Kevin Hague smashes up Family First’s claims…one by one till there are none left standing

The other day Kevin Hague had a guest post here, then yesterday Family First started peddling their latest lies about “gay marriage being rammed through parliament” in haste.

Their own pollster, David Farrar, pointed out the fallacy of their approach but it didn’t deter them from bombarding editors and journalists with press releases yesterday continue to push the lie….I say lie, because to do it once could have been a mistake but to continue to push it just makes it deliberate…and so it is a lie.

Kevin Hague then blogged pointing out their lies. It is a classic fisking:

I guess Family First is in a hard position. They really don’t want Louisa Wall’s marriage equality bill to succeed but they’re faced with a situation where most New Zealanders support it, where it passed its First Reading with an emphatic majority, and where the Select Committee that heard submissions has given the Bill a ringing endorsement.

What makes it harder still for them is that the main argument they have previously used – scaremongering about restriction of religious freedom – has been nullified by the Select Committee’s unanimously agreed changes to the Bill which put it beyond doubt that churches will not be required to do or say anything different to what they do now.

So, it’s no surprise to see Family First stooping to desperate and irresponsible measures and amongst these have been a number of own goals. 

Strong start…now he picks apart each of their lies and stuff ups one by one…

Who could forget their theft of “Marry You” by Train (who in fact support marriage equality) on their website? Or their extensive reliance on a “study” on “gay parenting” that was later reviewed as worthless by experts and caused the journal that had published it to apologise, saying it didn’t meet basic scientific standards?

Or the public opinion poll they commissioned, which, despite rigged questions, still demonstrated a clear majority in favour of the Bill over those opposed to it?

And then onto their scaremongering:

Last week saw more scaremongering, which I responded to on Whale Oil, where Family First supporters were convinced that the words “husband” and “wife” were being outlawed or somehow expunged from New Zealand law. In reality there are some Acts in which gender-neutral language has to be used (as it already is, in most Acts that refer to married couples) in order for the law to make sense, but in about three quarters of the Acts where they appear, those words can be and are being retained.

And their new claim about rushing the legislation:

Another of their recent themes has been that the Select Committee process was rushed. David Farrar at Kiwiblog has very helpfully pointed out that this is nonsense, and that the timetable is essentially set by Parliament’s standing orders.

Today, Mr McCoskrie has published what he thinks is his “smoking gun”, an email from Ministry of Justice officials setting out some timing considerations for producing their report about submissions, which refers to the Committee’s “desire to progress its deliberations quickly”.

Unfortunately Bob has it wrong (yet again). In the sometimes arcane world of Parliament, “deliberation” refers to the specific process whereby select committees make their final decisions about their report and the amendments being recommended to the bill they are considering.

I wonder how many times Bob McCoskrie has to be shown he is wrong before he realises he is…wrong?

It is certainly true that the Committee did wish to conduct its decision-making process as expeditiously as possible. That is because we wanted to hear as many oral submissions as we possibly could and so extended hearings as close as we could to our reporting deadline of 28 February, which was set by Parliament in August last year. In other words, the tight window the Select Committee set for deliberations was to enable as many submissions to be heard as possible.

In the end, both the departmental report (which summarises the submissions and the issues raised, and makes recommendations to the Committee) and the Committee’s report have been extremely well received.

I think it is now time for Bob McCoskrie and Family First to just shut up.


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.

  • eszett

    I think it is now time for Bob McCoskrie and Family First to just shut up.

    I disagree. As a matter of principle, he should speak his mind as much as he pleases. Besides, his support for SSM is invaluable.

  • Theis blog claims to be part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy but is flat out everyday doing endless propaganda for Kevin Hague and Louisa Wall, two of the most extreme left politicians in parliament? What a joke.

    David Farrar did not respond to commenter Kenny who said the following-

    Other Members’ bills are not being rammed through at such speed. Some of these bills are being considered by the same Select Committee. The Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill was introduced a month before the same-sex marriage bill. and yet the Select Committee report is not due until August 2013.

