homosexuality

Despite France passing gay marriage legislation a survey has found that the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys don’t much like poofters, and prefer that they don’t live next door.

When is there going to be a survey to find out if we’d like cheese eating surrender monkeys living next door? France is apparently the most intolerant nation in Europe…I suppose you’d get that when since time immemorial other countries have used yours for practicing military manoeuvres.

World Values Survey: France is the least tolerant country in Western Europe, survey finds, despite moves to sign into law a gay marriage bill.

The information which has been monitoring the political and moral attitudes of various countries for more than two decades, shows that countries with more economic freedom have higher degrees of tolerance.

Read more »

So, a bitter and uptight motelier doesn’t want lesbians committing “sodomy” in her motel. Did she ask if they had packed the strap-on or did she just assume that all lesbians have them and use them to sodomise their partners?

[O]wner Karen Ruskin said she and husband Michael could dictate what went on at the property: “Homosexuals have a whole industry of hotels that they can go to,” she said.

“Why do they assume that we have to change our standards, our values, to accommodate behaviour that is sodomy?”

In the past, same-sex couples have been allowed to stay at the Pilgrim Planet Lodge, but only if they slept in separate single beds.  Read more »

Petal asks a valid question, in the post on Maurice Williamson’s stance on same-sex marriage. It is the same question which I have been bombarded with all day yesterday, but his is far more polite than the ranters who were emailing me. I’d love for Kevin Hague to write another guest post explaining Petal’s concerns so everyone can understand and we can cut through the emotive drivel put out by  Family First.

I had a chat with you about a month ago when you took the time to have a short but serious discussion with me, and I really understood, for the first time, where you are coming from in terms of your need for “equality”. And I support you in that aim. I “get it”.

But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t care that the words “bride” and “bridegroom” may disappear from marriage licences, to be perhaps changed to “spouse”.

Even though I’m still completely in your corner, I mourn the loss of the idea that the price of equality for you is the loss of a bride and a groom from official state law and/or documentation. It doesn’t sit well with me, and I hope there is going to be someone who can create a more inclusive solution rather than to make it completely sterile of language that has been completely normal for a long, long time.

Why do straight couples have to lose something for gay couples to become equal? It was your aim to be equal, not to reduce the concept of marriage to something less than it was before, for any of us.  Read more »

Another of John Corvino’s videos….this time taking aim at literalists and fundamentalists:

John Corvino discusses some Bible verses from both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, explores analogies to slavery and divorce, and points out the inconsistencies of those who cherry-pick the apparently anti-gay parts of the Bible while glossing over other problematic passages.

Read more »

An interesting question considering how many ultra-conservatives think they know what Jesus thinks on a whole range of issues, including homosexuality. Derek Flood thinks he knows the answer:

Is homosexuality a sin? It’s an age-old question, and there are people on both sides of the debate, each quoting their Bibles. How do we know who’s right? What would Jesus do if he were here with us today? Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so can we really say?

I’d like to propose that we can. Perhaps we wont be able to settle the debate over what the Bible says about homosexuality (least of all from one little blog post!) but I think there is one thing we can be sure of — Jesus loves every one of us. In fact Jesus was especially known for loving the very people that the religious people of his time had condemned and cast out.

Now for the facts:

As their voices have begun to be heard, we have seen story after story of how gay and transgender kids have felt hated, at times even hating themselves. We have heard how life for them can be a living hell, so bad that it makes some of them want to end their lives.

That really should be a wakeup call for us as Christians. Regardless of where we stand on the rightness or the wrongness of being gay, none of that matters much when people are dying. We can argue over what the Bible says about homosexuality, but one thing is utterly clear: Jesus clearly teaches us to love people, not to hate them, not to make them feel hated, and not to stand by while that is happening. From the perspective of the New Testament there simply is no room for doubt on this. We know exactly where Jesus stands. He stands on the side of the least, the condemned, the vulnerable.  Read more »

Words fail me. How could anyone say that an alcoholic parent is a better one than a loving and caring couple of responsible lesbians or gay men?

LONDON, October 25, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Court of Appeal judges turned down a mother’s plea not to have her two children adopted by a homosexual couple.

