Reconciliation personified

People have asked my why I am blogging about gay issues and marriage equality…as is often the case I have come across my answer in another blog post or article:

Two years ago, I went to Chicago’s Pride Parade. Some friends and I, with The Marin Foundation, wore shirts with “I’m Sorry” written on it. We had signs that said, “I’m sorry that Christians judge you,” “I’m sorry the way churches have treated you,” “I used to be a bible-banging homophobe, sorry.” We wanted to be an alternative Christian voice from the protestors that were there speaking hate into megaphones.

What I loved most about the day is when people “got it.” I loved watching people’s faces as they saw our shirts, read the signs, and looked back at us. Responses were incredible. Some people blew us kisses, some hugged us, some screamed thank you. A couple ladies walked up and said we were the best thing they had seen all day. I wish I had counted how many people hugged me. One guy in particular softly said, “Well, I forgive you.”

Watching people recognize our apology brought me to tears many times. It was reconciliation personified.

My favorite though was a gentleman who was dancing on a float. He was dressed solely in white underwear and had a pack of abs like no one else. As he was dancing on the float, he noticed us and jokingly yelled, “What are you sorry for? It’s pride!” I pointed to our signs and watched him read them.

Then it clicked.

Then he got it.

He stopped dancing. He looked at all of us standing there. A look of utter seriousness came across his face. And as the float passed us he jumped off of it and ran towards us. In all his sweaty beautiful abs of steal, he hugged me and whispered, “thank you.”

Before I had even let go, another guy ran up to me, kissed me on the cheek, and gave me the biggest bear hug ever. I almost had the wind knocked out of me; it was one of those hugs.

This is why I do what I do. This is why I will continue to do what I do. Reconciliation was personified.

 


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.

  • Andrei

    WHAT?

    We should rewrite the definition of marriage just because an attention seeker dancing down the street in his underpants got hugged by another attention seeker who “apologized” to him and then wrote about it?

    • The Baron

      WHAT?
      We shouldn’t rewhite the definition of marriage because a very small minority of people continue to live their lives in strict accordance with a 2,000 year old work of fiction about a very powerful creature that lives in the sky and his magical son?

      Two can play at this game, pal. I’m not denying your right to believe in that horseshit. Where do you get off thinking that you can deny anybody the right to do whatever they want on the basis of your beliefs.

      Let YOUR religion dictate YOUR behaviour. What anyone else does is none of YOUR business.

      • Jay

        You crack me up, it’s people like you who doing the forcing. Nobody is stopping anyone from entering civil unions with the legal protection to the relationship that it brings. 

        What’s happening here is people like you are trying to force, though cries of discrimination, is a change in the definition of marriage on the people who defined it in the first place.

        Now personally I don’t really care, but bigoted zealots like you who scream discrimination are usually the ones forcing it, and that gets my goat like nothing else.

      • The Baron

        Not sure what posts you’ve been reading, Jay. I don’t see this as a discrimination issue at all, and haven’t used that word in any of my responses.

        I see this as an issue of closed minded religous nuts who think that their world view should be imposed on everyone else. Just like the Taliban.

        Your argument simply boils down to “marriage is theirs and they don’t want to share it with the “likes of them”.”

        I’m not sure I’ve yet heard from you, Jay, is why you hold this stance – why two people that love each other shouldn’t be able to be married because they are of the same sex, and why your stance on that should prevent anyone else from doing as they please.

        I’m sure there is more to you than “I don’t want to share” – so what is it?

      • Andrei

        Nobody gives a stuff what people do with their private lives – nobody

        Marriage is a public institution because it assigns the responsibility of the biological parents of children to those parents. That is what it is for, that is its purpose.

        Unnatural marriage serves no purpose except for that of undermining the actual purpose of the institution by making it something it isn’t.

      • The Baron

        No Andrei – that definition of marriage as a public institution is YOURS based on your favourite work of fiction, the bible.

        You do care what people do with their private lives, because you think its your business to stop two people that love each other from using the word marriage; all on the basis that our “public institutions” apparently define it as solely reproductive in purpose.

        But WHOOPS – bad news! There is nothing in NZ legislation, which is were our “public institutions” have defined marriage, that defines it in the “reproductive purposes only” manner you have!

        You are trying to enforce your restricted, outdated and bigoted Christian view onto non-christians and demand that everyone lives their life according to your moral code. I’m sick of it.

        Two gay people getting married has no impact upon you whatsoever – so why are your knickers in a knot? Scared the big guy in the sky will come and get you if you don’t?

         

      • Agent BallSack

        Oh Andrei, you want a ‘stars upon thars’ marriage? How enlightened.

      • Andrei

        No Andrei – that definition of marriage as a public institution is YOURS based on your favourite work of fiction, the bible.

        Wrong!

        My view is the one that has been held throughout the entirity of human history and still is in most parts of the world.

        Indeed the very idea of sodomite marriage would have been considered certifiable even twenty years ago.

        Whenever it has been tested in the ballot box the answer has been a resounding NO! because the majority do not hold with this novel idea and have to be bullied into accepting it.

