Even leaguies don’t discriminate against gays

Why is it that only fundies discriminate against gays? What kind of warped view of god means that you think all gods children arent loved equally?

Not even the hardened men of Rugby League discriminate against gays now. How come they can’t have marriage equality too?

Inspired by Australia’s first openly homosexual footballer, rugby league referee Matt Cecchin has revealed he is gay.

The grand final referee is the only league player or official to come out in public as gay since retired front-rower Ian Roberts did about 16 years ago.

Cecchin said he had never been discriminated against on the field and wanted to encourage young gay people to feel comfortable with their sexuality.


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.

  • Michael Ward

    Please stop referring to it as Marriage Equality. All people have the same right to marry. Gays simply do not want to marry some one of the opposite sex but that is what a marriage is.

    What this is about is redefining what a marriage is and that can only be bad. The institute of marriage is the foundation of society. All the stats point to better results in individuals and society  when children are from a traditional family.

    And as to your stupid comment about gods children being loved equally, how does pointing out that God is opposed to homosexuality not loving? Christians aren’t saying that God hates gays (well, the ones who actually read their bibles consistently aren’t), Christians say that God hates sin. That includes all sin and homosexuality happens to be sin according to the bible. So please don’t write rubbish about God hating gays and trying to pin it on Christians.

    • God loves us all…including gays…what God hates is sin, and as I pointed out the other day all sin is equal.

      Marriage is a construct of people not of God.

      • Groans

        Just because we’re under Grace doesn’t mean we’re not to think.  Modifications made to our society’s social structure over the last 40 years or so haven’t been a success and I don’t see why we should keep tampering.  Let history teach us rather than relying on our own ‘wisdom’.

      • Michael Ward

         so we agree about sin. will you stop misrepresenting christians then?

        and God instituted marriage. Genesis 2:24 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”.

      • Anonymous


        Marriage predates your bronze age myths.

      • Peter Wilson

        “Marriage is a construct of people not of God.”

        Exactly WO. The question becomes who has the right to the term “marriage.” Surely it’s obvious that heterosexual people have customary usuage of that status over hundreds of years, certainly in NZ. I like the analogy of customary usuage. Just like you or I shouldn’t expect to go fishing in an iwi area that has claimed usage over hundreds or years. We have to find our own, fertile ground.

        I don’t see it as discrimination, gay people should be able to get married, and have legal status. It’s simply a question of labelling.

    • Onenine7

      Marriage is not a religious state any more it’s a legal status… Moron.. We even let non Christians marry, we let Hindus and Druid marry.. And if the government of the day wants to let gays marry.. Suck it up son… Christians do not get to decide what the legal status of marriage is.. They can define it for themselves if they wish.. That is their choice and right.. But don’t try and drive your values system into the legal system.. Separation of church and state happened some time ago.

      • Michael Ward

         you’re joking right? I’m not allowed to “try and drive your values system into the legal system” but homosexuals are? is that it? who decides who is and is not allowed to “try and drive their values system into the legal system”?

  • Jason

    The Blood Service discriminates against gays too. No donation if you’ve been having sex with other men.

    • No they can donate…it just isn’t used.

    • Anonymous

      Anybody who partakes in anal intercourse, and or is at risk from having multiple partners. which includes a great many hetrosexual people.

      Immigrants from Africa (Where HIV is so prevalant throughout the population) are also declined.

      Not to mention anemics and people on medications……

    • Agent BallSack

      Don’t misquote me but “Woo fucking Hoo!” I want gay men’s blood put in me as much as I want an IV drug users blood put in me. Which is to say not at all.

      • Anonymous

        I wouldn’t want the blood of anyone, irrespective of race, religion or sexual orientation who indulge in high risk behavior.

      • jay cee

        if you were ever a blood donor you would know that they have a fairly rigid screening process.they wont even take your blood if you have been taking pain relief drugs recently then there is the problem of having been in the uk during the mad cow disease outbreak. so being gay is only a aprt of the problem here.
         further to the original post have people forgotten that the original promoter for the blues and auckland rugby was a gay man namely entertainer lew pryme?

  • Aichear

    I actually think you are better than these left-like smears on people you disagree with as a matter of policy.

    I am not a Christian fundamentalist and I think gays should be allowed to live their lives however they please.

    I am, however, against gay marriage on philosophical grounds and don’t believe that retaining the pan-historical, pan-civilisational understanding of marriage in discrimination. Moreover, that is not simply my view, that is the law of the land as set out in the NZ Bill of Rights litigation of Quilter v Attorney General. If you read the majority argument you will find the excellent secular arguments about why marriage law is not discrimination.

