Because Gays deserve Mothers in law too

Yesterday there was a march on Parliament in support of gay marriage and gay adoption. The support website is here.

I support them. As does Malcolm Harbrow at No Right Turn. It isn’t often that the two of us agree on anything.

As I have stated before it is about equality. Why should only hetero-sexuals have to suffer a mother-in-law? If same sex couples want to tie the know and have a mother-in-law then all power to them.

What I want to see at one of these marches though is a sign like this.

If there is a march in Auckland then I will attend supporting gay marriage.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Statler & Waldorf

    They have civil unions. Keep marriage between men and women. Get away from this constant obsession with “equality”. That has been put into your mind by the left.

    • The problem I have is that civil unions are…well…civil…polite. Why can’t gays have the bitterness of marriage, why is the fighting, the bickering, the mother in law, all the exclusive domain of heterosexuals, come on man share the misery.

    • Don’t forget the divorce, the custody battles, the psycho ex-spouse….everyone should have the right to that.

    • Alex

      What rubbish. 

      Go read the speech by David Cameron recently on why he supports gay marriages.  It is not about “equality” per se but rather recognising that the values behind marriage are not exclusive to different sex couples. 

      I know of many same sex couples who have been utterly committed to one another for decades and, some have raised kids together.  Two of those couples — both male couples — have been together for over 50 years.   They are married in all but name.  So why not give them the dignity of recognising that?  I have been in a same-sex relationship for going on a decade which exceeds in duration all but one brother’s relationship — the rest have been divorced and remarried.  Don’t have the desire to marry at this stage, but why can’t I if I wanted? 

      Don’t go telling me that this is because marriage has always been defined as being between men and women.  That same argument could have been used to argue that women shouldn’t vote, because only men have ever voted.   I support gay marriage simply because — having parents who have been married 50 years — I utterly respect what it stands for.  I also support it because I know how bloody difficult it is for gay and lesbian people to establish stable relationships because society still treats same-sex relationships as something to be furtive about.  I know the pain and isolation that many gay and lesbian people feel as a result; I also know that it sometimes results in particularly gay men engaging in unhealthy and dangerous lifestyles.  I’m not stupid enough to think that gay marriage will solve this problem, but it may go quite some way to creating a culture change. 

      That said, I don’t believe in forcing it on Churches.  I think we should follow the European approach — you get “married” according to the regulations of the State, and those who want to go get their marriage sanctified according to their religious denomination.

      And before you think, he’s just another pinko commenting.  No, I’m not — I’m a dyed in the wool Tory.   One who passionately believes that gay and lesbian people should be seeking assimilation into general society, and not pandering the the ghetto mentality foisted on them by the Left.   I think the conservative parties have failed in the past to advance policies that support this assimilation, and as a result so many gay and lesbian people are spouting Leftist loser rhetoric about being victims, etc.      

      • Statler & Waldorf

        Gay marriage is incremental & foolhardy step being pushed by a
        progressive intelligentsia hellbent on the radical transformation of
        human relationships & society. After all, if a man can marry a man,
        then the marital roles of husband and wife no longer applies, further to
        that, the roles of mother and father are also rendered redundant.
        What’s next, cousins “marrying”, groups of people “marrying”. Make no
        mistake about it, gay marriage and civil unions are a bridgehead to
        legalized polygamy, bestiality and pederasty . . . don’t believe me ? 
        just you wait and see.

        Besides, long standing mogomanous relationships are the last thing most
        male homosexuals would want. Male homosexual relationships tend to be
        emotionally charged and highly unstable and those relationships only
        achieve any form of longevity when tacit approval is given that random
        liaisons outside of the core relationship are to be expected and
        accepted as par for the course.This is why the public sex culture and
        the ensuing levels of promiscuity which would make both buckrabbits and
        billygoats blush is so prevalent among male homosexuals . . hardly
        behaviours which are conducive to a proper marriage.just you wait and see.

        Besides, long standing mogomanous relationships are the last thing most male homosexuals would want. Male homosexual relationships tend to be emotionally charged and highly unstable and those relationships only achieve any form of longevity when tacit approval is given that random liaisons outside of the core relationship are to be expected and accepted as par for the course.This is why the public sex culture and the ensuing levels of promiscuity which would make both buckrabbits and billygoats blush is so prevalent among male homosexuals . . hardly behaviours which are conducive to a proper marriage.

        • What a load of complete hogwash.

