Chart of the Day – Not even Colin Craig can stop gay marriage

It is a dead issue. It won’t be long before no one can remember why there was a fight in the first place.

Not even Colin Craig’s dodgy polling company can turn these figures around:


As Justin Green says at The Daily Beast:

From 55% against to 58% in favor in less than ten years. Simply incredible.


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.

  • BJ

    That poll is from the US. Since when didi NZ take the lead from the States on matters of National significance? I see you have let your own poll go off the radar – it reads quite different.

    • spollyike

      Yes BJ where is that poll??

      If the homosexuals win this fight it’ll be because everyone else in the world has given up and gone home as they can’t be fucked with the propaganda on the issue from media and bloggers alike. A true war of attrition. We have been bored to tears/death and are now sick of hearing about all things homo! So homosexuals, do what you want but only if you promise to shut the fuck up about yourselves after that!!

      • BJ

        Normally polls on this blog are kept active up the top of page under ‘must read’

      • BJ

        That Poll is now in archives under Saturday General Debate – 3 days ago. A referendum would sort out the wood from the trees – then we could all shut up – for now.

    • TomTom

      The US is much more conservative on this matter than we are. There was literally a war in the House and Senate over DADT (basically just to let soldiers be themselves…) NZ could never be as conservative as the States. So if a poll in the States show high support for marriage equality, then it means that here in NZ, polling would most likely show higher percentages. Indeed, middle of last year TVNZ published a poll showing that 2/3rd of NZer support marriage equality.

      You’re effectively sabotaging your own points.

      • BJ

        I hear what you say but I haven’t even come across a poll to vote on this in NZ, bar on here. Seeing as I don’t come at this from a religious perspective I need more than ‘faith’ in the results of polls that don’t get to the non-techsavy and a government committee to do the right thing by our society. So until I see that the whole of the voting community have voted on this I don’t accept that our society is ready for this yet. No-one that is pro Gay Mar…ge has considered a less aggressive/victim stance might have been helpful

        • unsol

          The Herald & Stuff have had a few so between here & those ones you should be able to get an idea. Unless there is a binding referendum, the only way is to take the average of all polls on MSN & blogs like this then work it out.

          But the other side of it is anecdotal which of course depends on which age group & perhaps demographic you are talking to.

          One thing you need to remember is that Gen Y, X Z & beyond are super PC – they are often extremely liberal & if parents, helicopter parents where a telling off is now ‘darling please don’t do that’.

          Very few in this group would vote against it as appear to be big believers in expressing oneself/being “authentic” etc

          Then you have the liberal 65 plus – the above’s parents. I would imagine it would be 50/50 in this age group.

          Young people – say 25 & under – overwhelmingly in favour I suspect.

          But hard to know. Personally I dont know anyone who is against it & most commentators online – apart from here & NZ conservative & maybe Kiwiblog – are overwhelmingly in favour.

          But I dont know what the stats are say for the Herald vs here…

          • spollyike

            Big assumptions about gen X there unsol. Don’t assume we are all as you describe. Also maybe they are making up for the baby boomers, the greediest generation.

          • unsol

            No I don’t think so at all. Those born from the 1950s onwards (gen X) are part of the group that don’t believe in smacking, pushed to have rubber on playgrounds, outlawed bullrush, pushed for kiddy locks on almost anything you could stick the things to, with the push for PC becoming more prominent with each younger age group.

            Of course there are always exceptions, goes without saying really, but that doesn’t mean saying Gen XYZ & beyond are liberal is a generalisation. You only have to look at how society has changed…for the worse…in the last 63 years.

            I would also say that it was Gen X that really pushed for the reforms of the 80s & things like the word “gay” being used only to describe the LGBT community, rather than it being a name or meaning happy.

            Baby boomers had their wild times in the 70s, but overall I would still say that are a lot more conservation that most of the younger generations.

          • BJ

            I really want to know if I’m in the minority – but online MSM and blog polls must have many groups not being represented. Really generalising now, I also think that Gen YXZ don’t think enough about what change means for future society – change does not equate to better society by right.

          • unsol

            If National gets voted out as a result of this Bill going forward then you could safely say that you are in the majority.

            But other than that it is almost impossible to tell – but asking around friends, family, acquaintances & workmates all give an idea (assuming you know people who don’t always share your values or ideology).

          • BJ

            If, as you say, Gen YXZ are super PC they can’t then be, as you say, authentic – they are opposite positions – one is about caring about what others think and making sure your opinion is going to be acceptable ahead of your true self and the other is about integrity

          • unsol

            I think that is dilemma gen X Y Z face (I’m a Gen Y btw) – they seem to yell pc crap every which way you turn yet declare we have to be authentic, true to ourselves, know our inner truth etc hence why the likes of Oprah became so popular.

