An email to a bigot

I regularly recieve correspondence that is weird, written by tin-foil hat wearers convinced there is a conspiracy here or there. Usually you can tell because they type all in caps, or attach pdf files that look like the old style cut and paste ransom letters. They generally use anonymous email addresses to “protect” their privacy because the SIS or other unnamed government agencies are spying on them. One day I will publish a full selection as a book to show just how bat shit mad they all are.

One recent correspondent is Barbara Faithfull (yes with two l’s). She has been writing about a homosexual and atheist conspiracy to take over the Police, Army, government and New Zealand society, they have a gay agenda don;t you know. I got sick of the tittle tattle and gossiping about this public figure or that public figure and the pro-homosexual tendencies. It is quite pathetic. So I sent her an email. I told her to desist from emailing me.

Only a truly stupid person would continue. And so this morning I received another email from her complaining about my post about marriage equality:

From: Barbara Faithfull
To: Whaleoil

Dear Cameron Slater,

Re today’s item on the Washington State House debate on homosexual “marriage” and your derisive “I’d like to see Bob McCoskrie argue against this”.

I think Mr. McCoskrie would do extremely well, and probably win the debate, if he was to present what is scandalously withheld from the public : the damning evidence of the wider international homosexual political agenda – to deliberately subvert the institution of marriage – which I set out in an e-mail to you on 11th January this year, but which you dismissed as mere “gossip” in your rude and irrational tirade to me of 2nd February.

Barbara

My email to her on 2 February wasn’t rude or irrational. It provided a logical progression of thought about why she was a deranged bigot, a gossiper and annoying. I was polite but firm. I bCC’d a few other bloggers so they know I was polite but firm. However since she thought that was rude when it was not I thought I would reply to show what rude really looked like, and so here is my reply to a bigot.

From Whaleoil
To: Barbara Faithfull

Barbara,

You are a fucking slow learner. My reply to you was firm but polite. This one won’t be.

You are a fucking bigot, a single issue annoyance who gives Christians a bad name. Your hatred of people based ont heir sexuality suggests you have issues and ones that require the intervention of medical professionals since it seems you aren;t taking the advice God handed down to us in the Bible.

I asked you not to email me again with your homophobic rants and conspiracy theories and yet as is typical of morons like you you have chosen to ignore that advice. Well you reap what you sow you stupid bigoted irrational cow.

You are as creepy as that old wizened ACT guy who has an unhealthy interest in the sex life of Helen Clark’s husband…you are simply creepy.

As is usual you haven’t actually provided, and neither did any of the commenters on yesterdays blog post, any evidence or discussion that provides a conclusive argument against why two people shouldn’t “marry”. Other than religious bigoted responses that fail every logic test.

Using the procreation example if we logically followed that to its ultimate conclusion then marriage should only be extended to people capable of having children. That would mean that widows and widowers in their 60s would be prevented from marrying in your warped view of the world.

Romans 6:23 explains that the wages of all sin is death.

James 2:10 explains that all sin is equal

As does Matthew 7:1-5 and Isaiah 1:1-31. Might I suggest you read up on this since your bible reading seems to be lacking.

What these verses tell me is that your pridefulness and gossiping is as much a sin before the Lord as the dirty poofs you hate so much. The wages of all that sin, including your gossiping is exactly the same…death.

You dear lady are a terrible gossip, emailing bloggers, media, talk show hosts about the sexual preferences of people.

Gossip accuses people. It charges others with wrong. People love to talk about the alleged actions of others. Does the following sound familiar?

Listen to what God says about gossiping accusers: “An ungodly man digs up evil, and it is on his lips like a burning fire (Proverbs 16:27).

Gossip slanders neighbors. It destroys a person’s character or personal reputation. The Bible again tells up what happens to a gossip in Psalm 101:5 “Whoever secretly slanders his neighbor, him I will destroy”.

Gossip talks indiscreetly. People who say just anything that comes into their minds spread gossip, especially in emails. “A serpent may bite when it is not charmed; the babbler is no different” (Ecclesiastes 10:11).

In short, gossip is any communication that hurts people. “The words of a talebearer [a gossiper!] are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly” (Proverbs 18:8), King James Version.)