        • frosty

          Reading between the lines it appears you had a homosexual relationship that didn’t end well for you, perhaps because of a bit of emotionally charged promiscuity.  Don’t worry, there will be another man out there for you; somewhere… 

          • Statler & Waldorf

            C’mon, I that all you can offer ? You can do better than that, surely.

          • frosty

            Sorry, not that way inclined – can’t offer you any more that a bit of optimism.  You could maybe think about what it is that you have to offer though – that might be the problem…

          • Statler & Waldorf

            Sorry dude. I was expecting some sort of countering opinion, not just the same lame accusations of latent homosexuality. But each to their own.

          • Alex

            Yes you are so right — you are not a “latent homosexual” since you clearly have been to one of those “gay cure” camps and have been healed with prayer and scripture.

        • johnopkb

          Bridgehead to bestiality?  buckrabbits & billygoats?  I sure hope you aren’t running a petting zoo.  As for “public sex culture” and promiscuity being prevalent among gay people, where on earth have you been cooped up dude?

        • “Besides, long standing mogomanous relationships are the last thing most 
          male homosexuals would want. Male homosexual relationships tend to be 
          emotionally charged and highly unstable and those relationships only 
          achieve any form of longevity when tacit approval is given that random 
          liaisons outside of the core relationship are to be expected and 
          accepted as par for the course.”

          Seriously? Based on what? There is no substantive research that you can possibly draw on to validate such a ludicrous assumption.

          Next thing you will try & say is that gay couples shouldn’t adopt as they are likely to abuse children…..and just in case you do, gay couples have a zero child abuse rate in most parts of the world. You want to know why? Because they treat children as a privilege not a right.

  • Anonymous

    What gets me is the way it is being suggested that it is this government that has caused the inequality. It was a Labour government that introduced the civil union bill, so it is that government that created this problem.

    Now we have Labour saying they would immediately legalise gay marriage and adoption. well, they could have done that from the beginning. How interesting that this protest has been organised so close to a general election.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. All Labour had to do was amend the Marriage Act to allow gay couples to be married. Instead they created a duplicate law, almost identical in wording tot he MArriage Act for civil unions. Stupid, unnecessary duplication and complication.

  • Statler & Waldorf

    Two homosexual icons, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, wrote this
    about male homosexuality: ” gay men aren’t very good at having and
    holding lovers…(because) gay men tire of their partners (sexually)
    more rapidly than straight men.” And according to them, the average
    homosexual male first “seeks (sexual) novelty in partners, rather than
    practices, and becomes massively promiscuous; (but) eventually, all
    bodies become boring, and only new practices will thrill. “The cheating ratio of ‘married’ [committed] gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%.” Source: Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen,” After the Ball,” (NY: Doubleday, 1989) pp. 304-320.

    In other words, homosexual males seek novelty in the number of conquests and as a result become highly promiscuous. It is only when they are older and jaded that the thought of fresh bodies no longer turns them on and the quest is on for increasingly deviant practices:

    “The Gay Report” (1979), by two homosexual researchers,
    Karla Jay and Allen Young. The pair and their respondents are stunningly candid. 
    According to their research:

    Around 99% of homosexual males engage
    in oral sex;
    91% engage in anal sex;
    82% engage in “rimming”, touching the anus
    of one’s partner with one’s tongue and inserting the tongue into the anus;
    22% engage in “fisting”, inserting one’s fist into the rectum of
    the partner; 23% engage in “golden
    showers”, urinating on each other; 4% engage in “scat”, the eating of feces,
    and in “mud rolling”, rolling on the floor where feces have been deposited.

    In 1978, a study done by two homosexual doctors revealed
    staggering statistics. Of 685 homosexual men, 589 (83%) had 50+ partners
    in their lifetime, 497 (73%) had 100+, 394 (58%) had 250+, 284 (41%)
    had 500+, 182 exceeded 1000 partners, an astonishing 26%. And 79% noted
    that over half their sexual contacts were total strangers. Source: Bell,
    A.P. and Wienberg, M.S. ” Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among
    Men and Women ” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.)
     