        It is the last gasp of a dying culture and civilization – and it is my kids who will pay the price for this hedonistic folly

      • The Baron

        Rightio then – thanks for confirming your a narrow-minded religious bigot.

        Sodomites are ruining society and coming for your children huh Andrei – do you realise how ridiculously hysterical that sounds? How does the marriage of two men that love each other pose any risks AT ALL to society, culture, civilization and your children?

        As for your plea to the majority, well, the majority of people think that your christian god is a complete and utter fiction. So, if your argument is “the will of the majority”, then throw away the bible Andrei – the people have spoken!

      • Andrei you still limping along like a lost blinkered idiot. I thought I was perfectly clear to get the (Visible) Church’s House in order first before telling someone else to get their house in order…

        Talk about slow – then again the Fundy Right always have been…

        Hate to say it – but where are those damn socialists when we need them – if someone was going to sell their soul to hell (so the fundy’s say) then might as well be THEM for marriage equality… 

      • Jay

        Baron, I’ve been umm-ing and ahh-ing whether to even reply or not, as following your train of thought is taxing, it’s not completely coherent and shows lack of comprehension, or even plain ability to read. Example, why are you asking me, “I’m not sure I’ve yet heard from you, Jay, is why you hold this stance – why two people that love each other shouldn’t be able to be married because they are of the same sex, and why your stance on that should prevent anyone else from doing as they please.” when I said in my reply to you, “Now personally I don’t really care”. 
        Now I do agree with this, “Your argument simply boils down to “marriage is theirs and they don’t want to share it with the “likes of them.” Marriage in the traditional western sense is between a man and woman, and was based on biblical laws. Why do people who don’t believe or care for those biblical laws want to force those who do to change the definition they supplied? That’s what I have issue with, when a equivalent civil union reaps all the legal benefits that marriage has attached to it. So tell me again, who is imposing their world view on who here?

      • Blair Mulholland

         Well both claims are equally valid Baron.  That’s my point.  Some gay men want to define the word marriage one way and get the government to issue a bit of paper with the word “marriage” on it, and some of us think this is a load of bollocks.  We say that we want this word to mean a man and a woman together.  Why should the government change something which has meant a man and a woman for thousands of years?

        Nobody is stopping gay men from doing whatever they want and finding a big gay church with a big gay priest to conduct their big gay wedding before they consumate it with big gay sex.  And they can even call it a wedding and say that they are married if they want, because that’s their right.  But I don’t think the government should give them a bit of paper with the word “marriage” on it.  It is not a human right to have bits of paper from the government with certain words on them.  It is a privilege.  And there are more people out there who want the word marriage to mean a man and a woman than there are those who want it to include two men.  So gay couples should defer to us.

  • Jos B

    Don’t agree. The author of the article seems to be suggesting that most Christians hate or fear gays. This is not true. I am Catholic, and in the Catechism of The Catholic Church (where you can go to learn everything the Church teaches or believes) it says

     tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
    The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    The Church is against the unnatural conduct, not against the persons themselves. I do not believe it is “homophobia” (whatever that is supposed to mean) to disagree with someone’s conduct. Vegetarians do not agree with people eating meat – they think it is immoral, but I am sure they do not hate those who do eat meat; they just disagree with them doing it. 

    I have friends who smoke. I do not agree with them doing it, but I do not hate them for it either.It is gays themselves who play the “homophobia”/Victim card, so they can gain sympathy and smear those who do not agree with their actions.

    • Agent BallSack

      Fuck your tradition and narrow mindedness.

      • Jos B

        Please explain how I am being narrow minded…

      • Agent BallSack

        I apologise. Whilst I don’t agree with what the church has to say, I should not have degenerated to a personal attack. People are free to believe what they like about who or what they like, whether that’s a fairy in the sky or right to love whomever they like. As long as you show the same respect for others beliefs that you expect them to have of yours. Or more specifically “Do Unto others”  

      • Michael Ward

         nice one ballsack. you said “As long as you show the same respect for others beliefs that you expect
        them to have of yours. Or more specifically “Do Unto others” ” but you also said “Fuck your tradition and narrow mindedness.”
        Hypocrite much????
        Who is the intolerant one in the exchange. hint, it’s not Jos B!

      • Agent BallSack

        People are free to say “Fuck what you think” to me. Its happened before. No hypocrisy here Michael.

      • Agent BallSack

        As an aside, the people here who want a traditional marriage, yet are denying other human beings to the right are the hypocrites. IMO. Get off your high horse, stop equating marriage to religion because I know plenty of people who got married in the eyes of ‘God’ and got divorced. For that matter procreation has nothing to do with marriage either, people get pregnant in and out of wedlock, married people don’t have a monopoly on pregnancy.

      • grumpy

        Agent BallSack said…
        “As an aside, the people here who want a traditional marriage, yet are denying other human beings to the right are the hypocrites.”

        Wrong! If you want a “traditional marriage” go and have one.  first, find a willing partner of the opposite sex……….