    The Lobbying Disclosure Bill also had its first reading a month before the
    same-sex marriage bill, yet the report is not due until the end of July.
    The Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill – a
    government bill also being considered by the Government Administration
    Select Committee – has 12 months for the Select Committee to consider.
    Yet the same-sex marriage bill has just six months to consider
    20,000-plus submissions, hear oral submissions, and report back.

    • This has been pointed out to David Farrar before (by me), and he’s ignored it then as well.

    • JimboBug

      Encouraging couples to commit to each other in marriage seems quite right wing to me. It is sort of what most people on the right (myself included) decry about modern day relationships where kids aren’t brought up in stable homes bound, in part, by the lock of marriage.

      • Its not by any means “right wing” for committed Marxists like Kevin Hague and Louisa Wall to use government power and regulation to force NZers and NZ Christians in particular to accept a progressive styled redefinition of traditional marriage.

        It is typically left wing statism and big government abuse of power, and if you were any kind of true right winger you would oppose it.

        • unsol

          Progressive styled redefinition of traditional marriage…..traditional marriage in terms of your view redneck, or traditional marriage in terms of what history has told us? And which history are you talking about? Greek, Roman, Israeli or medieval Europe (based on Roman but gradually softened). No matter which one you look at, they all bare many similarities in terms of their treatment of women whom men could punish, sell or kill at whim.

          If you are referring to how marriage has been redefined in modern times, are you mean before or after it became a matter of choice, love & commitment as opposed to the procurement of wealth, property, status & heirs.

          And lastly, are you actually married? And happily? I’m guessing not.

        • JimboBug

          In the 80s and 90s the stereotypical gay lifestyle was one of partying, no responsibilities and frequent casual sex with many different partners. Something that conservatives are, in general at least, against as we see it as detrimental to society at large.
          Now gay people are fighting for the stability of marriage, where they forsake their “alternative” lifestyle in favour of a loving partner, stability and commitment to them.
          The 80s and 90s community would probably not see this as progressive but a sell out to a conservative life rather than an alternative one.

          • Andrei

            SFA gays will actually get married once this abomination is passed because when it comes down to it there is no point to it.

            The attraction of this is to stick it to the straights, to smear their feces over something that some people hold as sacred.

          • unsol

            “some people hold as sacred”

            yes, but how good is your marriage….proof is in the pudding of course.

          • JimboBug

            Can’t speak for NZ but I know 3 gay couples in the UK – two of the couples are in civil unions at the moment and the third unhitched. All three couples will be getting married as soon as they possibly can as it is really important for them to know that their relationships are as equal as those between other married couples.
            My gay friend over here does see the whole gay marriage thing as an abomination though – he thought that he would be able to excuse his way out of mother-in-law for the whole of his life with the excuse of not wanting a second rate marriage through civil union!

          • Kacanga

            You’re offended because you choose to be. I’m a “straight” and they sure ain’t “sticking it to me.” I assure you, I would notice.

          • Gayguy

            The only people smearing shit all over the place are people like you Andrei. Your lies have failed to keep your hate in law.

          • grumpy

            In the UK, they have removed adultery as grounds for divorce for same sex marriages only.

            Speaks volumes eh?

          • unsol

            Nope, but the fact that NZ’s current Marriage Act no longer includes it sure does -seems that the powers that be let it gradually slide out.

            These days, MOJ states “irreconcilable differences is the only ground for legally dissolving a marriage”

            But perhaps you know this & just think adultery is only an issue if you are gay….despite plenty of research & ‘fun’ articles indicating otherwise.

            Remember the fun fact that 70,000 NZers have joined With the average member of the site was shown to be Christian (58.7 percent), support National (33.3 percent) and have had two extra marital affairs (13.6 percent)???

            Other articles suggest at least 70% of men cheat…..

