethiong so abnormal should have an effect on an age old tradition such as Marraige.
    Not all heteresexual unions are allowed, Parent child marraige for instance, or polygamy, so the argument that they (gay) are being discriminated against is not true.If gay marraige goes through, will a father be allowed to marry his son, or a couisin marry a cousin?
    Why not give it a new name. Seeing as ‘civil union’ is not acceptable, what about ‘Garraige’

    • guest

      uncivil union?

    • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

       And who is to know who really is behind some of the more extreme views expressed here?

      To me, many of them seem as if they have been posted by pro homosexual marriage advocates to deliberately discredit the protectors of traditional marriage.

      With deliberate spelling mistakes designed to conform to the propaganda that opponents are illiterate and uneducated.

      If this is happening, it is just cowardly deceit, and shows the demoralized mindset of some of those who are promoting this attack on marriage.

      • Mike Hunt

        are you married redbaiter?

      • grumpy

        Mike Hunt, if you want to propose to Red, I suggest you do so over at his blog.

    • Auto_immune

      I just want to point out that you’re legally entitled to marry your cousin already, provided they are of the opposite sex.

    • MASH_4077th

      I got told off yesterday for the cousin on cousin thing..apparently that is ok in NZ. Polish does have a point above regards Ali Mau. Why is that situation so acceptable to men? Could I ask our female commenters is this the same as 2 blokes for them and are they equally turned off by the thought of two women having sex as men are with the opposite?  It is quite intriguing..

      • Guest

        Hmmm Alison Mau,has anyone dared to ask what effect her leaving her husband and children and turning lesbian with her childs dance teacher has had on her children or are we not allowed to go here? Now shes pro gay marriage fuck you cant have your cake and eat it to shes already been married to a bloke and didnt like the taste of that one! So lets rewrite law because i want nooky with a women now.

      • BJ

        My take on it… Based on my understanding of the female anatomy – two women can’t ‘have sex’. They can pleasure each other or themselves with fingers and devices but they will never experience sex as they would with a man. Woman is the nurturing gender so I imagine they care about expressing their love for each other through touch and words.¬†

        Men on the other hand – I can’t imagine it being anything other than an self gratifying my turn, your turn, controlling act because they are missing the female hormones in the mix and lets face it men like to mostly be controlling of the act and probably much more so in the act with another male (doesn’t bear thinking about really)

        For a tongue in cheek take on gays I’d say gay women get together cause they’re sick of little boys and gay men get together because they’re terrified of women.

      • Tony

        BJ – I was with you until ‘tongue in cheek’.

        Not sure that it was the right turn of phrase!

    • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

      Re “Parent child marraige for instance, or polygamy, so the argument that they (gay) are being discriminated against is not true.”¬†

      Problem with that statement is that it assumes incest & polygamy are the same as gay couples. They are not. Gay couples are not breaking the law and never will be ever again. Incest & polygamy will never be legal.

      Once again this issue is about law abiding citizens in relationships deemed OK by the state being granted full societal rights as other law abiding citizens in relationships being deemed OK by the state.

  • GregM

    Very good email, 100% agree.
    I suppose I will now be accused of being a pinko, rather than just an average guy that beleives in equal rights for all. Bring on the bigots and haters from both sides, it helps all of us to form a more balanced view.

    • grumpy

      Nah Greg, you’ve earned your stripes and can say what you like. Most of us will always read your opinions and give you credit as a genuine contributor.

      Perhaps just a little misguided on this topic though :-)

      Unlike the one trick pony types that seem to have suddenly become Whale’s NBFFs

      • GregM

         All good, cheers Grumpy.

    • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

      Thanks Greg – and guess I havent earned my stripes yet haha!

  • nasska

    Someone commented the other night that DPF & Whale are determined to win the debate by exhausting the opposition.  The religious nutbars are hanging on but they are reduced to ad homs & repetition.

    Still, kudos to them for trying…it must be difficult when your opinions are based on pure faith & instructions come from burning shrubbery.

     

    • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

      ¬†Why do you keep stating I am a “religious nutbar” when you have been told on countless occasions that I am agnostic?

      I’ll tell you.

      You cannot argue honestly. You must lie and misrepresent to make what you regard as a point.

      And this lack of truth and propensity to lie is why in the very end, you will lose.

      • Mike Hunt

        “you may lose”

        reality check rodbiter

      • Polish_pride

        No Red you are simply a hyppocrite going on about liberty but yet wanting to selectively decide when it should be applied and for whom.

    • grumpy

      A question for you, nasska.¬† Just how many of the anti gay marriage here are “religious nutbars”?