      • Agent BallSack

        grumpy, that’s one view of what a marriage is, obviously it is your view also. Actually in ‘traditional marriages’ wives and offspring were both chattels and securing for the future. Traditional marriages such as specifically mentioned in the bible most often involved plural wives. How about you go get yourself one of them ‘traditional marriages’?

      • grumpy

        Mr BallSack – it was YOUR quote…………………

      • Agent BallSack

        And I have done nothing to deny it was my quote. What specific issue do you find incorrect about the statement that everyone here wants a marriage, yet are willing to deny other human beings the same right? Lets analogise it so it’s easier to understand:

        You want to have a swim in the pool, I say no swimming in the pool then proceed to jump in the pool. Aside from me being a bit of a prick, do you not concede that I would be a hypocrite?

    • Cameron

      I think the point is that you shouldn’t really be interested in other people’s conduct (especially their sexual conduct) unless it concerns you directly, or harms other animals (human or otherwise). 

      I can understand why a vegetarian would want to alleviate the suffering of non-human animals by advocating vegetarianism.

      I can also understand why you might want to encourage your friend not to smoke, because smoking has been linked to higher risk of getting lung cancer etc. 

      I don’t see how your life would be made any better if homosexuals (most of whom you don’t know and will never meet in your life) started having sex with people of the opposite sex rather than the same sex. 

      You can imagine I’m sure how miserable you would be if your wife/girlfriend were a lesbian and had to pretend you were a woman when you had sex.

      No straight person is going to want to marry a homosexual, so I guess what you want is for gay men to marry lesbians and for us all just to live lonely, loveless, sexless lives. 

      • Jos B

        Because I believe that homosexual conduct is dangerous and dysfunctional. SO much disease comes from it, especially in men. According to a study of 8000 students, half of gay students self-harm.

        Gay and bisexual students show elevated rates of alcohol and drug
        use, sexually transmitted infections and mental health issues, an
        Auckland University report says.

        The study, to be released tomorrow, used data from Youth 07 – a survey
        of 8002 secondary school students which quizzed respondents on sexual
        attraction, health and wellbeing.

        It showed that over the past 12 months more than a third of gay and
        bisexual students had seriously contemplated suicide, while about half
        had harmed themselves, the New Zealand Aids Foundation (NZAF) – who are
        backing tomorrow’s release – said.

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10604166

        Also, a professor Wells from Otago did a study of 13,000 kiwis and found that those who identified as homosexual or bisexual were likely to have been abused as children – 

        New Zealanders who
        identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual, or who have
        had a same-sex encounter or relationship, tend to come from
        more disturbed backgrounds, a University of Otago researcher
        has found.

        Information extracted from 13,000 face-to-face interviews
        clearly showed those with same-sexual or bisexual orientation
        were more likely to have experienced negative events in
        childhood, Associate Prof Elisabeth Wells said yesterday.

        People who had experienced sexual abuse as children were
        three times more likely to identity themselves as homosexual
        or bisexual than those who had not experienced abuse, she
        said. Also, the more adverse events someone experienced in
        childhood, the more likely they were to belong to one of the
        “non-exclusively heterosexual” groups.

        Associations between adverse events and sexuality group were
        found for sexual assault, rape, violence to the child and for
        witnessing violence in the home.

        http://www.odt.co.nz/print/117336

        Sorry, for the cut-n-paste job. I know it’s not a very good way to argue or make a point, but I wanted to make a point. Here’s an extract from a gay magazine in Canada called Xtra, from February 17, 2009.

        Over the past 10 years [Government] have contracted with experts on
        gay, lesbian, bisexual health to produce studies … issues affecting
        queer Canadians includes lower life expectancy than the average
        Canadian, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression,
        inadequate access to care and HIV/AIDS… all kinds of health issues
        that are endemic to our community… higher rates of anal cancer in
        the gay male community, lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer
        … more GLBT people in this country who die of suicide each year than
        die from AIDS, there are more who die early deaths from substance
        abuse than die of HIV/AIDS… now that we can get married everyone
        assumes that we don’t have any issues … A lot of the deaths that
        occur in our community are hidden … Those of us who are working on the
        front lines see them and I’m tired of watching my community die”

        Do we want that for our children? Depression? Higher rates of suicide and disease? Lower life expectancy?

      • Agent BallSack

        If this thread is a cross section of societal and parental views on gay marriage or sex, i’m not surprised a lot of gay students self harm.

    • Cameron

      I don’t think you understand.

      There is as yet no “cure” as it were for homosexuality. You either have sex/be in love with people of the same gender or be celibate and lonely your whole life.

      Entering into a relationship with someone of the opposite sex is not a realistic option (unless of course you live in the middle east/sub-saharan Africa were you might be killed if you’re found out). 

      It doesn’t matter how many studies you refer to – what is your point? I could link to a number of studies that show that Maori perform poorly in certain areas of life (suicide is a good example).
      What do you suggest they do? Stop being Maori? It’s not going to happen.