The mother of the two boys, aged four and six, appealed an earlier court decision that ruled she was incapable of looking after her children because of alcoholism, when she discovered that councillors in the north London borough of Camden had decided the boys would be placed with two homosexual men.

Justice Dame Janet Smith, sitting with Lord Justice Longmore and Lady Justice Black at the Court of Appeal in Holborn, heard that the mother and the boys’ father had been “distressed” to learn that the prospective adopters were homosexuals.

Not distressed enough to actually look after the children. Not distressed enough to stop drinking.

The mother, described as a highly educated woman who had been “very successful” in early life, and the father of the children had met at a detox clinic but had never beaten their dependence on alcohol. Last September, the children were taken from the mother and placed for adoption.

The mother began her battle to reclaim her children when she became aware of Camden Council’s decision in April.

At the Appeal Court, the mother’s lawyers stated that a month’s intensive treatment for her alcoholism had been successful and the woman had overcome her addiction. The court was told the woman attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings regularly, was now alcohol-free, and had severed her relationship with the children’s father.

In dismissing the mother’s appeal, Dame Janet commented that though the case revealed “a sad human story” she believed the mother was “out of touch with reality and capable of telling a pack of lies.”

“It is just too good to be true that a woman with the deep-seated shortcomings displayed by this mother could have been transformed in four weeks,” Dame Janet said.

Camden Council argued that the two homosexual men had successfully passed the selection process and the council was convinced they will “provide a secure and loving home” for the children. They also pointed out that if the court found in favor of the mother, the ruling could have wide-ranging legal ramifications affecting the authority of local councils to place children with homosexual and lesbian couples.

Councillor Angela Mason, Camden’s cabinet member for children, said, “The gay couple who have been approved to take over care from the mother went through a rigorous selection process and we are convinced they will provide a secure and loving home for the children.”

“The evidence was all one way,” Dame Janet concluded. “This couple are suitable adoptive parents and there is no specific reason to think that the placement might fail.”

Andrei and Lucia Maria though, would argue that an abusive drunkard for a mother is better than two gay men or two lesbian women as parents.

One of the worlds great thinkers, Ahmadinejad reckons that  ”Capitalism Causes Homosexuality“. This will be a huge cause of concern for the likes of Andrei and other reactionary commenters on this blog who all think that poofs are a liberal cause célèbre.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday compared countries that accept homosexual behavior to countries that “wish to legitimize stealing.”

Appearing on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight,” Ahmadinejad was asked by host Piers Morgan whether he might willing to acknowledge that “everyone is entitled to be whatever sexuality they are born to be.”

Speaking through a translator, Ahmadinejad responded by asking Morgan, “Do you really believe that someone is born homosexual?” When Morgan answered that he “absolutely” believes that some people are born gay, Ahmadinejad pressed him further.

“I’m sorry. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that anyone is giving birth through homosexuality? Homosexuality ceases procreation,” countered the Iranian leader. “Who has said that if you like or believe in doing something ugly, and others do not accept your behavior, that they’re denying your freedom? Who says that? Perhaps in a country they wish to legitimize stealing.”

You know what? …he sounds almost exactly like Colin Craig and all his apologists that comment here.

The other day I blogged about the Australian lunatic, Jim Wallace, and his alleged scientific proof that smoking was less than harmful than being being gay. Of course all the poofter bashers leapt on this on both sides of the Tasman and on my blog.

Colin Craig too has said he is going to run a science and evidence based campaign against marriage equality. I not that the Protect Marriage website aligned with him and Family First is prominently showing this as news with links to The Age nespaper and the comments.

Well it turns out that the study is seriously flawed:

THE controversial claims by some Christian leaders that gay men die younger than heterosexual men appear to have originated from flawed US research that was funded by a Christian research group.

Sydney’s Anglican Archbishop, Peter Jensen, drew strong criticism for comments on ABC TV’s Q&A on Monday night that the gay lifestyle led to a “significantly shorter life”.

He was responding to comments by the Australian Christian Lobby chief, Jim Wallace, that a homosexual lifestyle was as unhealthy as smoking.

One of several studies by Paul Cameron and his son, Kirk, of the Family Research Institute in Colorado in the United States – which claims its ”overriding mission is to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy and drug abuse” – concluded heterosexual men outlived gay men by 20 years.