      Come on, prove you’re not just a heterophobic hater…….

      • nasska

         Since no one has to declare religious affiliations to comment on a blog identifying God botherers on an individual basis would be difficult not to mention pointless.

        In any case you misrepresent my stance…..I really couldn’t give a stuff who wins¬† so long as it’s not too soon.¬† It’s just great spectator sport seeing the clash of two groups of single issue dogmatic fruitloops.

      • grumpy

        OK Nasska, so you’re not a heterophobic hater, just a popcorn fan……..

        True, the Godbotherers do get a bit precious but what about all the other religious nutters that have sprung up here, the Greenies, Rainbow, Equlity Religions are just the same.

  • Symgardiner

    Yip. The more sunlight the better. 
    Its MORE important to defend the rights of those who say stuff you disagree with than those you agree with, to say what they want.

  • J Stringer

    Cam, your writer perpetuates the tired old myth: that “marriage” as it stands discriminates against gays (who can marry like anyone else and often do) except that they want marriage to be re-defined in terms of THEIR sexuality.¬†

    “[...fill in...] are “law abiding people who deserve the same rights as other law abiding people”
    i) first cousins
    ii) my mother
    iii) threesomes
    iv) line-dancers
    v) vegans

    • grumpy

      You forgot gingas

      • Callum

        Gingas aren’t people.

      • grumpy

        Nor are line dancers……

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

        Gingas dont have souls.

  • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

    Salparadise- “Thrown his lot in with the extreme left? I didn’t know they constituted 60%+ of the country.”

    That could be quite right actually, and it is the battle I am engaged in.

    To confront the cultural influences that have led to this destructive condition.

    • http://wasteddays2012.blogspot.co.nz/ SalParadise2012

      Do you feel you are winning or losing this battle?

      • Pukakidon

         Sal

        That is the problem, because someone has a different opinion than you doesn’t mean it has to be a battle. ¬† You can have a conversation with someone who disagrees with your point of view without hating them. ¬† Unless you are on the left, then anyone who dares question you, must be the enemy and anything goes to discredit them like calling them haters, liars and bigots eh!

        We live in a free society that is built on freedom of speech.  If you want to persecute people for their opinions then maybe it is North Korea for you.

         

      • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

         We will win eventually for we have right on our side.

        Conservatism is a growing trend as more and more people realise that liberalism has been a destructive force for the last few decades, and especially are you marked by your indoctrination of children in government controlled schools.

        This act most of all ensures you will eventually meet the fate you deserve, for all regimes that do this end up in the dustbins of history. It is a contemptible strategy.

  • Brian Smaller

    I just can’t stand the tactics of smearing anyone who opposes gay marriage as some sort of bigot.¬† No one has explained to be why a civil union is not enough.¬† It is everything a marriage is EXCEPT without the religious aspect.

    • El Jorge

      Adoption is not possible for CU couples

      • Tony

        Exactly – gay adoption is their desire. “Marriage” is simply the stalking horse. ¬†I really don’t want a child’s right to a reasonable future to be killed off by being brought up by a couple of arse bandits. ¬†

        This is such a big issue Рit should be dealt with by referenda. 

    • patriot

      Exactly Brian,
      I Married into the institution of Marriage — if 2 blokes were also in the room saying they were Married — I would be asking , why did¬†i need to bother with Marriage in the 1st place , if the institution of Marriage is so wide .

      You may as well widen Marriage even further and include other interest groups  
      eg  1 Husband Marrying  3 wives
      eg  1 Wife Marrying 2 Husbands
      eg 1 wife with both a Lesbian +a  Husband

      But the Marriage Club members, like me, ¬†are more than happy that Homos have the CIVIL UNION — to legalise their love¬†,commitment,¬†Property disputes , and divorce ¬†to / from, ¬†each other .

      Gays have not put up any where near a credible case to us Married people — that they should be admitted to our Marriage club , when they already have CIVIL UNIONS. .

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

      Brian it is not the same, there are many, many failings with the law.

      • Paul

        ¬†Wouldn’t it be prudent to fix the law. Why make new laws. That is a shabby argument.

  • Groans

    It’s good to discriminate against homo’s because what they’re in to is sick.¬† We might have to go back to jailing them if they continue on with this uppityness.

    • Polish_pride

      It is a shame you parents were not Gay.

      • Groans

        If they were then they couldn’t EVER be my parents

        • Polish_pride

          exactly my point.

  • http://conzervative.wordpress.com/ J Stringer

    Gay man can marry gay or hetero woman.
    Gay woman can marry gay or hereo man.

    This is so “discriminatory” and a denial of “human rights”… “yeah right.”