      What exactly do you want us to do? If “giving-up” homosexuality were an option then everybody would already have done it and there would be no homosexuals. You know there’s nothing we can do about it. If you think changing sexuality is so easy then why don’t you try it yourself?

      • Jos B

        Cameron, that is the thing: someone cannot give up being Maori, nor can any other person of color, but as far as being homosexual, we only have the person’s word that that is what they are. There is no physiological difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual. Some will say they are “born this way”, but what does that mean? Born with an attraction for the opposite sex? Some people are born with a disposition for alcoholism because their parents drank – does that mean they should go ahead and become an alcoholic? Because they have a propensity to go that way?  

        I do not believe that the presence of a desire means that someone is born this way, or should accede to the desire. As the article I pointed out in my last post, many people who have been abused as children tend toward homosexuality. Some people do leave the lifestyle: one example that comes of mind is Michael Glatze, who was the editor of YGA (Young Gay America) magazine. He left the lifestyle and became a Christian, after coming to a personal realization. You can see what he says about it at http://www.wnd.com/2007/07/42385/

        And what of other desires? What about the desires of a pedophile? Why is his desire any less valid, or any less an orientation than a gay person? Yes, we know it is wrong, but what if he has this desire but never ever acts on it? Why is his desire not an orientation, but being homosexual is? That is why I do not buy into the whole “born this way” thing. I believe it is just a desire on the part of the person for one reason or another. 

        I don’t understand why you say that if it were possible to “give up” homosexuality, they gays would have done it already. Would they? Are you saying that no one wants to be gay? Or they’d all change if they could? I do not believe that.

  • Agent BallSack

    Now this I can understand. Nice story Whale.

  • @BoJangles

    Marriage is a religious word / concept .  

    When freed from such structure, you see we could marry our pet if we so desired.

    • Pukakidon

       Rubbish it has only been associated with church for 400 – 500 years.  The concept has been around for over 4000 years.

      Does it really matter if gay people want to marry, who is getting hurt?   No one.

  • Kokila Patel

    Just a question aside, why do you sometimes use language in a derogatory way, eg “gay ute” etc.  I get that when you do this, it is sometimes aimed at people who you are already mates with etc, but don’t you think it detracts?

    • Pukakidon

      It is interesting isn’t it, kids use the term gay meaning something is stupid or nonsense. It is the same in how Kosh uses the play on the crude word F#&Ktard  for “retard” all the time. Obviously something he has picked up in the playground in the school he teachers at.

      It is his childish way of reinforcing the word retard but in a hidden and hurtful manner …. in much the same way as children describe something as silly or stupid as gay, It in some way gives him a sense of grandeur and allows him to give more emphasis to the term. However both are derogatory and marginalise minority groups when used in that manner.

      • Kosh103

        Oh you poor baby. Did I make you cry? You poor scared little thing.

      • Karlos

        Kosh, seriously? ‘Oh you poor baby. Did I make you cry? You poor scared little thing’, that is your response? You really need to find a new vocation!

  • Jos B

     I think people confuse “human right”
    with “the right to do whatever the hell I want”, and they aren’t the
    same.
     As humans, society rightly puts limits on who can marry – persons who are related
    cannot marry (brother and sister, cousins, other family), those who are below a
    certain age cannot marry, an adult cannot marry a child, a man cannot marry an animal — are their “human
    rights” being denied too? Of course not. In reality, a person who is
    homosexual has exactly the same right to marry as every other person in the
    world, as long as it is not someone of the same sex. 

    • Wychbych

       In our house, being gay means being free to love who you like.

      Marriage is an outdated concept, imo. My parents (I’m 46) got together in the 50s, had 7 kids, and stayed together until they died.

      They managed to get around to marrying in 1978, and it was only for secular reasons (a Brit passport for the kids if we wanted, house loan etc). My parents loved each other and didn’t have to be ‘married’ to be married.

      Two adults who love each other ought to be able to make whatever commitment they wish to each other. Whatever their sex.

      • Michael Ward

        even if marriage is outdated (which its not) that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work. marriage is the foundation of society.

        you are trying to extrapolate from your parents, who were basically married sans licence, to somehow say that gay marriage is okay? how can you go from hetero is okay therefore gay is okay?

    • Agent BallSack

      I would like to ask you Jos, who gave the church the right to determine who can marry whom? Tradition determined Protestants cannot marry Catholics, would you agree with that? It used to be a tradition to drink all your money away on Saturday night and go home and rape the wife, does that make it right? Tradition means 8 year old brides and genital mutilation. Saying something is a tradition simply means that people think it’s okay to do it because Joe Bloggs or Jonah Lomu is doing it. I am like Whale, I used to hate gays with a vengeance, not for who they were but for what they were. Maybe age has mellowed me or perhaps I look around the world and think, “Ya know what? Theres far, far worse shit out there”.

      • Jos B

        OK, you’re obviously not a Christian, so I won’t use the argument that “God said so”, because you don’t believe that anyway. But, just look at nature: the male/female/child grouping is how it was designed to be. The Church doesn’t have to say so, when it is pretty obvious already.