    I would invite you to respond to those arguments, rather than the straw man arguments that are so much more fun to knock down.

    • Hakim of phut

      The Quilter decision was really based on letting Parliament  decide. Most of the secular arguments were dismissed as absurd.
      The reasoning behind the main legal point that its not discrimination because  everybody cant marry someone of the same sex is nonsense as you could  use the same arguement to prevent  inter- racial marriage , ie it applies both ways.
      of course  inter-racial marriage  was once banned as being abhorrent and against the natural order of things. Much as laws restricting the rights of women were seen as the natural order

      • Aichear

        I’m sorry but that is a facile argument and another straw man.

        There is no common law restriction on miscegenation (or, while we’re at it, religious approval). Anti-micegenation laws were imposed by statute. They represented meddling of the state with marriage. Thankfully the innovation of anti-micegenation laws are profoundly discredited but their one-time existence does not justify the imposition of other innovations on a pre-state institution.

        As to the Quilter decision, I think you are misguided. While the Court of Appeal left it up to Parliament to determine what and what is not recognised by the state as marriage it did so on the basis that the world-historical consensus was not discrimination in terms of the Bill of Rights Act.

      • Peter Wilson

        You can’t argue that inter racial marriage was once thought of as abhorrent, and then claim the same applies with gay marriage. In years to come we may come to realize abortion is abhorrent, or imprisonment – but that’s another debate.

      • Aichear

        @7c294ff9f4121e360e2c97cc48f1004e:disqus has it more or less right.
        The idea that ‘progressives’ are ipso facto on the right side of history is easily refuted by simply pointing to the advocacy of eugenics and the desire for racial hygiene that prevailed with such people in the early 20th century.

        I would go further, however, than pointing out the uncertainty of analogy but arguing that it is fundamentally flawed. Comparing anti-micegenation laws to traditional marriage laws does not withstand examination with history. To claim that a pre-Christian, pre-organised religion norm can only be defended on religious grounds is absurd.

        What purpose do such arguments serve? Well, to quote Mr Oil himself, they cloak the interlocutor in the strong armour of sanctimony.

      • Hakim of phut

         Common law are you kidding.
        ,  for a long time marriage law WAS church law. The state didnt interfere and of course divorce was banned and there were other restrictions, which apply today, under Catholic canon law.In the modern era civil marriage law has applied  does have restrictions and in some places included bans on inter racial marriage – US from 17th century to 1967

      • Aichear

        I really am sorry to say this but that’s actually wrong. If you consult a history book you will find that the requirement that marriage be solemnised in a Church was actually a Victorian innovation. In fact, until recently, there were some English speaking jurisdictions where informal marriage has always been enforced.
        Nowhere, however, has the union of couples of the same sex ever been considered marriage. Never. Not in non-Christian societies. Not in pre-Christian societies that celebrated gay love. I understand that you are probably not familiar with the secular or philosophical arguments against interferring with such a constant norm of human society, but if you familiarise youself with them you will be a much better advocate that gay marriage than by simply tarring most people who have ever lived with the brush of American racism.

      • Hakim of phut

        Marriage  was controlled by  ( catholic) Church law long before the Victorians. Why did you think Henry VIII had to get the Church to approve his annulments, divorce being banned under church law. 

         A church ceremony may be a recent thing but without a church approved marriage license its wasnt a legal marriage and any children were illegitimate

    • Aichear

      I’m sorry to have to call you out on this, but that’s just completely incorrect from an anthropological point of view. Look up the Wikipedia page on marriage if you must. Common law marriage has been continuously from time immemorial until the present in many parts of the common law world.

      For the sake of argument, let’s focus on pre-Christian and non-Christian societies. Few of which required a licence to contract a marriage. I submit you have a burden to account for why pagan and atheistic societies that tolerated homosexuality never allowed the innovation of gay marriage.

      • Bunswalla

        Haha! Wiki! Yes that’s a reliable source of information, especially since it’s been around since time immemorial.

    • Aichear

      Actually, I would put it to you that there’s a huge difference.

      The anti-micegenation laws were obviously based on racial discrimination and a desire to promote segregation. If you actually study the history of Loving you will find that the trial judge described micegenation as a social evil. It is the presence of actual malice, rather than presumed malice, that Loving v Virginia such an ugly decision.

      Traditional marriage, on the other hand, is an imemorial institution. It was not designed by anyone or imposed by statute. There are any number of reasons why it might require opposite sex partners but it is not obvious that this requirement is motivated by hatred of gays or religious disapproval of the same, for all the reasons set out below.