            So if you want to go down that road, then at least call it what it is – a male fidelity issue rather than a sexual orientation issue.

          • grumpy

            Nice try at diversion but no cigar. I was not referring to NZ but the UK where that has been written into law only for poofs and only for gay marriage.

          • unsol

            Who cares. Our Bill makes no such exception.

            And you said “poof” = derogatory term.

            6 love…..

          • Gayguy

            Yes, it says that the law makers over there are a bit stupid.

          • BR

            Homosexual “marriage” is not going to make a damn bit of difference to their behaviour.


        • Gayguy

          So in your mind a right winger is someone who must hate equal rights.


    • unsol

      “this blog claims to be part of the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” but is flat out every day doing endless propaganda for Kevin Hague and Louisa Wall, two of the most extreme left/ Progressive politicians in parliament”

      Does anyone on here have the intellectual capability to please explain how marriage equality is the monopoly of left wing politics?

      How is it that a centre right wing government choosing to amend the Marriage Act so that it removes the prohibition of a small group of people who are equal to everyone in society bar this one issue to get married is synonymous with left wing politics?

      How is lifting restrictions on peoples’ personal lives NOT right wing?

      And re re your buddy Kenny’s comment – unlike the Marriage Act which will have no ongoing financial costs, the proposed extension of parental leave would be a massive cost to this country so of course they need time to consider (and hopefully flat out deny). As for MPs remuneration bill – if it is to reduce how much they get to stick their snouts in trough well of course they will delay it. It is only natural they will want to ensure their pockets are properly lined with my money (not sure about yours – male, commenting a lot ….do you work?) first.

    • Apolonia

      Over 20,000 submissions and they only heard 220 of them.
      One that they did hear was a Dutch politician, instead of the New Zealanders who pay their wages.
      The 6 months included their summer break and week of to celebrate Waitangi day.

    • Kacanga

      First I heard that I’m part of the VRWC even though I consider myself an active member of this blog. I consider myself right of centre economically, militarily, & socially, and left of centre morally. I feel quite comfortable here and at various other blogs in NZ and overseas. I like it that I don’t agree with everything posted here

    • Someone once proposed that Redbaiter must be a bot, given the predictability of its behaviour. I pointed out that, given the output history going back to Usenet days, a bot’s behaviour would have almost certainly been refined and updated since then.

  • rouppe

    What makes it harder still for them is that the main argument they have
    previously used – scaremongering about restriction of religious freedom –
    has been nullified by the Select Committee’s unanimously agreed changes
    to the Bill which put it beyond doubt that churches will not be
    required to do or say anything different to what they do now

    I don’t get why people so closely tie together the word “marriage” with religious organisations.

    Marriage is the legal construct that occurs when the marriage register is signed in front of witnesses.

    The religious aspect of the event is called a wedding. Within the wedding ceremony there is a 5 minute component which is the legal marriage – the signing of the register. The rest of it has nothing to do with marriage, but everything to do with satisfying religious traditions.

    I’ve been to all manner of different wedding ceremonies. Some had priests in glorious robes. Some stamped on glasses wrapped in linen. Some were on beaches in bare feet. They were all different manifestations except for one component: signing the register in front of witnesses – the marriage.

    • parorchestia

      I hate it when lawyers get involved – they always mistake words for reality. Marriage is a social institution that has existed far thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years. Biologically, it serves to encourage the immense amount of parental investment required to bring up children successfully. I am not religious but the best expression of this biological reality is the Anglican marriage service.
      I am not averse to same sex marriage, but words and laws can’t change biology, although they can adversely affect biological outcomes, such as raising healthy well-balanced kids.
      So, where does same sex marriage fit in with this? B… if I know.

      • unsol

        So you are saying marriage is only valid if children are resultant.

        So do you plan to test for fertility beforehand? Or is that your views are based on the potential ability to carry/give birth to kids without outside help? What about those who make it clear that they never even want to try & have kids. Are they excluded from your definition too?