      • Agent BallSack

        That’s a good call because I wouldn’t accept “God said so” any more than I would accept “Dr Seuss said so”. Actually the latter was a real person so I would probably accept that far more quickly (and he was remarkably tolerant of others). I don’t have a problem with the tenets laid out in the Bible, it was a great book on law and how we should treat each other and all, but man’s interpretation of it, has lead to some disgusting and despicable acts throughout history. Crusades anyone? To me Unchristian-like means uncharitable, close minded and likely bigoted to boot. I have children and a (opposite-sex) partner so it really doesn’t bother me what homosexuals do. Quite secure in my own sexuality, yet thought that the legalising of homosexuality appalled me originally. All the people screaming gay guys would be kissing in the streets, what will it do to our children? OMG LEGAL GAYS! If gays want mother-in-laws let them bloody have them!

      • Jos B

        Actually, you may be surprised by the fact that I do not really care what other people do in the privacy of their own homes. I might disagree with their conduct, and I am sure they are already aware of the Christian stance on what they do.

        What I am more concerned about is that they want to change the laws and the way society operates so that everyone must believe what they believe and condone it. And why should society? 

        Let me use a way out example… 

        Lets say some people decided to shove blended up food up their nose to feed themselves instead of eating it through the mouth. I wouldn’t have a problem with it if that’s what they wanted to do. But lets say they wanted to change the law to say that restaurants must provide for them to “eat” this way, and also to normalize it and tell kids it’s a viable way to eat. And anyone who disagreed was a hate-filled bigot because humans should be able to eat any way they choose, and it was discrimination to say any different. It’s a “human right” and all.

        It didn’t make any difference to them that eventually the nose would be damaged because it wasn’t made for that purpose.

        Why is this different?

      • Agent BallSack

        In reply, I would say that they had to change ‘the laws’ to allow women the vote and black people in the same shops as the rest of the enlightened and pure churchgoers. Yet here we are.

      • Jos B

        I would say that the Church always had regard for women and “black people”. It is secular society that needed to change it’s laws.

    • Jassen

      In your reference post way above, that is the view of what percentage of society now? There are too many people in the world with a different view to Christianity for Chrisitianity to be the driving power it used to be. You talk of society governing our right to marry, but haven’t we moved on from that? We used to think prostitution was taboo but now its legal. Whether your belief allows that or not, that is your belief. In today’s society we have the freedom to believe what we want without the persecution from other beliefs. That is our right. It is really difficult for me to follow any religious teachings about good vs evil, when religion itself has been the catalyst of so many atrocities.

      You quote references to articles that every highly placed spiritual leader would have read or studied, yet these same people are amongst the worst offenders in the world with regards to child molestation. It is rife amongst clergy. And not even with the opposite sex, but the same sex.

      The limit on marrying cousins has nothing to do with religion, society or anything of that nature. That is one of Mother Nature’s rules. The increased chance of abnormalities during reproduction makes it neccessary to govern this. Without the sex and reproduction, why can’t 2 relatives love each other?

      • Jos B

        Well, do not we have to have some kind of standard for morality? Or are you saying that there is no standard and that is just keeps changing? You mention that prostitution used to be illegal, but now it isn’t. The same can be said for abortion. But again, isn’t there a standard? Isn’t what is moral always moral? It shouldn’t change. Who is right – the people who think abortion is moral now, or those from 40 or 50 years ago (not so long) who thought thought it was not moral? And why are they wrong now, and we are right? 

        And what standard do you use to say that pedophilia is wrong? Of course, I believe it is wrong, but there are some who would disagree, such as NAMBLA. Why doesn’t your quote “we have the freedom to believe what we want” apply to what they want? You see, society must have a moral code, and standards, but I do not believe it is a “might makes right” thing, or an agreement based on numbers. 
        You mention priests abusing children. Most of the abused were male, which makes it homosexual offending, but the media would not draw attention to that important little aspect because homosexuality is their sacred cow, which they dare not offend against. 

        You mention Mother Nature. How does sodomy fit in with Mother Nature? The anus is not a sexual organ, it is the sewer line of the body. The rules or moral laws of the Church are very much in line with Mother Nature. 

  • STEVE AND MONIQUE

    Heres an idea.Who gives a shit what the rules are .If you want to get married,get married.Pagan or church,new age,or whatever.As long as it is consenting adults then fine.Ok hooking up with your sister/brother is wrong,but if you want to argue cousins check out the Royal lines.Have been some close calls in that group.Hey we have more shit going on with killing kids,to raping 5year olds etc to worry if a couple of gays want to get married.Need to get over this moral code that was set up by the church etc.I am sure the world will not stop if a couple of bloke/females want to get married   

    • Precisely. 