Finally I’ll ask that you read John 8:7 “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

As we have established you are not without sin, you are a dreadful gossip. We have also established that ALL sin is equal and that the wages of sin is death.

Might I suggest you take the words of Jesus as written in John and SHUT THE FUCK UP about other people and let them live their live before God without out the interference of gossiping harpies like yourself.

As far as I am concerned if two people love each other and want to get married then they should be able to…no ifs buts or maybes. If they want a mother in law then they can fill their boots.

What will be extremely amusing is you turning up to an eternity in hell for your gossip and sharing eternity with the inveterate rooter, the dirty old poof and the recalcitrant kiddy fiddler all adamant that you have committed no sin before your own eyes.

I suggest that you let each person live their life knowing that they have only to anser to god rather than to busybody bigots like you.

By all means if you wish to get famous in a bad way keep on emailing me.

Kind Regards

Whaleoil

 


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.

  • Alex

     I’ve searched for my diary to find if I was busy infiltrating the police, and engaging in a conspiracy against the hetero population.  From my analysis of this gay man’s diary, my activities fall into the following broad categories:

    1. Working
    2. Sleeping
    3. Eating
    4. Watching rubbish TV
    5. Sitting on the loo
    5. Bickering with my partner

    I just can’t find this “taking over the world” in my diary.  Can any of WO’s LGBT readers tell me if I haven’t been invited to this “taking over the world” party?

    I did like Ellen DeGeneres comment:

    “First of all, being gay or pro-gay isn’t a bandwagon.
    “You don’t get a free ride anywhere. There’s no music. And occasionally we’ll sing ‘We Are Family’ but that’s about it.”

    • Gazzaw

      Points 1-6 all indicate total degeneracy I am afraid Alex. Shooting is too good for you.

    • Kosh103

      It was decided at the last Gay Conference to put off world domination. Between doing up our homes, listening to Barbra Streisand and going to musicals if was found there just wasnt enough time to do a good job of it.

      • Gazzaw

        How would you fit world domination in between classes anyway Kosh?

  • Dick Gozinya

    Gay

  • Nice one Cameron.

  • Anonymous

    Does one have to be both homosexual and atheist to join in the conspiracy to take over the world, or is it enough to be either one?

    I’ve never quite understood how gay marriage can subvert the institution of marriage. It doesn’t stop heterosexual people from marrying and having children. A ban on gay marriage won’t force homosexuals to throw up their hands and say “I give up! If I can’t have a same sex marriage I’ll just have to stop being gay and have a hetero marriage instead! DARN LAW!”

    Opposition to same sex marriage achieves nothing. The ‘sanctity of the institution of marriage’ argument holds absolutely no water (in fact, allowing same sex partners to marry would only strengthen the institution of marriage if we’re being honest). But that is not of importance to the bigots. They just like having an avenue to peddle their hate.

    • Max_power

      Gay marriage subverts the institution of marriage by appropriating the label of marriage. Gay civil union should be perfectly acceptable for it gives gay people of whom my brother is one all legal rights enjoyed by married couples. But gay activists won’t stop there for they understand propaganda and in propaganda one of the most powerful ways to setup memes which are things that aren’t true but which change social mores when they are applied, is through labels.

      You think about it, in the AGW debate “deniers” is a label with a lot of power and obviously the people designing the AGW propaganda had no conscience whatsoever about choosing that word with its clear and obvious reminder of who the other “deniers” have been and that associates in people’s minds, AGW deniers with holocaust deniers and that’s the purpose of that label.

      With gay marriage the reason they want the label of marriage is because marriage = the marital institution which = family. And gays don’t represent family, they represent sex. By definition in terms of the way people think of the marital institution as a social more, the reason you get married today, and since forever throughout history, the reason a man and a woman made a life commitment was not to have sex but to have children. So by associating gays with the marriage label, one makes the social institution of the family, about sex. Which means if marriage is about mere sex and not about children then children become eventually, after a few generations have been born into and bought up in societies where marriage = sex, not family, children become mere by-products of a transient relationship and instead of todays family all the children have different fathers and the current live in merely another in a long line. 