        I’m married. Happily too. Have been for years. Our daughter is a blessing – make no mistake – but she doesnt define our marriage, our commitment. We do. It is our love for each other, our shared values, vision, companionship & commitment that makes our marriage a marriage.

        That is what marriage is. 2 people making a choice to love, trust & commit for the long haul. It is about providing a support & a base so that you can each go on to be the best people you can be.

        • JimboBug

          And if children are an outcome that defines marriage, and we redefine it so that people who require fertility treatment / sperm donation can still get married than where are we with lesbians? As they can have kids with sperm donation – heck they have more and both can be pregnant at the same time. Does that mean that they can get doubly married?
          And what about hetrosexuals who can’t have kids through any method but want them so adopt? Is that a marriage? Because if it is then what about gay men who adopt? Is that also a marriage?

          • unsol

            Are you asking that of me or in addition to what I asked of paranoid?

            If the latter, another question of course is surrogacy….in NZ we dont have it as such. Instead the couple & carrier have to get counselling as directed by an ethics committee & if all goes well, they grant consent. Once the baby is born they must live with the carrier for 10 days before being allowed to adopt them out to their parents. Personally I dont get it. If you cant have kids, foster permanently or adopt as there are so many kids who need good homes.

            But of course some people have the audacity & lack of moral compass to imply that such children would be better off with their abusive caregivers than a gay couple.

            Great society we live in. People are so awesome. Their love for one another just fills me up with pride.

          • JimboBug

            In addition … as a conservative I think that it is important that everybody has equal rights and opportunities and what they choose to do with them is their business. So yes, gay people should be able to get married, as anything else is the State treating them differently – which is just as wrong as the State treating Asians, Maori and whites differently.

          • unsol

            You have my vote :)

      • Gayguy

        Given studies have shown that kids raised in same sex houses do just as well, and in some cases better, than kids raised in hetero homes, marriage equality fits in just fine.

  • starboard

    “where most New Zealanders support it,”

    No they dont. No one’s bothered to ask me…or my family..or my friends…or my neighbours if we support it…and we dont. More lies from the pillow biting brigade.

    • JimboBug

      Funny as I support it, and so do pretty much every one of my neighbours – most of whom are National (or ACT) voters. I even wrote to my MP (Maggie Barry) for the first time to encourage her to vote for the conservative ideal of equal treatment of all citizens by government. You know, equality of opportunity and equality of rights for all – not the left wing ideal of equality of outcome and client groups with special rights that others don’t have.

      • unsol

        Funny, same for me too. I know 5 people who would be against it – my inlaws (Hubby’s parents – very conservative, Aunt & Uncle – conservative & happy clapper Sunday Christians, & Nana who regular says “wakatane” and “chowick”.) But they the exception. Everyone else from church people to right of right wing to left of left wing are all pro.

        And all polls I have seen reflect this – polls that portside et al clearly vote on but hate to acknowledge because they are always in the minority.

        Rather than it being a revolutionary move, most people I know seem to just be surprised that it hasnt already happened.

    • Gayguy

      No, lies from you. All polls conducted on this topic have shown more kiwis support marriage equality.

      So suck it up liar.

  • cows4me

    Why should FF shut up their rhetoric, is it any worst then the constant shit being force upon the country by the gay lobby. Of course the gays, their supporters would be overjoyed if everyone opposing them was to shut up and go away, be fucked. Why does the majority constantly have to accommodate the vocal minority. Marriage , one man one woman, gay marriage isn’t and never has been about “equality” it’s about a minority section of society trying desperately to pretend they are normal, they are not normal. If gay was normal the human race would have died out thousands of years ago.

    • starboard

      dead right cows…you know you’ve left yourself wide open for aggro from gayguy…counting..5..4…3…

      • unsol

        Great that you defend Family First so vigorously. Question is, would the defend you? Doubt it.

