Watch this speech by a preacher on gay rights…hang in there till the end..it’s worth it:
Leftie street theater – being gay does not equate to race, in fact that is an insult.
Being “gay” means that you wear your sexual predilections on your sleeve and expect everyone else to hold you in esteem for doing so.
Normal people, whatever their sexual predilections may be do not identify themselves by them.
The utter stupidity of the left never ceases to amaze, no wonder they fall for politicians and political lies,
Very true, except of course there are an awful lot of people that wear their race on their sleeve also and expect to be treated differently because of it.
Do you know any gay people? You seem to have this idea that gay people are all flaming queers. I would suggest to you that there are a number of gay people who choose to keep their feelings hidden for the very fact that closed minded people like yourself exist.
Being gay is so frowned upon in certain circles, and as recently as 30 years ago, was a criminal offence. Those who felt that way were shunned, seen as perverts and child molesters. Given the attitude of society towards such behavior at that time, who would want to accept that way of feeling?
In the nature v nurture debate, I believe that some are just naturally predisposed to a same sex relationship, just as I feel a heterosexual relationship is natural to me, a same sex relationship feels natural to them. They should not be persecuted for it. It is as natural to them as the colour of their skin might be for others. If you see all homosexuals as flaming mincers or butch dykes, you need to get out more.
Andrei does know gay people, in fact he spent a considerable amount of time helping one particular blogger fix up his website. This is the same blogger/journalist that tried to groom another bloggers 15 year old son and loves to frequent public conveniences to get his jollies.
I bet if he knew that this guy was a pedo groomer he wouldn’t have helped him at all.
ho,ho Andrei, your surname is not Pavlov by any chance ? Ding,ding.
Andrei: Is not the basis of marriage LOVE?
I keep asking you this question, and you never answer it. A simple Yes or No will suffice.
The basis of marriage is not LOVE as I indicate when I take marriages, it is commitment. No two people will feel ‘in love’ all the time. If you base your marriage on how you feel, you will utterly fail (in marriage and life). There will be times when people hate eachother, there will be times when they feel infatuated with someone else or some thing. But p[eople of character remain committed to the other partner no matter what (alzheimers, financial ruin, disease, tough times). This is what marriage vows are all about. It is not a fashion accessory.
What you do with your penis is not comparable to your Race or anything to do with “human rights.” This is a lie constantly perpetuated by the ideology of the Left. If I am wrong, then being Vegan or liking Country & Western music is a basis for rights and comparable to race. Gimme a break.
So why is it that you feel compelled to break it down to a sex act? Why this focus on the penis?
Did you not stop to think that the fact that 2 men or two women just happen to love each other in a way that you don’t understand, is not for you to interpret, or even for you to understand. It is just for you to accept.
Why do so many opponents focus on the sex act and not the relationship?
I’m not breaking it down, “gay” is all about sex and the sub-culture is built around the male body and sex (even gay research and literature admits that). Watched any gay film festival lately, or looked at a gay magazine? I love my mother, my family, my male friends, and cheese, it’s not a basis for defining my humanity. People are free to be in homosexual relationships; I simply don’t buy that this gives people an extra-ordinary redefinition of their humanity, rights, and an approach to, say, re-defining marriage for example. This is not discriminatory, it is simply a reaction against a politicised agenda trying to redefine everything on the basis of sexuality.
Same-sex “marriage” and adoption must always be strongly opposed.
The promotion of homosexuality as a way of life comes from the left of politics. When the fourth Labour government repealed the laws that outlawed buggery in the mid 1980s, many people at the time were opposed to such a law change. Buggery is no less a filthy and disgusting practice now than it was then, despite the propaganda efforts by the left-driven homosexual lobby to promote it as part of as a healthy lifestyle choice.
There is some behaviour that should be kept illegal in order that it is not overtly encouraged. Buggery is an example of such behaviour.