    • Exactly – time to move along folks this is beginning to bore me as we have more pressing concerns here such as lets see Rate Payers and Tax Payers dollars been blown left right and centre, our horrific abuse rates (children and adult) and our rump called long term welfare dependency…

  • Jb

    @google-131423b26d3bdfe9e90494244a66cb26:disqus http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/celebrities/6524431/Kirk-Cameron-starts-Twit-storm – here’s another one for you! All I will say is that I am bemused that such odd perceptions are rife in this day and age

    • Auto_immune

      I disagree with everything Kirk Cameron said, but he certainly has some cojones.

    • Jos B

      How is what he said odd? Which part?

  • Kosh103

    Ignoring all the bullshit and fucktards and homophobic bigots who have shouted their HATE over the last few days I am going to take this oppertunity to say a MASSIVE THANK YOU to Cam.

    He and I agree on almost nothing – but I will say this, at the end of the day he is not a hater. And for all the support he has shown the gay community on here I again say to him THANKYOU!

    • Grumpy

      …on the other hand Kosh, the most vehement hate bullshit spouted on this subject over the past few days has been from you.  You don’t seem to recognise the irony of your heterophobic bigotry – or in your self centred world, is it like the excuse that only whites can be racist?

      • Kosh103

        Oh grumpy I see you are talking bullshit again.

        No surprise given how hompohobic you are.

    • Jos B

      *facepalm*
      As I was trying to point out – those who disagree with homosexual conduct aren’t haters either, any more than I hate someone who smokes, though I disagree with them doing it.
      I work with a couple of gay guys – I don’t hate them at all.  

      In fact, I very much doubt that the people you are labelling as “haters” do hate gays at all.
      It’s just a weapon that gays use – call everyone who disagrees with them a “hater” to garner support and sympathy.

      • Kosh103

        Actually given the conduct I have seen on here the last few days, I am VERY confident in naming those people as haters. Massive homophobic haters.

    • Pukakidon

       Once again using that immature abusive name for intellectually challenged people.  How old are you really?     I hear this term all the time from 15 year olds

      Grow up

      • Kosh103

        Theres one of the haters now.

      • Marryme

         Koshy Koshy  You are a funny little weasel….   Theres a hater heres a hater every where a hater hater

      • Kosh103

        There are only specific haters on here marryme. The ones who have been saying vey homophobic hatful things all weekend.

        Luckily in the real world, they are to cowardly to say any of it and keep it allllll bottled up inside them. Festering away.

  • Mickrodge

    As Jos B said above I wonder if in its truest form the church “play the ball not the man” so to speak but possibly this has been twisted over time to suggest a more sinister outlook.

    I guess it’s only made worse by the sensationalism of nutjobs like the Westborough Baptist Church & their “God Hate Fags” slogans & (bought my title off the internet) “Bishop” Brian Tamaki & his henchmen goose stepping down Lambton Quay to parliament.

    Whilst personally not a person of faith I thought it was a nice gesture Cam.

    • Agent BallSack

      Westboro and Pastor Fred Phelps have their very own brand of secular bigotry and it’s against everyone, not just gays and dead marines. Quite frankly a bullet would be a waste.

      • Kosh103

        Speaking of Westbro – many of this lot would fit in quite well with old Fred and his bunch of fucktards.

  • Brian Smaller

    Personally, I don’t feel the need to apologise for something I didn’t do. I find it as pathetic as apologising on my behalf for so -called crimes committed by people I never knew two hundred or more years ago. 

    • Grumpy

      Absolutelty.  It seems to have become the favourite lefie tactic to put everyone else on the back foot.  All this faux outrage and demand to apologise – ridiculous.

  • Whalehunter

    Fags getting married is just another example of what the marxist/feminist/pc movement has reduced the world to.

  • George

    I can see where they’re coming from.  I had a friend, a street evangelist a straight out transparent bible beleiver.  He used to preach in the seedy tenderloin area of SF. He used to be heavy on the the anti-homo-your’e-going-to-hell-if-you-don’t-turn stuff. Predictably he got the daylights beat out of him on number of occasions.  One night as he was getting a sound kicking in one of these gay-bashings he prayed “I’m sick of this Lord, what am I doing here?”

    He says he distinctly heard a voice telling him ” Yes what are you doing here? You don’t love these men”  The Chistian ministry to gays turned a big corner once he stopped condemning and focused on God’s love for them.  That is, after all, the gospel.

  • Unklefesta

    After reading all this I am struggling ….

    really really struggling …

    to give a rats arse either way. 

  • Jman

    I think you’ve been reading too much Andrew Sullivan.

    Western society has come a long way with gay rights and I think most reasonable people now agree that homos should have the same civil rights as heteros. Gay marriage seems to be a sticking point and it comes down to semantics – the meaning of the word marriage. If gays can have all the same rights as married people, then why the insistence on changing the definition of the word “marriage” which has always meant a marriage between a man and a woman.

    My take on it is that it’s part of the gay agenda to normalise gay culture within our society. Before anyone screams homophobe at me, I haven’t said that I’m against that. Actually I don’t really care. I just want to see more honesty in the debate. Gays need to stop claiming that it’s about gaining equal rights which is a lie as they have that already.