      This is how social engineering works and if there is one key to understanding social engineering it’s to take the long view on this, look out at least 2 or more generations to see what today’s pressure points are aiming at.

      I have used the AGW parallel above because that is a social engineering campaign as well. AGW propaganda has far more impact on social change behaviours than the science does and this is a key tell. It may be easier for conservatives to see the AGW bullshit however so that’s why I mention it but the same dynamics are being used in the gay marriage debate globally, as are used in AGW. That’s how you can tell.

      Look it is all wrapped up in the human wights guise and therefore, just like the denier label, people who don’t agree with gay marriage are possibly like the deniers as people. That’s the hook they use to get many and it gets people like DPF, that’s his reason and his delusion.

      But it’s not about that. For they have all the rights, with civil union. They have all the rights, so what right don’t they have, apart from the label, and why, precisely, do they need that. Why is it their “human right” to call themselves “married” when they can tell all their friends that if they like, what difference does it possibly make, human-rights wise, if their official certificate merely says “civil union.” Why is that tiny trivial minor little thing of such importance as a “human right” as to cause widespread non-stop agitation globally for years and years?

      Ask and answer that question for yourselves.  

      • Guest

        Civil Union partnerships do not give the same rights to couples as marriage – our outdated adoption law sees to that. It’s legally ok for first cousins to marry in NZ (which is kind of icky) but not two people who are the same sex. Doesn’t seem right to me – and for the record I’m a Church going Catholic…

      • What load of codswallop

      • Euan Rt

        So you are saying that you are worried about labels? 

      • Max_power

        Good reposte Cam. Way to explicate how it’s not really like that. But it is. Why IS the label so important?

        Do you deny it is about the label alone and just the label? If not, then what else IS it about?

      • Max_power


        So you are saying that you are worried about labels?”

        No Euan and if you’d read what I said you haven’t understood a word I was saying. I am saying that they are worried about labels. And I explained the reason THEY, not I, are worried about labels.

      • Max_power

        Look, this reply stuff is irritating me. If you want to discuss further could we possibly resume with someone posting something at the bottom of the thread then just not using the reply function at all, just keep on the same level? It’s just easier if you want to have an active discussion with more than one person.

      • Euan Rt

        “Gay marriage subverts the institution of marriage by appropriating the label of marriage.”
        This looks to me like it is you who are worried about labels? And yes I did read your whole post. I do not agree with your reasoning or your suppositions which you state as fact. You have the air of someone who is a conspiracy theorist?

      • Max_power

        euan replay at bottom of post

      • The label of Marriage was never the soul property of one an one Woman so that falsehood can be discarded. There was gay marriage in the early church and in Rome too so try again.

        • Peter Wilson

          The point why not simply label what type of marriage it is. That should keep everyone happy. Heteros still keep their label of marriage, specific to them. And gays can do likewise.

    • Max_power

      Guest I can’t reply to you or my own post so this is my reply to you. If civil unions aren’t equal in all respects then they should be. If a church wishes to allow civil union ceremonies in their precincts then they should go ahead.

      I disagree with nothing you say, so can I take it you agree with my arguments and my conclusion on the label, or what? You didn’t make yourself clear on that.

      • guest

        I agree that anyone who wants to marry should be able to marry (or civil union if they prefer). my only point was that, while a civil unioned should give people the same rights as ‘married’ people, because of the stupid wording of some of our other laws (in particular our appallingly outdated adoption act) they don’t get given the same rights which seems wrong to me. I had always assumed (and I think most people do) that when people got married by civil union they would have all the same rights as any other married couple but it turns out they don’t. :-(

  • Guest

    Love it when lion fodder argue amongst themselves

  • Johnboy

    I think she fancies you Whale.

    If you didn’t want to give her one yourself perhaps you should have done the decent thing and given the poor old tart Trev’s contact details.

    I’m sure he would have been interested!

  • Orange

    I pretty much agree. I’d note that while the result of (all) sin is death that does not mean that all sin is equal. I think we can all think of some sins that are worse than others, as did Jesus in Jn 19:10 (Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.)