  • Hakim of phut

    Heres a US court decision  which protected inter-racial marriage on the same grounds that Quilter used for same sex marriage
    Ignoring United States Supreme Court precedent, Carrico cited as authority the Virginia Supreme Court’s own decision in Naim v. Naim (1955), also arguing that the case at hand was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause because both the white and the non-white spouse were punished equally for the crime of miscegenation, an argument similar to that made by the United States Supreme Court in 1883 in Pace v. Alabama. 
    Of course the Supreme court overturned the Virginia court decision that discrimination didnt apply  as it applied equally to white and non white.  
    Much like Quilter said anti gay discrimination didnt apply since  same sex marriage ban applied to ‘equally to straight and gay’

    • Aichear

      Thank you for providing me with a Wikipedia article about Loving v Virginia.

      Traditional marriage advocates usually point out that this is a false parallel on a number of grounds. First and foremostly, the colour of skin is functionally insignificant to the conjugal relationship. The same is not the case when it comes to the sex of the conjugal partners. Anti-micegenation laws were plainly based on racism, which was acknowledged to exist in the United States at the time. How do you therefore account for the myriad historical socieities that tolerated homosexuality, but never considered the idea of two men marrying each other? Whether or not you are for gay marriage, it is just not the same issue as faced by the victims of racism. The comparison is a non-starter if you think it through.

      • Hakim of phut

        Obviously the US laws were based on racism and werent replicated in  say Britain or NZ- NZ had racial  based concerns about Chinese but I dont think banned those marriages
        Im pointing out the same reasoning used by Virginia  Court  and  NZ in Quilter, that it wasnt discriminatory because the law applied to blacks and whites/ straights and gays.The  abhorrent / not the natural order of things arguments  of individuals are  still strikingly similar

    • Aichear

      But that’s not the argument. The argument is that 1) this is an inherited institution and that we do not have a monopoly on knowledge about it 2) there is nothing obviously discriminatory about it as a matter of intention or effect.

  • Comingout_of_Whaleoil

    Whaleoil should really come out soon. Dont hide behind Christianity. Dont be afraid to admit that you re a homosexual. Name surpression is
    not really an option. Otherwise you ll be openly called what you are a
    lying hypocrit.

    Noone can justify sick behaviour and make it appear right, through indoctrination via tv, press, legislation, etc. I say help them realise they are on the wrong path and offer treatment and protect the public. Homosexuality is a real medical threat and kills worldwide thousands and thousands of people.

    • Aichear

      As a defender of traditional marriage, I strongly disassociate myself from this sentiment – which will do more to undermine traditional marriage than any gay couple will.

      • Comingout_of_Whaleoil

        1. Homosexuality is a threat to public health as they are the most responsible for the spread of HIV and STD in general.
        2. The human body is not designed for homosexual behaviour and therefore should be reclassed as illegal and sexual abuse.
        3. Most homosexuals experienced serious trauma in their childhood, either through abusive behaviour of caretakers, parents, or they have grown up with one parent missing in their childhood.


        The Big Gay Out took place at a beautiful spot in Auckland, near a children playground, therefore it would be the best to perform a complete hospital grade  clean up of the place as usually at such events sexual acts are performed and have contaminated the area most probably.

    • Anonymous


      1. HIV is most prevailant in Africa, amongst the hetrosexual population.
      2. Define homosexual behavior? Kissing? holding hands?
      3. Bullshit.

    • Oh fuck off. Your bigotry is disgusting. Your IP Address  is also

    • Spanishbride

       Typical, just like how some guys accuse a woman of being a lesbian if she refuses to go out with them, you have accused my husband of being gay because he defends the rights of Gay people to marry. You are trying to shut him up not with logic but by trying to embarrass him. Well, Captain Slow, he hardly is going to feel embarrassed at being called Gay if he is quite happy to publicly defend gay rights. Unlike you he is not embarrassed by gay men or women. Neither am I so go right ahead and call me a Dyke. ( though I prefer the term lipstick lesbian thank you very much because I am so pretty LOL )

  • Doug_S

    I see we have a new pet Troll..

  • Blair Mulholland

    We already have “marriage equality”, the only difference is that two dudes can’t get a bit of paper from the government which says “marriage” on it.  I still can’t understand why this minor bureaucratic technicality is so important to people, whatever their opinion is.

    • Hakim of phut

      It never is a problem for those  not affected 
      Same with going to the back of the bus, its not a big deal ….  you have to sit somewhere… whats the  problem ?