            Obviously I don’t consider marriage equality PC at all. I consider it a wrong that should have been made right from the second the Church then the State got its claws into the concept. But I definitely understand the frustration some may feel re the LGBT ‘stealing’ the word gay. Bit like the mental health community & the word retard or even the word faggot which used to mean a bundle of sticks.

        • TomTom

          I’m sorry, but that was just a fucking dumb comment lol.

          Firstly, what would you be saying if there was a series of poll that said that the general public DIDN’T support marriage equality? (hypothetically) – would you be still be calling for a referendum on the matter because maybe, just maybe, the polling organisations are twisting it or whatever it was that you implied.

          Secondly, marriage is a human right. You don’t vote on human rights. Have you ever wanted a referendum to vote on whether people with disabilities be given support in order to function and contribute to society?! And yes, that is a valid comparison!

          Lastly, I’m not sure if you have any real idea of what some LGBT people go through. I’ve been lucky in that I am pretty fucking tall and reasonably fit, so nobody ever bothered to mess with me anyways. One of my friends got rejected by his parents for a while and that messed his head up. There’s a reason why LGBT people suffer from mental illness more than the general population, and that because how they are treated. Even on here, I find idiotic comments that come out of brain dead people such as gays are pedophiles and only want kids to sexually abuse and that gays can never really love anyone. Whatever. So frankly, I think you should fuck off with that “victim stance” comment.

          Myself, I want to eventually marry someone that I love and respect, and raise children with them. And I couldn’t love a woman because I can’t. I just don’t feel that way with them. Why should I have to be in a loveless, unhappy marriage to raise kids.
          Anyways, I want to be like my Dad, who supported and raised 8 kids and worked long office hours (plus a couple hours each night and Sunday arvos in the office!), but still managed to make time to take us to the park, teach us how to ride bikes and play sports and so on.

          • BJ

            Your honesty has struck me in the heart.

          • unsol

            Fantastic comment; regardless of how people play this debate, the reality is that it is only ever going to personally affect one side.

            Other than questioning the poll, I personally would love to know how many people on here have friendships or family relationships with someone in the LGBT community?

            If you do, have you ever said the things you say on here directly to them?

          • jonno1

            Yes, I have unsol. My lesbian friend (who is also a christian) and I have had some very deep discussions on the subject. But as I’ve said before, her christian faith supersedes her sexual orientation. That doesn’t mean she likes being in that situation, as she has foregone marriage and motherhood. But that’s much more honest than engaging in a sham marriage. She mentioned recently that she often works late rather than coming home to an empty house. To be honest, I teared up at that comment (OK, I cried) because, frankly, there’s no answer to it. She is a very dear friend to both my wife and me.

            I’m not aware of other close friends being gay, but men generally don’t have many friends other than their wife’s friends’ husbands.

            I did appreciate TomTom candidly sharing his views, to which he is absolutely entitled.

          • TomTom

            Oh that’s nice. I’m happy for you to cry, sob, and do nothing about one of your close friends being desperately unhappy. It is her choice to live her life as she sees fit, though.

            However, I don’t give a fuck about her (or yours) religious beliefs. They in no way apply to me. When I find a guy that I love and can be with forever, I will marry him. I will have kids, and I will work hard to provide for them, and I will come home each night to a bright and full house full of joy/happiness/screaming/laughing/yelling/bitching and more.

            PS You sound like a bundle of joy. No, seriously, I shall quote: “men generally don’t have many friends other than their wife’s friends’ husbands.” Really? Maybe I can set you up with a couple of new “sham” friends?

            PSS Unsol was talking about some of the ridiculous crap that’s thrown around on here that I was highlighting. Please do read more in depth.

          • unsol

            Bit of a princess comment there Tom – I think Jonno was offering sincere empathy so given what you wrote above I would imagine that has always been in relatively short supply.

            Friendships post marriage relying more on the wife – really common as life becomes all about kids, their friends & their parents who the wife deals with the most (usually)…if you find yourself in a long term relationship and have the privilege of getting married no doubt you will find the same thing happens. Irrespective of kids couples to tend to lean towards the circle of one person in the relationship.

            And yes, spot on – talking about other comments/commentators.

          • jonno1

            It seems we’re largely in agreement here TomTom. The “friends” comment was a throwaway line – but I think you knew that. The timing of my post last night (1a.m.) was because we’d been out with a bunch of them. BTW I didn’t give you the down vote, in fact I’ve given you an up vote.