    But this note doesn’t affect the strength of your main argument at all which is how hypocritical it is to single out one sin and ignore others that are, in fact, spoken about more often and with greater force in the Bible.

  • Anonymous

    Why people believe that a invisible sky fairy is the answer to theirs and the worlds problems is more the question .
    Maybe if the religious and secular followed the golden rule ,maybe just then things would change for the better.

    • He who has the gold rules

      • Anonymous

        Now thats not a very christian attitude ,Whale,  lol.

    • Euan Rt

      Don’t you think it a little strange that your proposed solution is to follow the rule of ‘the invisible sky fairy’ you mock?

      • Anonymous

        The golden rule was  around long before your particular god was dreamt up Euan, every manmade religion on the planet has a version of essentially the same refrain.
        Your fictional  Jesus is only the latest in a long line to repeat it.

      • Guest

        It is all about little old insular me after all

  • A. Friend

    I understand you want this woman to STFU, but WTF do you quote verse from a somewhat fictional book as proof of your reasoning? I would take the Collins Dictionary definition of a gossiper over the definition in the Bible. 
    IMVHO anyone who uses passages from the Bible to justify what they are saying is as looney as the next person.

    • Euan Rt

      only seems this way to people who do not respect the bible.

      • Guest

        Toilet paper in a (loaf) pinch

      • Anonymous

        Only seems this way to people who do not respect the books of Harry Potter.
        See how much sense that makes?

      • Guest

        If all my mates with cardigans believe it then it must be true

      • Euan Rt

        My point was that whale was responding to someone who does respect the bible and that you who don’t would not recognise that his points are valid and actually well considered given the range of scripture he quoted from. You are welcome to not respect the bible or christianity. That remains your choice.  Whale does not mention Harry Potter.

    • Cadwallader

      To Mr A. Friend: I absolutely agree.

    • Blair Mulholland

      Atheists are annoying.  They’re constantly pointing out that they think your beliefs are silly and use words like “loony” or “fictional”.   Well this isn’t your blog and nobody gives a fuck what you think.  If you want to talk about the divine authority of scripture and debunk it with serious argument, be my guest.  But if you’re just going to talk about what you believe like it’s the most important thing in the world then you can fuck off.

      • Guest

        The trick is not to use the b word Blair

        If you have to”believe” in something then you’re already fucked

        And if you actually take offence at an opinion that is in opposition to your own life view I would question how secure you are in those views

  • DaveDavidson

    I used to against gay marriage, civil unions and what not.  Not for any real reason, mind, I just was.  But then I after meeting a few very nice gay couples I actually stopped and thought about it and realised it would make no difference to me one way or the other.  Then a bunch of children got murdered by their own mothers and the dumb fucking apes they had decided to live with and I thought maybe I should have spent less time worrying about whether gays wanted to formalse their relationships and a bit more time worrying about the fucking retaards who seem to think abusing children is somehow justified if you are poor and thick. 

  • Kthxbai

    The more you answer the poor woman, the more you’ll encourage her to continue.

    She’s delusional and obsessed, probably as part of a psychiatric condition; it would be kinder not to stir her up.

    • Precisely and think of the entertainment that will ensue.

  • Kosh103

    I would like to know from these nutters how my union makes their marriage any less?

    • They can’t give a sane answer, I am yet to hear one yet.

    • Gazzaw

      Their marriages probably are less if the truth be known Kosh.

  • Anonymous

    Couldn’t be bothered reading all of Max_Power’s crap. The first few paragraphs were the usual meaningless rants. At the end of the day, Max_power and people like him are simply scared of The Gays.

  • Max_power

    toby how can I be scared of gays if my brother is one. Tell me one anti-gay statement I made above. One. Quote it. Go on.

    If you don’t understand propaganda which is under the modern name called perception management, then educate yourself simply by looking up Blue State Digital which Cam was kind enough to give us prior to the election as Liarbore’s campaign directors and study the techniques they use and of course John Ansell is another practitioner just a local one and whether you understand it or not, gay marriage is simply another perception management campaign using exactly the same emotional triggers and clever techniques as those guys use, except it’s on a world stage and it’s not in a local theatre the whole world is the stage but otherwise its standard perception management.