The study has been criticised for its lack of academic rigour. It was partly based on lifespan estimates of men and women and gays and lesbians from obituaries in several US newspapers.

That is just intellectually dishonest, but it is worse:

”The gist of the Camerons’ argument was that lesbians and gay men must die younger than their heterosexual peers because they appeared to be under-represented in studies of older people,” Dr Holt, from the University of NSW, said.

A Danish epidemiologist, Morten Frisch, said the research flaws were ”of such a grave nature that no decent peer-reviewed scientific journal should let it pass for publication”. Dr Frisch’s 2009 study found there was an increase in the mortality rate of same-sex couples in the first few years of marriage but this was likely due to pre-existing illness.

”Although further study is needed, the claims of drastically increased overall mortality in gay men and lesbians appear unjustified,” he concluded.

A public health researcher, Julie Mooney-Somers, of the University of Sydney, said a biennial survey on the health of lesbian and bisexual women had found some gay women had health issues – higher rates of smoking, mental illness and alcohol abuse – but there were no inherent health risks with being a practising lesbian. Such health issues were likely to be the result of higher rates of discrimination, she said.

While practising gay men were at risk of HIV infection, the disease was also a problem for heterosexual couples.

So the higher incidence of mental health issues and alcohol abuse amongst gay women is likely to be because of discriminatory behaviour by homophobic bigots…nice.

Is this the evidence and science based argument that Colin Craig speaks of?

So then:

If child abuse leads to children choosing to become gay (a ridiculous premise) then Colin Craig should in theory be opposed to anything that could be construed as child abuse or potentially lead to child abuse.

It has been argued by some (on a dodgy premise) that child smacking is a form of abuse or can be used to discount actual child abuse, so therefore child smacking is a potential indicator of homosexuality in adults. And when you think about it, the use of one’s hand firmly and repeatedly placed on the buttocks of a child sounds gay in Colin Craig terms.

Why then is Colin Craig one of New Zealand’s greatest promoters of homosexuality?

I know its faulty logic, but if you are like Colin Craig, then logic doesn’t really matter.

Liberty Scott left this long comment yesterday.

It is a very good commentary on Colin Craig and his dog-whistling on marriage equality:

Most of all, why should any adult give a damn what two other adults do in their private lives with each other’s bodies?

So much that is wrong about the post-modernist culture of moral equivalency, identity politics and victimhood politics, so many good targets for conservative politicians around welfare, around education, around a vacuous culture of celebrating mediocrity, of sneering at individual success, of celebrating group identity and ancestry over individual achievement, of denying responsibility for one’s actions and of treating humanity as a disease rather than a species of enormous achievement and potential.

He could damn Islam, but no he hasn’t he courage to do that.  He could damn Maori mysticism and collectivist identity politics that has bred a generation demanding entitlement, accusing their actions on what happened to their ancestors and promoting faux pride on ethnicity not achievement.   He could damn a welfare state and centralised education system that promotes the idea that people who succeed do so at the cost of those who don’t, and those who don’t succeed or make foolish decisions should be bailed out by everyone else, time and time again.  He could really start to damn the results of decades of welfarism, structuralism (the people abuse their kids because of poverty or cultural oppression) and radical feminist denial of the importance of fatherhood, all in ways that raise questions without baiting the collective left.

No, he prefers ot churn out cheap unscientific stereotypes and to focus his attention on what consenting adults who haven’t initiated force against anyone else, do with their lives.

He doesn’t have evidence that proves he is right, but most importantly even if it WAS right, who cares?  What does he want the state to do?  Should the criminal justice system focus on abused boys more than girls?

Like the shaman conman Brian Tamaki and the unspeakably vile hypocritical creep Capill, Craig is obsessed with gay sex.

The last generation of his ilk said, when I was 16, that Homosexual Law Reform would result in an AIDS epidemic in NZ and thousands of boys being corrupted by men – oddly enough it didn’t turn me, or anyone I know to be gay.  He’s wrong now, and those who want a new Conservative Party need only look back in 1996 when the last really formidable effort to have such a party fell short – because it was vulnerable on this one issue.