  • thor42

    Good on you, WO! 
    I’ve known a number of gay guys (and a few lesbians) and they’ve all been very cool, good sorts. I currently work with a gay guy and he’s *great* – a bloody good guy and everyone likes him.    

  • BJ

    Gay people – go find another word to describe your long term commitment to each other. Thats what this is about – a word that is used when certain conditions are present – namely man and woman. Why do you want to be married when the condition of a heterosexual relationship is not present. How can you expect to use the same word when in your relationship – the conditions of your relationship are homosexual – maybe because you want your cake and to eat it too – you have gone down a different path but you still want total access to the other path’s terminology. Make up a new word for yourselves because homosexuality is not just a variation of the theme. Get ‘married’ by all means just get yourselves a new name for it.

    What if all the heterosexual people decided they wanted to be acknowledged as gay and call themselves a homosexual or lesbian – that would be confusing wouldn’t it – same with ‘marriage’.
    No I am not a homophobe or church goer for that matter

    • Travdog

      ” What if all the heterosexual people decided they wanted to be acknowledged as gay and call themselves a homosexual or lesbian…”

      Just come out and say it mate, we won’t judge you!

  • ???

    There should always be seperation between the state and church.

    However, what gays and lesbians are doing, is wanting to be part of the christian construct of ‘marriage’. If the state sanctions this, gays and lesbians can then argue that private churches and religious institutions are discriminating against them for refusing to marry/divorce them.

    The state will then intervene to prosecute priests, churches and religious institutions because of their private theological beliefs (centuries old). The state will dictate and alter their religious beliefs and rituals.

    So, gays and lesbians wanting to get ‘married’ are directly going to impact upon the rights of christian believers and people of all other faiths.

    They will not be free to practice their beliefs free from interference from gays, lesbians and the state.

    Gays and lesbians currently have equality in the eyes of the law & state, as they are treated the same as a married persons.

    Why do they wish for the state to interfere into private institutions and in the church?

    • Karlos

      I have been on the fence on this for a long time, ‘Marriage’ is just a word with a current meaning, the same way the word ‘Gay’ used to mean Happy 50 years ago, so I saw no problem with calling a homosexual union a ‘Marriage’, however, this is the first arguement that has actually pointed out the far reaching consequences of changing legislation relating to the use of the word.

      I believe everyone has the rights to their own beliefs, and the right to practice them so long as it doesn’t cause harm to others, but legislating for gay marriage has the potential to dictate what churches are allowed to preach as part of their understanding of their bible/quaran etc. and that in my eyes is wrong.

      A civil union gives equal rights to all unions, why can’t people have a civil union, say they are married if that is how they want to be known, and live a happy life together? My partner and I are considering just that as niether of us are religious, so we see no advantage to getting ‘Married’ over having a civil union.

      I understand why the gay community is upset over the situation as it does feel discriminitory not allowing them, and them alone not to get married, but when you look at the flip side as ??? has pointed out, I think civil unions are the most appropriate middle ground to take on the situation.

      Sorry Kosh 

  • wiltinpenis

    I’m surprised that no one has mentioned the predeliction of paedophiles for the ministries of the so-called religions; from all accounts, especially the catholic church (doesn’t deserve Capital letters)
    So is it that?  consequently over the years, the homophobic community has been influenced by the teacher/perpetrator/penetrator?

    In defence of some Kiwi catholics:  I was once was an altar-boy. I was never molested. 

  • Kosh103

    So nice to see the hate and bile that is flowing on here.

    Fucktards.

    • Travdog

      That aside, the main post is a nice story. Change is inevitable, unfortunately alot of people are in denial.

    • Agent BallSack

      You know Kosh, I wont agree with the term fucktards in this case but I empathise with the crap that ‘gays’ have to put up with. No one should be judged by their sexuality.

      • M3N78L

         My thoughts exactly ABS, i had thought of all places, NZ was a nation of tolerance, and we as a society had evolved (or are hopefully evolving) from our ingrained racist and homophobic behaviours. but reading the posts on this thread it seems i have been sadly mistaken. i ask what does it cost them personally when 2 men/women marry? are they hurt, or merely offended? we are supposed to be tolerant of their beliefs, but they can find no tolerance in their hearts for their fellow man or woman? religion in action huh.

      • Apolonia

        “….the crap that ‘gays’ have to put up with.”
        Now that is yuk.

      • Agent BallSack

        Does moral reprobation offendeth thy senses?

    • Pukakidon

       Kosh your not the only gay in the villiage.  

      We have all got friends, family members colleagues who are gay.   It is not big deal get over it we dont care.

      • Grumpy

        Yeah but Kosh is SPECIAL.  He has the great advantage of being able to label anyone who disagrees with him as a “homophobe” and a “hater”.
        Whereas the biggest hater and whateverphobe is himself.  A poor, sad unit – and he’s teaching our children.

      • Kosh103

        LMAO –  you keep telling yourself that. The comment that have been flowing on here the last few days about gays and marriage have highlighted a lot of haters.