      • cows4me

        Yeah I guess it goes with the territory starboard. Why he calls himself gayguy has got me beat, he’s hardly ever gay, should have called himself upsetguy.

        • unsol

          Since we’re talking about aliases, should we be worried about your apparent obsession with cows? Is marriage on the cards there too?

          • cows4me

            How did you know unsol, I quite fancy 99 but 37 is quite a nice little heifer, decisions decisions.

          • unsol

            That almost got an upward vote…so I will keep it neutral. But gold star for the wit…..or at least that is what I hope it is.

          • Gayguy

            Naaaaa, not wit. A very rare moment of truth from old cow.

        • starboard

          lol…or “angry gayguy who hates straight people”

          • Gayguy

            More lies I see SB, I do not hate straight people, I hate scummy people like you who would deny people a right you have.

    • unsol

      UN Charter:
      Article 1.
      All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
      Article 2.
      Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
      And so on…then we get to marriage:

      Article 16.
      (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
      (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
      (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
      In other words, marriage has not been defined as one woman marrying one man. That is up to individual countries to decide. Hence the validity of the current Bill.

      As for “it’s about a minority section of society trying desperately to pretend they are normal, they are not normal. If gay was normal the human race would have died out thousands of years ago”

      To use starboard’s never ending stream of eloquence & careful articulation, I call bullshit on that.

      What is normal? If normal is the prerequisite for marriage then should you be allowed to get married? After all, you seem to like cows an awful lot. Is that normal?

      Same sex attraction has been around since day dot. People of the same sex have been hooking up from the time Eve first convinced Adam to take a bite of the apple. Yet here we still are.

      And where is this majority you claim to be part of? A handful of bums on here (seriously – I am an at-home Mum. My chores are all done. How come you boys have so much time on your hands?) or your herd of cows?

      The majority of people I know & speak to are in favour….mainly because most people are not stuck in the 1950s.

      • BR

        The UN.

        Arguably the most corrupt and disreputable organisation on the planet. They are mostly a consortium of crooks, despots and other nasty scumbags. Helen Clark, Chris Carter and that other homo from the Labour party will feel right at home there.


        • unsol

          For once we agree. Doesn’t mean that the UN Charter is something we can or should ignore.

    • Gayguy

      You are the minority. Just as Starboard below is the minority. I suggest you leave for a country where hate like yours is the norm.

      • starboard

        no I suggest all poofs like yourself go live in Saudi Arabia then we will see how mouthy you are.

    • Rodger T

      If gay was normal the human race would have died out thousands of years ago.

      Kind of a logic fail there C4M,given that homosexuals only make up approximately 2-4% of the population of any society,can you explain to us how the other 96% of heterosexuals would have died out?

  • LesleyNZ

    So Kevin Hague can assure us that words “husband and wife” are not to be removed from the marriage licence? That I can choose to use the words “husband and wife” on any legal document? I hope Bob never “shuts up”. NZers are only waking up now as to what is really going on down in Beehive. The liberal left and right and their lobby groups have had their way – up until now – while we the ones in the middle have had to watch from the sideline. The select committee process was pointless. It was just a process to go through. After the sentiment behind Kevin Hague’s antigay marriage add from yesterday’s post – why would you take him seriously or believe that as an MP he would listen to you? Mind you being a list MP is much easier – you have no electorate to answer to. He has a gay marriage agenda that is personal.

    • unsol

      “He has a gay marriage agenda that is personal”

      Are you saying your anti gay marriage agenda isnt personal?

      Bride & bridegroom – on which legal documents? Husband & wife – of course they wont be removed. It just means couples can choose what version they want. Partner, husband/husband or wife/wife. So what.

      Some people who get married still prefer partner or spouse & never use traditional terms such as husband or wife.

      Honestly, why is this so important to you Lesley? How is this issue anything to do with you, your personal life & faith?