  • Blokeintakapuna

    Marriage is a fine institution – but who wants to be institutionalised?
    “It’s much cheaper and easier to find someone you don’t like and give them half your money and your house” …George Burns(?)
    Marriage is a “man-made” construct to help the Church and State to control the masses, created eons ago, by ego-driven people “thinking” they know what is best attempting to shape society to their will hiding behind the guise of the “Church”. Example – why do we have “different” interpretations of the bible now with some older sections “censored and deleted” from the Old Testament to the New?
    How is that God’s word? And if today’s society is witness to these deliberate changes / omissions – what previous changes / omissions happened thousands of years ago that we aren’t aware of? Remember; today’s Jehovah Witnesses didn’t witness anything – it all happened over 2000 years ago – they’re more like Jehovah Gossips!  

    • Marriage isn’t an institution it is a sentence.

      • Doug_S

        That’ll get you a slap from your Spanish bride!

      • Spanishbride

         Yeah, a life sentence LOL or at least until I put a pillow over his face ;)

  • Blokeintakapuna

    It’s a man-made construct attempting to influence eventual outcomes – and NOT God’s word – or it would not be edited and altered by man to suit the Church’s preferred outcomes in a fast-changing society.
    Religion has caused more war and suffering than any other factor in human history. Combined with the “Church” deliberately hiding known paedophile priests for years and not fronting actions to remove all instances – the Church is even worse than unions and Labour Politicians.
    It’s NONE of anyone’s business who sleeps with who, how, why, when or where – as long as both are willing and legal (Darren Hughes that comment is for you)  

    • Aichear

      Cool. Good thing principled opposition to SSM is NOT about religion, then.

  • Stevo

    Whale, if you think Jesus would condone the homosexual “lifestyle” and “gay marriage” – then you’re bang out of order mate.  There’s nothing “warped” about it.

    • Jesus would say “Let those without sin cast the first stone”….he wouldn’t condone it neither would he condemn, he would forgive and ask that they “go and sin no more”…except he was the last person without sin on earth so that is actually impossible…leaving just forgiveness as the only recourse.

      • Peter Wilson

        I agree. Let us pray and forgive the homosexual sinners?

  • Hakim of phut

    Claiming that since  marriage only applied to a man and a woman going back to ancient times and in all sorts of cultures  we  ‘cant change it now’

    Well slavery applied  in ancient times across all cultures as well, Roman , US southern states, Saudi Arabia until fairly recently and wasnt  only applied  to particular races ( maori used other maori as slaves). 

     In fact it was nearly universal… then things changed… for the better

    • Aichear

      Not just back to ancient times, which implies it can be traced back to its roots, but from time immemorial – there has never been a time when we didn’t know male-female marriage.

      As to slavery that is an excellent counter-point. Slavery was generally a universal evil until Western civilisation in general – and British civilisation in particular – developed a moral revulsion against it. It’s not quite the same, however. One example is the Achaemenid Empire, the Persian superpower of its day, which generally prohibited slavery. By contrast, there are no historical precedents for gay marriage.

      So one ancient institution was expunged (at huge loss of life and property) and established a new norm. Does through every established institution into doubt? I don’t think so. For one, slavery materially hurt its victims. Traditional marriage, along Quilter lines, shows there is no differential treatment (assuming that there are other functions of marriage is formalising romantic love). Even if there were, the passing of the Civil Unions Act there is no material injury to gay people.

      More to the point, however, the argument from tradition shows us three useful things. One: traditional marriage is not a peculariarly religious imperative. Two: traditional marriage is not about malice towards homosexuals. To allow same-sex marriage, the basic unit of humanity, would be a fundamental and non-trivial change to undertake.

      If same-sex marriage supporters really wanted to engage the matter in good faith, they would concede that fact.

  • Thorn

    If God had a problem with homos, let him sort this out. He has done bugger-all since his last. 

  • Bunswalla

    Getting back to the point of this post, I could have told you that Matt Cecchin was gay. I went to the grand final last year and I told everyone he refereed it like a fucking homo.

  • Telson7

    Nowadays, it is going on conversations about homosexuality; some are
    against it and some on behalf of it. The right answer we can find from the word
    of God (the Bible).

    The Lord Jesus is the Messiah, Redeemer from sins
    and the Saviour. Jesus’ must fulfilled the whole law of God and believed all
    what the Old Testament taught, that He could be the Saviour. He did fulfill and
    believe all the law. In the Old Testament were commandments, which teach that
    homosexuality is a sin. Because the Lord Jesus had to believe all commandments
    of the Old Testament, so He also believed that homosexuality is a sin. The Bible
    teaches that homosexuality was a sin in the order of the Old Covenant and is
    valid in the order of the New Covenant. Like this way Jesus also believed that
    homosexuality is a sin, and He also condemned homosexuality by this way.