            The issue currently before parliament is not about homosexual relationships per se, that’s a done deal. It’s about redefinition of the meaning of the word “marriage”, hence the title of the bill. I can understand you reacting badly to some of the comments on this and other blogs, but please don’t put everyone with a different point of view into the same box!

            I’ve just read unsol’s recent comment, and she’s dead right about friendships after marriage; singles of middle age often comment on this aspect, especially women – apparently there’s a dearth of eligible middle-aged men: “the good ones are all taken, only the ratbags are left” according to some single lady friends. Seems a bit harsh! We keep in close contact with many single friends, whether never married, divorced or widowed. But they are friends first and their marital status is what it is. And then there are the friends from school and uni that you see annually or even less frequently, but when you do it’s like you had just stepped out of the room for a minute.

          • TomTom

            Ugh. I wasn’t being serious about the friends thing – I don’t give a shite how you know your friends. Apologies though, I was being a grumpy bitch at having to get up so ‘early’ this morning… I like my sleep.

            I was trying to point out (badly) how you were “crying about” your friend’s predicment instead of actually sitting down to think about it. I assume you both go to the same church – I should hope that you actually had the chance to sit down and examine/discuss how your church’s position and what they use to justify that position is causing your friend some serious unhappiness in her life.
            I do think that the teaching of Jesus was important – he told us to be kind to others, to not judge others, to realise that we all have our sins, and to be happy in our lives.

            As for how we define marriage – well – marriage has never been constant has it? Today, we marry for love. In the past, they married for land and wealth. Some people think marriage is a polygamous matter, some people (celebs) do it for media attention, that it should only be between people of the same race…

          • jonno1

            TomTom, what’s that old saying about “it went straight over his head”? It seems we’re both guilty of that. But I will answer one of your assumptions: no, my friend and I don’t go to the same church, however my church is about as accepting and compassionate a group of people as you could find anywhere. That’s what I like about it, there’s no crap, no BS, no pretensions, and no dress code!

          • TomTom

            Oh apologies once again! I’ve been to a couple “sessions” (I guess a word like that, I dunno – they’re not masses?) of a church like that – my best friend and his family (who I know very well) have been part of that church for 20 years. I was impressed by the sense of community and support of each other, as well as the absolute sincerity of the whole thing. (a contrast to Catholic masses, I think.)
            However, I will always be agnostic/atheist. The real problem is that I will probably never ever escape that fecking Catholic guilt.

          • LesleyNZ

            The thing is Tom Tom – Jesus was not tolerant of sin – ALL sin. The Bible says clearly that homosexual relations are a sin. Sin is not a popular word these days. If someone is a homosexual and say they are a Christian, but continuing in the homosexual lifestyle then they are wilfully sinning against God. If a Christian church is not teaching what sin is and the consequences of sin and what the Bible says about sin and about the saving grace of Jesus Christ, then they are trying to please man rather than God. Jesus Christ came to earth not to make us happy on earth – He came to earth to give us eternal life through the shedding of His Blood on the cross. Jesus was not interested in earthly things.These days in many churches too much emphasis is placed upon Jesus bringing social justice as if this was the reason he came to earth. Social justice goes hand in hand with Christ’s teachings and what the Bible teaches, but Christ did not come to earth to sort out the world’s earthly problems, he came to save the lost to reconcile us to God. jonno1’s church’s position on homosexuality and sin is Biblical.

          • TomTom

            I do love your focus on gay men – “pleasing other men.”

            Everyone has their own view and interpretation of Jesus’s teachings. And everyone is entitled to have it. However, the Bible also says that being near women who are going through menopause is a sin, and so is eating a shellfish. Have you been angry with your brother, ever? SIN. Have you been meddling in other’s affairs? SIN. Have you ever been uncharitable (in the literal sense of the word)? SIN. Have you eaten lamb recently? Technically a SIN (you can’t eat the fatty meat of certain animals.) What about bacon? Sausages? Oh deary me, so naughty… Off to hell with you!

            Look, everyone who uses the Bible against homosexuality are really just being hypocrite, quoting one part and completely forgetting the rest. Also, I would like to point out to you that we live in a secular nation. We do not use the Bible as the basis for our laws.

            Further, there are so many different interpretation of the Bible that Parliament wouldn’t use yours anyways, if that were the case.

            Anyways, you should really mind your own affairs (Judge lest you be judged), and let God be the judge. If what you reckon is right (it isn’t), we homos will end up in hell anyways, even if we didn’t have the right to marry.