      • LesleyNZ

        Not personal – I didn’t start the campaign.

        • unsol

          So you have no personal agenda despite the fact that you contribute almost as many words as I do this debate on here & regularly bring up your personal faith? I am not sure that marries up with the reality Lesley.

    • Gayguy

      Tin foil hat much.

  • Same-sex marriage heralds the escalation of “Thought Crimes”.

    Here’s the latest one from Scotland: Police chaplain sacked for defending traditional marriage on personal blog

    • unsol

      And how is this different to say any public servant writing political views on their personal blog? You can get fired for that here too. Whether on the clock or not, as a public servant you have to be neutral.

      He was a volunteer chaplain for the local police. Police are meant to be neutral. He should have used an alias

      • I’ve never heard of anyone in New Zealand being fired because of political views on their blog, or stating political views on talkback radio either.

        Opinions about same-sex marriage is more than just a political view, there’s the freedom of conscience aspect of it, and then freedom of religion to take your definition of marriage from your religion rather than from whatever the political flavour of the day happens to be.

        • unsol

          It is quite clearly stated in PS contracts. You can have a view, but you have to be careful with how you express it. Having a personal blog that rants about your views is most likely not going to be considered being careful.

          The exception to the rule are of course teachers. Cant say anyone else in the public service would get away with what they do.

          And SS marriage is a political issue – there is a Bill before parliament.

        • Kacanga

          Isn’t that what the crowd are demanding about Prosser and his “Wogistan” comments

    • Random66

      I agree Lucia this decision is a disturbing one, particularly because it should be expected that a chaplain will bring their personal faith into a secular setting, it is after all why they were employed or allowed there in the first place. Their role is to provide comfort, support and guidance in accordance with their beliefs to those who require it. The play book they take all their moves and instruction from is the bible. It is troubling that it would now appear that if they say something from their ‘play book’ others don’t agree with or don’t like to hear they are removed. Talk about shooting the messenger.

      • unsol

        Right. So you would argue for the right of say a social worker working for the Catholic Social Services (straight) who was pro gay rights & blogged about it to remain employed if they got fired because of it? Sounds like a Tui ad…

        • Random66

          Do you actually understand what a chaplain is and the purpose of their presence in the hospitals, military or prisons or even schools? They are there solely because they ARE Christians and because of their beliefs. A social worker can be either or not Christian, it is irrelevant – not so with a chaplain. To say they took offense at a Christian view point from a chaplain is like saying you are offended when a farmer milks cows. It is what it is and they shouldn’t have expected anything different.

          • unsol

            Do you actually understand what the role of the public service is – whether police or otherwise? It is neutral. Except schools who clearly think differently. Obviously.

            Further, being Christian doesnt preclude ones acceptance of same sex coupledom. Only some people think that way. Being against same sex marriage is not a Christian view point. It is the view of some Christians & other religious minorities. Big difference.

            “To say they took offense at a Christian view point from a chaplain is like saying you are offended when a farmer milks cows”

            Honestly, what random rubbish!

    • Gayguy

      So now that you lost the nature argument, the religious argument the moral one, the what about the children one, we move on to the really stupid one of thought police.

      Good grief.

  • DrCP

    Kevin Hague still hasn’t answered why the fact that 55% of unique submissions were AGAINST the bill was LEFT OUT DELIBERATELY BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE’S PRESS release and his subsequent blah blah blah.

    Until he does, all his protestations are just hot air.

  • grumpy

    And from the great Andrew Bolt…….
    “My argument has often been howled down as the sophistry of a wicked conservative
    But it seems something similar is also the legal opinion of Jane Jagot, a young judge of the Federal Court.

    In a virtually unreported decision last month, Justice Jagot rejected a claim by prominent gay activist Simon Margan that state laws banning the registration of same-sex marriages were a breach of the Sex Discrimination Act.