    • grumpy

      Good point J Stringer, and one I am sure Polish could live with (given previous evidence of his clearly inventive mind).¬† Perhaps poofter men could marry poofter shielas and just root them up the dunger.¬† Should be all the same with the lights out……….

      • Tony

        even the perfume would be the same

  • BJ

    Disclaimer: I am not religious, I have gay relatives and friends – I respect them and accept them as equal members with the same rights as individual members of my family, circle of friends and society. I do not accept them being a member of the ‘club’ I signed up for.

    Marriage is not about man or woman’s individual rights – it is about a pairing of opposites for balance and cooperation within society, starting with the smallest unit (husband and wife) – so this whole argument about gay individual rights over this issue is disingenuous.¬†Marriage IS discriminatory – no apology necessary – as are many institutions for very good reason – like a club you are allowed to join, if you meet all the criteria. Gays do not meet All the criteria – therefore they need to FORM AND NAME their own club. This is not about gay people’s rights ¬†- it is about the rights of men and women defending their right to exclude people that don’t meet the criteria to join their club (marriage). ¬†If gay people that want to get married are such a minority why should much larger numbers of people who already belong to, or who will meet the criteria to become members of the group called married, have new members ( that don’t fit the criteria) forced on their club?I do not believe that two gays that love each other and live in a committed relationship do harm to society but I do strongly believe that if an alternative group such as gays, can bang down the clubhouse door, to enter without being invited, so they can force change to the clubhouse rules to suit themselves, then that is abusing the present club members rights – and will open the floodgates for the breakdown of society – because without a doubt there are other groups that are just waiting to ‘break and enter’ as well.

    • Polish_pride

      Holy shit BJ That is the first actual decent argument that I have seen anyone attempt to put forward against Gay Marriage.
      Except for the part about ‘opening the floodgates for the breakdown of society’ which was¬†over the top in my view. But never the less it was a good argument to give credit where credit is due.

      I of course do still disagree with you and It can be rebutted on the ever changing definition of ‘Marriage’ historically.

      • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

        Polish Pride, you obviously haven’t been following the debate too closely, then, if that’s the first decent argument you’ve seen against the redefinition of marriage.

      • Guest

        Pffft first decent argument attempted get off your high horse.

      • Polish_pride

        No Lucia РI have been following very closely and that was STILL the first decent comment posted against Gay Marriage I have seen.  
         

      • Polish_pride

        Guest – I’m a realist and give credit where credit is due¬†- If I see a good arguement even if it is against me I’ll point it out. Simple.¬†Wasn’t meant to be taken any other way. ¬†¬†¬†¬†

      • BJ

        Well thankyou Polish-pride.
         
        Man and woman are at opposite poles and, that ever adjusting relationship between opposites is what is required to keep creative tension in the world otherwise there will be war everywhere. We would all become monsters.

        Two gay men or two gay women in a relationship at the foundation level does not add to this necessary ‘polarising’ because there’s no ‘work to be done’ when you are intimate with your own likeness, such that no time is spent on understanding the other genders contribution to our society. ¬† If men and women are not working together as opposites at the base level – then I see the future being only for the individual when in fact a creative tension needs to exist between individual needs and society’s needs for communities to function.

    • MASH_4077th

      Hooray at last! Someone who has a grasp on what the rest of us non religious non homophobic readers are on about! Well done BJ..

      • Guest

        The question is why have you only grasped what anti gay marriage people are on about til this one post? Thick skull maybe?

      • Polish_pride

        Guest¬†- probably more the fact that BJ is the only one who has been able to frame the arguement in such a way that doesn’t have him coming off looking like – a neanderthol, a homophobe, a christian bigot, or a just a plain and simple bigot.
        And you have completel tried to cover over the fact that this is only one of the many many arguments that the Anti Gay Marriage faction have put up.   

  • Guest

    Salparadise, I would say probably a. bIt of dementia, coupled with alzheimers, hearing loss, sight impairment and knowing you’re not going to be around long to see society ruined has a lot to do with the waikato poll gone wrong.
    And dont forget gay used to mean happy.
    Where did they poll these older people? In the dementia ward of a rest home who knows???

  • Guest

    Polish Who do you think you are? Who gave you the task of deciding whose post is decent or not, Ffs get over yourself.

    • Polish_pride

      FFS Guest untie your frilly panties If you don’t like my posts¬†you don’t have to read them¬†..¬†

      • Guest

        Oh ok thanks for the advice!