          • TomTom

            Ugh, menopause? I meant period. I have 5 sisters. I should bloody well know the difference. Ick, ick, ick!

          • unsol

            Jonno you strike me as someone who has a great deal of empathy for others & is consistent in what they believe in, that how you represent yourself on here is how you are in the real world. I am not sure the same can be said for all those who might share your views.

            Have you read anything by the likes of Dr Margaret Mayman – a Presbytarian gay minister with a Doctorate in Theology. Her take on common references used by the church to continue to discriminate is rather different. As is those by many theologians who arent religious at all.

            It is all very well believing what you do, but when you are placing restrictions on peoples’ personal lives you have to also be certain that it comes from a place of absolute truth – no grey area, no ifs, but absolute guarantee that you cannot possibly be wrong. Which of course is not possible.

            This is why society has moved towards the idea – people have started to question whether being gay was wrong in the 80s & now because marriage & what it is meant to represent is constantly evolving – had has always done so since if was first introduced to secure property, wealth, status & heirs, they are wondering what makes marriage the monopoly of the heterosexual community.

            My brother is gay & another extended family member on a different side is gay plus I have met & been friends with many gay men & women over the years, ironically when I was far less liberal. Nowadays not so much as my life revolves around school/school mums so only have time for my closest friends. I have seen first hand what the likes of Tom goes through (thankfully not my family members though) & it is heartbreaking.

            When you can put a face to the thing that you object based on your version of truth to it does change things.

            For me the downside of this debate has been the way the LGBT are dehumanised, like they are not real people with feelings who are someone’s father, mother, daughter, son, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, friend, spouse or neighbour.

            It is words like those said by a gay blogger called Bipolar Bear that always remind me that regardless of all the other issues that can be contended, there are 2 absolutes when it comes to God & his commandments – love God and love your neighbour:

            “Even those of us who are most comfortable in our sexual orientation feel molten lead pouring into our stomachs whenever a gay issue comes up in the media.

            You spend years trying to justify your existence to the world, and then turn on the television, radio or open a newspaper and get greeted by screeds of vomitous thoughts on why you don’t matter.”

    • Dumrse

      Discussion on Saturdays Ballot Box is clearly not to be encouraged.

  • spollyike

    Woohoo, oh yay, joy of joys, another post on homosexual marriage….NOT!!
    FFS when are you and DF going to come out of the closet to us Whale, that would up the comments!

  • Get a grip

    Yep-seems when your local poll fails to support your point of view you dig up one from someplace else in the world. Sad really.

    • BJ

      So far – WOBH Poll 63% against and 37% for gay marriage. A small detail – the vote numbers of against and for – 505+301 don’t equal the total vote count of 798.

  • Andrei

    From 55% against to 58% in favor in less than ten years. Simply incredible

    Shows the power of deceit and propaganda I suppose.- but of course two people of the same sex cannot be married to each other any more than the sun can rise in the west.

    Though by redefining east to be west might fool some people into believing it can I suppose

    • Agent BallSack

      Since we live on a globe if you travel far enough to the east, you will end up arriving at your departure point from the west. So your analogy fails by a simple test of logic.

  • A so called right wing blog that is in favour of the education system being used to indoctrinate children with progressive ideas???

    A so called right wing blog that cheers for the propaganda of a bunch of left wing Hollywood liberals????

    What a laugh.

    You’ll never get it Slater.

    You’re hopeless.

    • You keep coming back though….and how are the stats on your blog? Evidence would suggest that the formula i use i successful and your formula, not so much

      • spollyike

        Why don’t we see who gets the most up votes on these two comments? Then you will both know who has the biggest ego.

        • Agent BallSack

          Whale doesnt upvote his own comments…

          • Changeiscoming

            I don’t think you can upvote your own comments. I have been trying for years :)

        • unsol

          But isnt that irrelevant when WO’s blog is clearly more popular than RB’s?

    • TomTom

      Most people have argued that it would be conservative to support marriage equality, because it encourages all parts of our population to be in a stable relationship and promote stable household which therefore bring up happier and more active children.

      There’s different views on everything, which everyone has the right to express (and also the responsibility to actually back it up and support it). And you sound like someone who’s keens to dictate what others think and control what they publish. In short, you’re acting like a leftie loonie idiot. Which I suppose you are, really.

      • TomTom

        I suppose when I say “most people”, I really do mean “a lot of people”. I also suppose that I should learn to read and edit what I write, so as to not to forget to add the appropriate “s” to end of words that require them.