One of the arguments being promoted in favour of homosexual “marriage” is that traditional marriage is already a crumbling institution, so it is futile to try to save it from further demise.
The institution of marriage has been in decline for some time, with the introduction of the DPB, no-fault divorce and the uncertainty in the property laws associated with de-facto relationships. Politicians, particularly those on the left, have contributed in no small way to the decline by meddling with the laws and conditions related to traditional marriage.
The campaign to legitimise homosexual “marriage” by left wing politicians is an example of further meddling. If people wish to indulge in aberrant behaviour, there is not much that can be done to stop them, but must such behaviour be state sanctioned?
It is not clear to what extent any of this benefits homosexuals. Not all homosexuals believe that same-sex “marriage” is a good idea. Homosexual MP Chris Findlayson voted against it. Clearly this same-sex “marriage” campaign is being driven by more than just homosexuals.
Homosexuals appear to make up less than 2 percent of the general population. However, aided and abetted by the left, they have now become a political force to be reckoned with.
If the homosexual lobby get their way with their version of “marriage”, where to next? Will they go off and live happily ever after and shut up about their so-called “rights”?
That seems unlikely. The homosexual lobby are perpetual complainers.
Most churches have said that they will refuse to officiate in any “marriage” ceremony involving two people of the same sex. For now, the politicians are saying quite loudly that churches will be exempt from endorsing such unions under the proposed law. However, nobody can give an assurance that this will not change in the future. The left never sleeps. Their record of attacking time tested traditional institutions is well documented. The left-wing homosexual lobby will continue to grumble about discrimination, and will campaign for the kind of law that will make any and all discrimination against homosexuals illegal. Watch this space.
Some years ago there was a cult commune set up in NZ called Centrepoint. The leader, Bert Potter, was eventually jailed for child sexual abuse along with some of his followers.
Most child sex abusers hang their heads in shame in at least a token gesture of remorse when they are up before the beak on charges of child sex offending, but not Bert Potter. He was defiant. He claimed that sexually interfering with children was beneficial to them and in their best interests. Many of Potter’s followers agreed with this. Some parents on his commune even permitted their children to be sexually molested by Potter and some of the other adults there.
It is not clear what percentage of the population have an unhealthy fondness for children. There would be very few who would openly admit to such a proclivity. This means that other than perhaps a few rare exceptions, the only ones that who been identified are those that have been arrested and charged. The majority of men who cannot get sex are not rapists, so it is reasonable to assume that most of those who are sexually attracted to children have not offended either.
The left would waste no time in encouraging child abuse perverts to “come out” if they believed that it would be to their political advantage. The left have no morals or conscience. Leftist agenda comes first, last and everything in between. The silence and cavalier attitude from the left-dominated educational establishment as a response to warnings from the police about James Parker was very telling. This should not surprise anyone who has looked further than the mainstream media at what really motivates the left, of course.
The kiddy-fiddlers will be watching the progress of this homosexual “marriage” legislation with great interest. There would not be many of these perverts who are anti same-sex “marriage”. It certainly does nothing to harm their own agenda. It should not be forgotten that the homosexual lobby are indebted to those pedophiles who stood beside them in their campaign for legitimacy. If this legislation is passed, two pedophiles could get “married” and therefore be eligible to adopt children.
It is also not inconceivable that some time in the future, some pedophile who is young, charming, charismatic (perhaps someone like James Parker), and who holds a degree in psychology or sociology (degrees that are mostly run and attended by leftists), could promote Bert Potter’s ideals to a more general audience. Such a person could quite possibly gain respect as an authority on the subject by flaunting his university credentials before an increasingly dumbed down public. If such a campaign ever gains any traction, one can only hope that closet pedophiles are far fewer in number than homosexuals.
The media scrum surrounding the release from prison of Stewart Murray Wilson is worthy of comment in that it was arguably more newsworthy than the event itself. Wilson is not the only pedophile to have been released from jail after serving a lengthy sentence. However none have inspired the sort of lurid voyeurism displayed by the media the way Wilson has. What is it about this pathetic, dirty old man that inspires such fear and media fascination? Could it be because his charge sheet includes a conviction for bestiality?