    Let me spell it out again.

    The only thing they want is the label. If they don’t already have everything married people have like adoption rights, then they should have.

    So they ONLY repeat ONLY thing left is a label, isn’t it. Yes, it is. 

    So why is a mere label, a word, FFS, make this whole gay marriage issue about human rights? How the fuck does that work?

    You guys are politically astute. This is one of the if not the most astute political blog in NZ. Not one of you has answered that simple question yet. Why not? Tell me. Why is a label a human right?

    Secondly, how does it justify all this agitation over a mere label. Since everything else was gained long ago? 

    • Guest

      Was your brother born gay or was it his choice max?

      • Max_power

        Just in case you didn’t see the above: definitely born guest, why?

    • Anonymous

      @c19ce17d73b4988804ee645cf6da9c36:disqus  “Tell me one anti-gay statement I made above. One. Quote it. Go on.”

      Alright, here you go:

      “Gay marriage subverts the institution of marriage by appropriating the
      label of marriage. Gay civil union should be perfectly acceptable for it
      gives gay people of whom my brother is one all legal rights enjoyed by
      married couples. But gay activists won’t stop there for they understand
      propaganda and in propaganda one of the most powerful ways to setup
      memes which are things that aren’t true but which change social mores
      when they are applied, is through labels.

      You think about it, in
      the AGW debate “deniers” is a label with a lot of power and obviously
      the people designing the AGW propaganda had no conscience whatsoever
      about choosing that word with its clear and obvious reminder of who the
      other “deniers” have been and that associates in people’s minds, AGW
      deniers with holocaust deniers and that’s the purpose of that label.

      With
      gay marriage the reason they want the label of marriage is because
      marriage = the marital institution which = family. And gays don’t
      represent family, they represent sex. By definition in terms of the way
      people think of the marital institution as a social more, the reason you
      get married today, and since forever throughout history, the reason a
      man and a woman made a life commitment was not to have sex but to have
      children. So by associating gays with the marriage label, one makes the
      social institution of the family, about sex. Which means if marriage is
      about mere sex and not about children then children become eventually,
      after a few generations have been born into and bought up in societies
      where marriage = sex, not family, children become mere by-products of a
      transient relationship and instead of todays family all the children
      have different fathers and the current live in merely another in a long
      line. 

      This is how social engineering works and if there is one
      key to understanding social engineering it’s to take the long view on
      this, look out at least 2 or more generations to see what today’s
      pressure points are aiming at.

      I have used the AGW parallel above
      because that is a social engineering campaign as well. AGW propaganda
      has far more impact on social change behaviours than the science does
      and this is a key tell. It may be easier for conservatives to see the
      AGW bullshit however so that’s why I mention it but the same dynamics
      are being used in the gay marriage debate globally, as are used in AGW.
      That’s how you can tell.

      Look it is all wrapped up in the human
      wights guise and therefore, just like the denier label, people who don’t
      agree with gay marriage are possibly like the deniers as people. That’s
      the hook they use to get many and it gets people like DPF, that’s his
      reason and his delusion.

      But it’s not about that. For they have
      all the rights, with civil union. They have all the rights, so what
      right don’t they have, apart from the label, and why, precisely, do they
      need that. Why is it their “human right” to call themselves “married”
      when they can tell all their friends that if they like, what difference
      does it possibly make, human-rights wise, if their official certificate
      merely says “civil union.” Why is that tiny trivial minor little thing
      of such importance as a “human right” as to cause widespread non-stop
      agitation globally for years and years?”

      BTW, I’m sure your brother quietly thinks you’re an absolute wanker.

  • Ben

    I’ve had lengthy debates with a lot of friends on this, the issue is linguistically marriage is by definition bibically speaking between a man and a woman, however where it all gets messy is this church and legislative tie up, it would seem the best outcome would be to merge marriage / civil union under a marriage / civil union licence which the state issues and leave it up to individual celebrants / churchs as to what ceremonies they will or won’t conduct, as theoretically they could already do for hetrosexual couples, possibly amend the celebrants act to provide that celebrants can refuse services on the basis of personal or religious belief / direction. It cleans it up for the state in the sense it can say here is the licence do as you please

  • Max_power

    “This looks to me like it is you who are worried about labels? And yes I did read your whole post. I do not agree with your reasoning or your suppositions which you state as fact. You have the air of someone who is a conspiracy theorist?”
    Euan recognising gay marriage is a perception management campaign is not a conspiracy theory just the same as recognising AGW is a perception management campaign is not a conspiracy theory, either. It’s elementary propaganda recognition.