        But then I dont have to deal with fucktards like that in real life. Every single straight person I know is lovely. Nothing like the nastys on here.

    • Pukakidon

      Kish is prob using his government paid for teachers laptop to search for the word F&^Ktard as we speak on Youtube.

    • starboard

      aw your such a bitch kosh. Typical homo. Nasty and vindictive. The bile flows freely from you as well remember. 

    • starboard

      It flows freely from you also kosh…remember when you are pointing your dirty little finger there are 3 pointing back at you nancy.

      • Kosh103

        My my look at the hate.

  • Agent BallSack

    All the invective aside – what gets me the most about this post is still the picture. Cameron hugging a great big gay guy. Good on you Cam, wish the majority of posters here could do the same without fear of catching Gayness.

  • Boss Hogg

    Hi Kosh,  I have no intention of engaging in homophobic/hetrophobic arguments in any way.  I work and socialise with a wide variety of people and there are good, bad and in between types of people all around.  Rise above what you consider abuse from Bigots and you don’t do your self many favours with some of your language.  The Bigots won’t change, leave them to it – if you can resist the need to retaliate.

    Having said that, I googled “Fucktard” and there is some very entertaining You Tube clips – not for the kids, mid you.

    • Kosh103

      On youtube?? I thought they were, for the most part, nice and wholesome.

      I will have to have a looksee.

      • Boss Hogg

        Just language, but damn funny.

        Cheers

  • Fark. 
    Heads up guys, your churches are facing a massive fall off in numbers as they become largely irrelevant.  It’s anti-customer if nothing else, turning off a pair of vaginas or a pair of penises at the altar because of the need to follow “rules”. 
    It’s rigid not to move with the times and the churches are the only one that suffer. If you become too rigid it kills your movement. 
    Rigidityvile. Stuck in the glorious days of the past, you know, like Labour. 
    What’s the rubbish about marriage being about the kids? It’s more about being a princess for a day and becoming part of a community. You shouldn’t be able to discriminate around this. There is plenty of good stuff that you can do that doesn’t involve having loin fruit. I’m always amused by people past the age of having kids laying done the law about what’s good for kids.
    It would be interesting to meld together a gay marriage rights movement, with piracy and the ALCP. that would just about cover the right wing libertarians and catch anyone under the age of 50. 
     

    • ???

       One church is massively bucking the trend and growing in numbers worldwide.

      True churches are not social institutions, they are theological institutions, they will always stand against changing social norms, they will remain a stable rock in times of persecution, immorality and injustice.

      As Governments become more corrupt, their values will remain steadfast, immovable. It is the proper purpose of a church to teach moral boundaries.

      • Agent BallSack

        Churches have no business telling me what to do. Go look up the definition of church and the definition of government and tell us what you are truly following.

      • You know how I learned my moral boundaries? Making mistakes, not listening to the kiddy fucker church or any other. Then I do my best to help others in need without being too much of a pain in the arse about it. 

      • titanuranus

        Stop making sense Monique ,you will confuse the godbots.

    • jay cee

      going well until you brought labour into the debate. remember it was labour who made civil unions legal and recognised as such. much to the naysaying of the right.

      • Jester

        Nobody brought Labour into the debate jay cee. I believe the previous posters said Govt.

        Although an earlier poster did use the word “invisible”so that could be the link to Labour to have made.

  • Peter Wilson

    I think reconcilliation, apologies and the like are inspiring. The way homosexuals have been treated over the years is much akin to colonisation. In fact, as well as apologies I believe a tribunal should be created, similar to the Waitangi tribunal to hear claims against gays and consider compensation.

    • Boss Hogg

      Peter, this idea may please the indiginous homosexual community especially much.  Like being part Maori, Bi sexuals would also have entitllements – think of the possible combiantions and permutations……………You are just brilliant !!  Do I need to find a closet to get into so I can come out when the time is right ?   ;-)

    • Agent BallSack

      Sorry we invaded your ass?

    • Grumpy

      Don’t you mean “COLONisation”?

  • Stevo

    The god delusion.

  • titanuranus

    Former Christian Minister Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation:

    “I do understand what love is, and that is one of the reasons I can never again be a Christian. Love is not self denial. Love is not blood and suffering. Love is not murdering your son to appease your own vanity. Love is not hatred or wrath, consigning billions of people to eternal torture because they have offended your ego or disobeyed your rules. Love is not obedience, conformity, or submission. It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment, or reward. True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being.”

    • Jos B

      The guy who wrote that does not know what love is. At all…

      • titanuranus

        Orly?  Enlighten us then Jos.  The official version not just yours.

  • Wychbych

    @google-40b64abdab9970354aac2f9558170e12:disqus

    Because I’m not a close-minded, sky-fairy worshipping bigot!

  • Steve P

    I know it’s very poor form simply to link to something else and say, “That’s what I’m talking about”, but it’s late, I’m tired and I can’t be arsed, so without apology:

    http://tradianglican.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/this-should-be-obvious-some-thought-on.html 

39%