Perhaps that will be next.
Why stop at homosexual “marriage”?
What goes on between a man and his hamster in the privacy if their own home is none of anyone else’s business.
That is the test, isnâ€™t it?
So you’re arguement is they shouldn’t meddle? A little ridiculous considering the our law system is inherited from one several hundred years old which if we took the view point of not meddling we’d be stuck with some pretty daft laws.
As it is NZ has barely meddled at all in the grand scheme of our law system which still largely reglects the Pommes values. Nothing personal but meddling is a good thing as we tweak it to suit our culture.
As for the flood gates, that is ridiculous! There is absolutely no reason to make buggery illegal, it might not be my way of life but it doesn’t have negative externalities nor does it in anyway infringe on your life. It may not be my chosen lifestyle but it is between consenting individuals and poses no safety risk beyond that of regular sex anyway.
The question is why did we stop at heterosexual marriage in the first place? The fact we did shows society can set a boundary, that its changed is based on the increased role of science, the lesser role of religion and the simple common sense.
Your logic could easily be used for almost any arguement… How about never changing the tax system from pre-industrial England as it would have been meddling and it could have opened the gates for the commies. Do I need to do more examples to prove how irrational and ignorant your opinion is?
I see the haters are still hating.
I see intellectual pygmies are still whining that those who don’t agree with them are “haters”.
Talk about empty headed
It is not that you do not agree, it is your reasoning oh Andrei the hater.
Fuck off with your heterophobic hating…
Now now grumpy, do not tell lies. We have already covered this. I cannot be a hetrophobe because I neither hate straights, nor seek to keep a single right from them.
YOU and your kind however would deny homosexuals rights simply because we are homosexual. Hence you and your kind are haters.
Of course it’s about not agreeing, you hate everyone that doesn’t agree with your homosexual marriage crusade. You can’t help but express your hate to anyone that doesn’t agree with you. You are yet to agree to disagree and accept the stance of anyone that is not on your homosexual marriage bandwagon, each and every person you see not jumping on board you label “hater”.
Don’t feed us that “It is not that you do not agree” bullshit. You are incapable of articulating a constructive debate without throwing in your hate words and idiotic labels.
Ironically, the best way you could serve your own purpose is by shutting your own mouth :)
Oh look, Travis is trying preach morality while in the same breath denying others rights. Such a hater.
And there it is, right on queue. I’m not denying you rights, you’re quite entitled to make a fool of yourself. You don’t seem to be able to determine the difference between advice and denying rights, so sad for you kosh/gayguy :)
So you are all for marriage equality now then?
Wise words TP, have quoted them to my Blog site on this very topic today about Tongans protesting the NZ s-sex marriage bill. http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/are-all-tongans-homophobic/
I see the wankers are still wanking…….
Yes it is true that Travis is a wanker. Although it is not really polite of you to point that out grumpy.
You make yourself sound puerile calling people haters all the time. Why dont you just engage them in rational and educated argument.
You expect too much. Also, your comment will be written off as not being worth responding to because you’re a hater, followed by the usual regurgitated catch phrases and terminology. and still lacking that depth and cohesive debate you find yourself wanting :)
When I see a rational and educated argument against marriage equality I will be more than happy to engage that person.
However like the loch ness monster such an argument just does not seem to exist.
Do you mean gays hating Christians or the other way round, gg?
Just what we need, another poofter god botherer.
Haven’t we got enough pedophile priests?
Grumpy, citing the ol Catholic Priest chesnut is irrelevant. have you ever stopped to think that there are MORE pedophiles OUTSIDE the church than in? So, you’re just church-bashing.
Should the anus be used as a sex organ? Google First Scandal. When you get there, go to the top of the page and click on “Welcome University of Alabama Students.”
This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Design by cre8d