    • rafe

      so you’re saying that because a proportion of gay males engage in minority sexual behaviour that is why marriage should not be extended to all and every single gay male? if i go by your logic, that is like saying because a proportion of Maori males engage in criminal behaviour resulting in them thrown into prison, then each and every Maori male should be treated as if they have a high potential for crime and be thrown into prison anyway just in case. also what about lesbians? because many gay males engage in that behaviour, lesbians should be affected too. 

      and plus does that mean that hetorosexual couples who engage in anal, oral sex etc should also be banned from marrying? and you mean that heterosexual individuals do not engage in promiscuos sexual behaviour? if you go by the logic of banning promiscous individuals from marriage then about half of all straight males should probably be banned from marriage right?

      please feel free to address all my questions above, thanks =)

      • Alex

        he won’t reply since he is clearly a deranged zealot.  He holds gays to a higher moral standard; and ignores the brothels, massage parlours, night clubs of heteros.  You have to ask why the hell would he be peddling a bullshit “study” in every post he writes on the topic of homosexuality.  You do need to wonder just what his fixation with homosexual acts is?  I doubt any healthy well-adjusted “straight” male cares a jot what consenting gay guys do?

        • He’s not gay but the guy who sucks his cock probably is.

          • Alex

            That’s charitable of you; I suspect his problem is he hasn’t found another guy to suck it.

  • Agent BallSack

    Thank fuck for Aids then

    • Aye? The biggest epidemic of Aids is in Africa between heterosexual couples….

  • Bunswalla

    I’m sure nothing’s changed in the last 20 or 30 years since those reports were written.

  • For the sake of disclosure, my views on this kind of stuff have always leaned towards the Christian side…mainly because I used to be all hell, fire & brimstone!

    Not anymore though and while I completely accept and agree with the right of same sex couples being able to have open committed relationships that are recognised in law, I am a bit fuzzy on marriage. I don’t really understand why gay couples need to get married – it is a 10 minute ceremony and has no more legal jurisdiction than the civil unions. Given that is a Christian concept conducted often within a Church I think that if the law was changed then it would have to be in a way where it would inflict on a Church’s right to uphold the values they consider important. Which is wrong – why should the rights of one group override the rights of another, particularly when the former is using a value of the latter to their own ends?

    And where would the line be drawn? What about Muslims? 

    I honestly can’t see how an ancient (and outdated if you take the view of many de factos and the divorce rate!) institution like marriage defines equality when gay couples are already able to go through a ceremony of their choice and have their relationship recognised in law.

    Ones relationship is not defined by a bit of paper or the ability to ignore/love/fight with your mother-in-law, it is about your level of commitment and having the law recognise re next of kins that you are the most important people to each other. Civil Unions do this so that should suffice.

    I have written about this kind of stuff too – http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/are-we-a-modern-world-stuck-in-the-dark-ages/ in an attempt to get some clarity in my own head.

    In terms of adoption, I really don’t understand why the law hasn’t already been changed. Ones sexual preference has no baring on ones ability to be a good parent and if there is a child that needs a family then why not a loving committed gay couple?

    Having said that there is bugger all adoptions in this country – you are far better to go for permanent guardianship of foster children. 

    Just my 2 cents worth!

    • Exactly. They already are living together, they already have children, why can they not ahve the same rights as all other non-gay Kiwis? At the end of the day we should be welcoming people willing to create a loving family. 

      God knows there are far too many awful relationships out there and kids who aren’t wanted but hey those relationships and kids are all legal with a nice piece of paper.

      • I agree with your sentiments but what do they think marriage would give them that Civil Unions doesn’t already? 

        And if they want to go down the path of marriage then given that the marriage law dictates certain words have to be spoken “”I …full name take you…full name to be my wife/husband” with one title for each then are they prepared to have one partner called a wife & the other a husband?Sounds silly I know but it is a fair question.I also think that the religious institutions to which marriage is most commonly associated with should be able to express their faith, their values free of discrimination.

        It’s a tricky one. It will be interesting to see whether the law gets changed and if so, how the law accommodate each side.

      • Actually, I think I might have do a Goff & spin spin/flip flop…..the marriage law already HAS some discrepancies…..these came in when they allowed celebrants to marry couples rather than just Ministers. 

        By and large most churches don’t allow gay men & women to become Ministers (except the Methodist Church), but there is no such restrictions on celebrants.So if the law allows a gay celebrant can marry a heterosexual couple, then why can’t the law allow that same gay celebrant to be married to their own (same sex) spouse?

        Hmmm I think that if they want the law to be change they need to highlight anomalies like these – it’s the only way to get our so-called liberal but really conservative society on board.

        The church stuff still needs to be considered, but I think this example blows them out of the water too.

27%