      • Polish_pride

        Anytime :)

  • Bunswalla

    I’ve been following the debate closely and have seen a number of arguments – good bad and indifferent – from both sides. After months of analysis I’ve managed to distill the arguments down to what appear to be two opposing views:

    1. Some people believe strongly that gays should be allowed to marry each other, and will support any political party or politician that supports the law being changed to allow this. If there was a referendum they would vote for change. They will NEVER change their minds on this point.

    2. Some people believe strongly that gays should not be allowed to marry each other, and will support any political party or politician that opposes the law being changed to allow this. If there was a referendum they would vote for the status quo. They will NEVER change their minds on this point.

    WO is being cheeky and provocative by time and again releasing some berley into the water and dropping a big baited hook. And you all come swimming over and have a nibble. This argument will never be won or lost here, and nobody’s mind will be changed one iota towards the opposing view. Polish puts it the best – even though he admires the argument and can see the logic, he chooses to disagree, as is his inalienable right.

    So why are you still arguing people? It’s almost as if you enjoy it….

    • grumpy

      Didn’t you say this the other day Buns???

      • Bunswalla

        Yep, and I’m probably going to keep on saying it. To be fair, I’m pretty sure everything you’ve said on this post is the same as everything else you’ve said on all the other posts about this topic – not that you have that on your own.

        Don’t get me wrong, I like a good debate as much as the next person, but there doesn’t seem to be a hell of a lot of point to this particular one. WO is chuckling away, every time his traffic gets a bit slow he lobs another grenade into the ether to get everyone all riled up again.

        It’s like arguing with the referee – they’re never going to change their mind, and they believe they’re always right.

        Actually more like arguning with the missus.

  • Johnny T

    I won’t go into my views on gay marriage here in much detail. Civil union I can accept, gay marriage I cannot.
    It seems the reader himself/herself/itself cannot deal with viewpoints that are contrary to what he/she/it believes, and therefore wants to censor.

    Pathetoc.

  • Johnny T

    Typo. Should read pathetic.

  • grumpy

  • Guest

    Oh well fuck silly me i get it now i should have said right at the beginning i dont want you to join our club!

    • BJ

      Oh what club is that then? What is the criteria for belonging? You do seem to be ‘yelling’ a lot today – thought about a chill pill?

      • guest

        The married one silly!

  • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

    Bunswella – well said, that was the point of my email to Cam.

    To Redbaiter et al: I didn’t write it to discourage free speech, I wrote it because this is an issue that will never be won on a blog where keyboard warriors like yourselves get to puff yourselves up & say what you like regardless of consequences.¬†

    Your blindness to your own hate is mind boggling and to assert your ludicrous claims as fact is more so; none of you have put up a decent argument against gay marriage. Your claims have about as much substance as air. They bare a striking resemblance to the outrage a toddler expresses when being made to share a beloved toy. Thankfully & contrary to your own delusions, most New Zealanders think differently; all the patting yourselves on the back wont change the fact that most New Zealanders see this issue as being about equality, about a basic civil right that is being denied to one group of law abiding citizens, who are in relationships already recognised by the law, just because of who they share a bed with.

    And to continue to dismiss my points as mere left-wing rhetoric doesn’t any hold water; I support moves to keep the State out of our personal lives, it is you that is trying to be controlling.

    End of the day I dont post on here to convert the ostriches, I come on here to defend the issue so that when young people struggling with their sexuality read comments that either overtly or covertly imply those in same sex relationships will bring about the end of the earth, are all pedophiles, will harm society, generate incest/polygamy & devalue women (or whatever other ludicrous statement they can pull out of their arse) they will read that out of the few who bother to comment, some are in their corner.

    WO – you make a fantastic point when you say “the more people see of intolerance the more they can oppose it and mock it…..silly ideas should be laughed at, not hidden. Our¬†society¬†would be the poorer for it should any government decide that it wants to restrict speech with so-called hate speech laws”. With such a popular blogger advocating for gay marriage & equality in general, perhaps & in spite of the derogatory & patronizing comments said by the frothers, these posts can only but be a good thing for the young people struggling with their sexuality.

    BJ re marriage is about the “pairing of opposites for balance and cooperation within society”. Very interesting way of wording things though problematic: same sex couples of different genders balance each other out with their respective strengths & weakness just the same as heteros. And in terms of procreation IVF & adoption (currently only female) essentially put them on par with heteros (re hetero current infertility rates/lower child birth rates etc). Everything else is your usual – division of labour with respect to work, income & household chores. Then there is the fact that your preferred pairing is already well out of balance – there is more women than men in many generations.

  • Pukakidon

    Obviously there are a few gay people on here.   I have nothing against homosexuals getting married.  I have wondered though do you have any problems visiting countries where being gay is illegal and do you run a risk when booking accommodation in those places or do you have to keep it on the quiet?

    • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

      If one objected to visiting a different country that embodies a different culture and/or set of values then one wouldnt travel very far would they! Kind of goes with the territory. 

      That would be like asking a Catholic how they would cope going to a muslim country.

      I dont care what other countries do. I was born here. In NZ we have our own set of values so I believe in advocating they are consistent & fair for all NZ citizens in relationships already recognised by the law as perfectly OK and ensuring that the State & Church remain separate with individuals being free to establish their own moral codes.

      • Pukaidon

        ¬†Just asking a question, you don’t need to act as if you have been scorned.

        It used to be the same if checking in to a hotel in some Muslim countries when you were not married, e.g. defacto. if you were caught you could cohabitating without being married you could be locked in jail.

  • Travis Poulson

    Alright, here comes my TL;DR:

    I can almost guarantee I am one of those that Unsol lumps into the bigots/hater category, couldn’t care less. I know several lesbians & gays, some of them are dickheads, some are bloody awesome people. None of those judgements are based on their sexuality, but as a person. Nothing to do with “hate”, that’s just an idiotic argument/assumption/ignorance. Having said that I am in support of keeping marriage as what I think it should be, between a man and a woman. I’m not going to change that view ever, you can ban me, lock me up, execute me, but you won’t change me or my views. I see no reason for homosexuals to not be able to have their voice, but I am opposed to arseholes that think all those who oppose should be silenced.¬†You can all send an email to Whaleoil for all I care, I won’t change diddley squat. Maybe Cam should turn into Lprent and just ban anyone that doesn’t agree.¬†I disagree with alot of things and people, but one thing I don’t agree with is dictatorial tactics of silencing people who don’t agree or have an opposing view.¬†
    If you don’t like someone expressing their opinion, you have 2 choices: 1. go away and don’t read. 2. slam your head in a door.¬†

    I’ve been avoiding this fucking debate for the last week and a half because it’s a continuous circle of the same old bullshit day in and day out.I was actually indifferent to the whole thing and even supported kosh103 (yes, I know) on several occasions, but after seeing the ugly reality of the tactics and attitudes by such people like him and others that have emerged since expressing their views towards the opposition it’s made me sit back and think about my stance.This will be my last post on this topic, as at least one of us is smart enough to recognise a waste of time when they see it. I’m sure there will be those who will continue to try and impose their ideas on everyone else from either side, and plenty of frothing, intellectual self indulgent big worded wank fest’s, name calling and claiming of the moral high ground.¬†

    Don’t bother replying to this comment, as I don’t (in the nicest possible way) give a flying fuck to what any of you think and won’t bother responding. At least I have the balls to use my real name and stand by my own opinion, maybe some of you will grow a pair (within reason of course) and follow my lead. I have no problem with people using aliases, but I see alot of cowardly comments from people on any subject hiding behind a fake name.That’s my tuppence in conclusion, and remember, whichever side you’re on people will disagree with you.¬†It’s just a matter of whether or not you can harden the fuck up and handle it. try not to destroy your keyboards this weekend, over and out. Cheers, Travis.

  • Steve5365

    Mike Hunt,
    Please change your christian (first) name to Joe.
    I have met a few Joe Hunts in my time.  The sort of people who cheat at golf.

  • GEC

    I haven’t read all of the comments above because life is too short but I have to say that though I think gays marrying is a non-issue i do not agree with the tenor of the article such as……
    ¬†“it is about giving law-abiding people the same full societal rights that other law-abiding people enjoy.”
    If that is the case then why can’t brothers and sisters marry or perhaps mothers and sons marry or fathers and sons etc……. as long as they are all law-abiding people? Of course those relationships would be against the current law so they would not be ‘law abiding’ and now that Civil Unions have been enshrined in law then those who are eligible for civil unions are definitely law-abiding but if civil rights are to determine who can marry then why can’t anyone or even groups of anyones? I don’t think it matters if they (all) marry and I am uninterested as to why all those rules were brought in but the argument from the gays marriage lobby is bloody hopeless because middle NZ would shit themselves if they thought that they were about to have people – and why not – marrying cats or even pumpkins as long as neither party objected because after all it is about rights.¬†
    Get a better argument I reckon.

  • Dean Gray

    I can’t wait for the inevitable armageddon that gay marriage will usher in, mostly because I want to hear about Andrei and Lucia Maria catching the gay and having gay sex.

    The way they talk about it you’d think they were talking about something that was communicable, but then again they’re both god botherers which is why they think the way they do. Speaking of which, I wonder what Lucia’s opinion on continued altar boy buggering is?¬†

98%