    For the sake of sodomites’ abomination acts, God
    destroyed Sodom as Ezekiel 16:49,50 shows for us. Ezekiel uses 16:50 Hebrew word
    towebah, which is the same Hebrew word in Lev 18:22 (and Lev 20:13) that
    describes homosexuality as abomination. It is very clear that in Ezekiel 16:50,
    abomination means homosexuality acts as the reason for destroying of Sodom.
    Sodomites pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness and hardened hearts
    towards poor and needy were sins, but destruction came for the sake of
    homosexuality, and the New Testament confirms this:

    Jude1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities
    about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going
    after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of
    eternal fire.

    Apostle Paul wrote very clearly that homosexuality (men having sex with other men; women having sex with other
    women) is a sin. Ro 1:27 is word error, which is in Greek plane, which means error, to deceive, deceit, one led astray from the right
    way, error which shows itself in action, a wrong mode of acting. In this place,
    the Bible in the New Testament shows very clearly that same-gender sex is a sin
    and aberration from the right way. Apostle Paul taught very clearly that
    homosexuality is unnatural sin.

    Many scientists believe that homosexuality is congenital, a matter and
    orientation that can’t be changed as heterosexual. Paradoxical is that many
    scientists don’t believe in God of the Bible, and they proclaim that God of the
    Bible is not existed. Nevertheless, God of the Bible is capable of change
    homosexuals individuals to be as heterosexuals.

    Arsenos means male and koiten means bed. Lev 18:22 and 20:13 teach that a
    man cannot lie (sexual act) with another man as he lies with a woman. The
    origin of the word arsenokoites means homosexual activity and homosexual.
    Lev 18:22 and 20:13 prove very clearly that arsenos koitenmeans
    homosexuality sex, because the Jews scribes translated words’ arsenos koiten to describe men who have sex with another
    men (homosexuality), which is a sin and against the will of God. Apostle
    Paul didn’t make up the word arsenokoites, but it was already as the concept in
    the Old Testament, where it meant homosexuality. It is very clear that the
    words’ arsenos
    koiten meant homosexuality
    (man who had sex with another man) to Jews of the Old Covenant era. In
    the same way arsenokoites meant homosexuality (man who had
    sex with another man) to Jesus’ disciples in the New Covenant

    Jewish philosopher Philo lived in the
    same time as Jesus Christ and Philo has said that arsenokoites meant shrine
    prostitute (male temple prostitute), and not homosexual. Some people have made from this a conclusion that
    the word arsenokoites meant a male temple prostitute. Philo’s
    interpretation was totally wrong, because the Bible proves this undisputedly and
    shows that Philo erred.

    Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13 doesn’t use temple prostitute word,
    but words in which is denied that a man can’t lie sexually with another man.
    Always when the Bible speaks for temple prostitutes, so the Bible uses
    words gedeshah and gadesh. If Lev 18:22 and Lev
    20:13 told for temple prostitutes, so verses would mention them, but there
    isn’t, because in those verses, the Bible forbids homosexuality. It is very
    clear and undisputable in the light of the testimony of the Bible, that arsenokoites means homosexuality.

    According to words of the Lord Jesus, Jesus’
    disciples can judge righteous judgement. If somebody is stealing, living in
    adultery or is lying, so we have the right to say sin as a sin. According to the
    Bible, homosexuality is a sin and so Jesus’ disciples have the right to say what
    the Bible teaches. Jesus’ disciple has a right to say that living in sins lead
    people to eternal damnation. Jesus’ disciple doesn’t judge to damnation, but
    tells that God shall judge sin maker to hell.

    God loves also gay-people, but not sinful act of
    homosexuality, and therefore, God calls gay-people repentance and receives
    salvation by believing in the Lord Jesus. In other words, God loves sinners, but
    not sins. The gospel and its changing power is meant also for gay-people,
    because the Lord Jesus can set you free you from your sins.

    I don’t condemn homosexuals, but love them by the
    love of God. The love of God also holds on from the truth, and therefore, I must
    say that homosexuality is a sin, it is not condemning, but telling the truth.
    God has authority to judge, not a man. God judges in His word homosexuality as a
    sin. I can tell about judgements that what God does, and I don’t condemn, but
    tell who judge.

    I don’t support discrimination of homosexuals,
    because they are valuable as my neighbors. However, homosexuality is a sin. It
    is possible to integrate from homosexuality and get rid of it. The Lord Jesus
    can save and give freedom to you. I recommend for you to read the Bible, because
    there God teaches for natural sexuality and salvation by believing in the Lord

    Reference: http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/homosexual.html