  • tarkwin

    Why not have a referendum? One of the few times I find myself agreeing with Winnie. This reminds me of how the drinking age was lowered because Jenny Shipley’s Kids drank responsibly.

  • cows4me

    We don’t need a referendum on this bullshit we just need a simple question when we vote in 2014. And by a simple question I’m not talking about some high fluting fucking lawyer in Wellington framing some piece of shit question simply to confuse us unwashed and get an outcome favourable to our liberal progressive overlords. I’m talking about a question like “should NZ institue gay marriage, yes or fucking no.” . The gays have waited a couple of thousand years a few more won’t do them any harm, 2014 should be just fine.

    • BJ

      True – I said the same a few days ago. No extra taxpayers money squandered. In fact a few other issues could be dealt with in the same way at the same time.

      • separating church from state?

        excellent idea

        • BJ

          I don’t give a damn about any institutional stance on this – I believe it is all about the integrity required to balance an individuals right to a personal position and what is best for our society to function healthily.

      • Agent BallSack

        Decriminalising smacking your kids and cannabis? Awesome thought.

        • BJ

          Yeh why not – and when it becomes apparent that the majority in this country want to head down the road of debauchery I think I’ll go live on a deserted island

  • LesleyNZ

    Not incredible at all – totally credible as society moves into a more humanistic belief system. What will emerge from this are different definitions of marriage from the traditional to the liberal. You cannot legislate what people believe in. There never will be just one definition for marriage.

    • unsol

      “You cannot legislate what people believe in. There never will be just one definition for marriage”

      Completely agree hence my view to make sure that the current Marriage Act ensures all adults in relationships already seen appropriate by the law are able to get married so that the State is effectively removed. Either that or wipe the Marriage Act completely including where it is referenced in other Acts.

      • LesleyNZ

        However there will always be only one true definition of marriage and that is marriage between a male and female.

        • unsol

          No there is not one true definition of marriage as marriage was introduced by man for a purpose that society has long since decided is no longer acceptable.

          True & truth is subjective; you have no way of knowing your truth is THE truth. You have faith that it is, but there is no guarantee. I have absolute faith that what I believe is true, as do people of all different religions, faiths & no faith at all.

  • LesleyNZ

    After Saturday’s Whaleoil poll seems there are a lot of conservative “Colin Craigers” reading this blog.

  • TomTom

    I had a poke at RedBaiter’s blog.

    My reaction? A big fat “LOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLL”

    *”The strategy is clear. First, the enemy has to be identified and their
    territory marked out, and then that territory has to be invaded and the
    betrayers have to be DEFEATED.”

    “However, we all know WHO THE ENEMY IS. Adolf Hitler was never going to
    be persuaded. Neither was Joe Stalin. Neither is Fidel Castro. Neither
    is Barack Obama. Neither is Louisa Wall. Neither is David Cameron.
    Neither is Andrew Cuomo. Neither is Michael Bloomberg. Neither is John
    Key. Neither is Cameron Slater. Neither is Julia Gillard. Neither is
    David Farrar. Persuasion is a waste of time, progressives must be

    “Reality is there is no force opposing the armies and generals of the
    left. No real battle. No chance for courage or sacrifice or heroes or
    leadership. What we have is more like an occupation. The battle is lost,
    those who represent themselves as being opposed to the left have
    completely capitulated, and they govern, like the Vichy government in France during WWII, as puppets of the victors.”

    Who want’s to read a nutbar’s blog in which there is constant comparisons of political situations to war and the death and utter human misery that it results in?

    • TomTom

      Whoops, meant to put it in the reply on RB’s topic…

    • Dumrse

      That said, its probably quite relevant to his audience demographic which must be a bunch of frekin numpties.

      • TomTom

        They must be, if they can stand having about 12 unrelated names along with the repetition of the words ‘Neither is’ be crammed into a paragraph with one short and not very enlightening point at the end.

    • jonno1

      Until I noticed the quote marks I thought you’d had an epiphany TomTom.

  • unitedtribes

    Not interested

  • Gulag

    The great historian, Gibbons, who wrote The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, gave five reasons for the fall of the great dynasty.

    First: Rapid increase of divorce, with the undermining of the sanctity of the home, which is the basis of society.

    Second: Higher and higher taxes; the spending of money for bread and celebrations.

    Third: The mad craze for pleasure, sports becoming every year more exciting and more brutal.

    Fourth: The building of gigantic armaments, when the real enemy was within; the decadence of the people.

    Fifth: The decay of religion; faith fading into mere form, losing touch with life, and becoming impotent to guide it.