    I told you above how labels work with “deniers.” That’s propaganda science, dummy, that’s not a conspiracy theory. They teach it at universities. FFS, it’s simple advertising, which uses it all the time, every night on the ads. Der. Sorry, I mean, check my above if you want further info and sources on perception management but don’t insult me by telling me I can’t recognise propaganda when its staring me in the face and the fixation with a mere label is the reason which clinches this is perception management. Normal people don’t start a global movement over a mere label, when they have everything else. Think about it. Would you? Really? Become an activist. Demonstrate? Over a mere label? Really?

  • bb

    omg look what you started. you brought out the homophobes and bigots alike out of the woodwork again. i think i will switch off now.

  • Guest

    I find it awesome the amount of time and effort max and others have spent defending the sanctity of their idea of marriage in thousand plus word diatribes

    Is this really the most important issue you can dedicate your time to wanking on about on the internet?

    It seriously beggars belief

    You are dead set oxygen thieves

  • Max_power

    It’s reid guest, long story but my stupid wordpress account for this blog made me use my email address name instead of reid, so just want to make it clear I’m not hiding behind a psuedonym.

    Definitely born guest. No doubt. Why?

  • Max_power

    Look, if anyone thinks I’m anti-gay, then like I said, give me a quote of that from anything I said above. You can’t, can you. So why do a lot of people seem to think I’m anti-gay?

    Perhaps you should be asking yourselves that, and when you know the answer, I’d love to know what logic you use to explain it, because it’s definitely going to be new to me.

  • jay cee

    bit of a surprise when i saw the name. back in the 70’s she was a regular on talkback namely gordon dryden at radio i she was banned from there as she started making a nuisance of herself, then in the 80’s it was on to letters to the editor in various papers her main gripe back then was feminism,those wilful women who wouldn’t obey their husbands. so cam you are just a sign of how technology has moved on. given the time frame outlined above she is no spring chicken

  • George

    The old King James [for memory] described the gay/lesbian thing as ‘confusion’.

    Them marrying each other doesn’t do anything except add to the confusion.  But if you’re bent you would probably see it as nirvanna.

  • jonno1

    To Reid/Max: I’m not sure why your comments/opinion have triggered such a negative reaction, but FWIW I am in general agreement with your views.
    What disappoints me is that those whose opinions differ have not, with one exception, offered reasoned counter-arguments to your thesis, in particular your “label” proposition.
    The exception was the comment that adoption is not available to those in civil unions, as distinct from married couples. I assume that assertion is correct. Gay adoption, of course, raises another whole set of issues (although presumably heterosexual couples can choose to have a civil union rather than marriage).

  • Kosh103

    I love it when people start telling me that marriage is defined by the Bible and as such thats that. There is an awful lot in the Bible that these same people ignore with no worries at all.

    So what I want from them is an explanition to this; why is it ok for them to pick and chose and based on their CHOICE to ignore parts of the Bible than dont suit THEM, and then condem others for not obeying the teachings of the Bible? Why is this ok by these good christian folk?

    • Peter Wilson

      Probably you need to normalise somehow what is coming from these folk. They can be compared to other ideologies such as captilism, democracy and environmentalism. It’s just the churchies don’t actually care how they come across, whereas the modern religions like capitalism and environmentalism spend zillions on PR consutlants to get the message just right.

      I heard a Wall St zealot the other day say that capitalism was more important than democracy, such was his belief in his “religion.”

    • Peter Wilson

      And so what if they take one part, and ignore “inconvenient truths.” Welcome to politics. Which, if you think about it, is what the churchies are. They have a belief in the way the world should work, and are quite happy to mislead, distort and bend the truth just like any politician.

52%