    Margan was wrong, found the judge: “There cannot be discrimination by reason of the sex of a person because in all cases, the treatment of the person of the opposite sex is the same.

    “Hence, a man cannot enter into the state of marriage as defined with another man just as a woman cannot enter into the state of marriage with another woman as defined.”

    What Margan wanted was not equality, but a new form of marriage, said Justice Jagot.

    “By statutory definition, persons of the opposite sex may marry and persons of the same sex may not.

    “The redress for these circumstances lies in the political and not the legal arena because what would be required is a change to the definition of `marriage’ in the Marriage Act.”

    Justice Jagot did not say she opposed such a change.

    She has simply exposed the word games being played.”

    • unsol

      She is playing semantics & poorly. All she has done is hide behind current law; SS marriage ban may not be treated men & women differently, but it is treating the couples differently. That makes it unequal.

      But I am sure you know this. You just dont care. Just like, being a fan of the Australian way & all, you probably dont care about the police brutality inflicted on a young man during the Mardis Gras.

      • grumpy

        Probably that’s why she is a Federal Court judge.

        The thing that gets most of us against gay marriage is the hatred of the proponents towards ” straights” and the deliberate lies and constant media deception promoting the grandstanders. The deliberate misuse of language and demands for banning or forced silence.

        You may have more pure motives but you frequently stray into that grouping.

        • Kacanga

          So you ignore the message because you don’t like the messengers.

          • grumpy

            I read the message from the judge loud and clear and it’s just so clear and obvious that only a complete idiot like you could argue with it.

          • unsol

            Ad hominem attack……what were you saying about hatred again?

            Try & keep up with the rally grumpy!

        • unsol

          The holier than thou tone won’t wash with me grumpy. I have read your comments.

          Hatred is a strong & very over-used word in this debate. Both sides claim the other is filled hatred, but really, given that this issue only personally affects LGBT then the hatred can only really be attributed towards the bigots.

          In this instance you are clearly confusing a scathing tone towards people who make hateful, bigoted, derogatory & patronzing comments towards the LGBT community with hating the person. I dont hate any of you, but boy I do feel sad. Sad that such views exist, sad that so many people are so naive & have lead such sheltered lives. It must be fun living behind the protection of a white picket fence. But you have to keep an eye on the paint….it starts to peel off after a while.

          To suggest that I make hateful comments – similar to say the likes of starboard & others who refer to gay men (never gay women interestingly enough) as cock gobbler, anal assassin, fudge packer, fag, faggot, back door bandit etc etc etc then you are not just grumpy, but off your rocker.

          Only a straw man would suggest that a scathing tone towards such commentators as being synonymous with actually saying them.

          And as I said the other day, “things have reached a slightly ludicrous situation when a gay rights group can be patronised for labelling as “bigots” those individuals who have gone most out of their way not only to prevent gay rights becoming a reality but also to viciously insult and ostracise the entire homosexual community (Ralph Jones)”

          You can try & twist things around as much as you like, but the reality is it is people like you who are the problem, not the LGBT who are just trying to remove their leper stigma

          • grumpy

            Just reading your diatribe it seems game set and match to me.
            Your post seems to imply that hatred etc. is only bad when from the anti gay marriage side but even noble when from the poofter brigade.
            It’s only in the posts of gayguy, other gay supporters and even the owner of this blog where words like bigot and hater are thrown about. I guess you can justify that internally but it just makes you, normally intelligent and well argued, look stupid and a cliche thrower.
            You’re better than that.

          • unsol

            Bigot & hater….only when the shoe fits. I dont call Lucia, Lesley or Random those things. But the term is apt for others. It all depends on how you phrase your argument. Yep gayguy can be a complete tool & totally undermines his own cause at times, but given the kind of crap he must see before he even logs on it really is no wonder sometimes.

            But game set & match – based on what grumpy? Trying to coat your inability to argue effectively on this issue under barely disguised insults? That doesnt win you any points I’m afraid. :)

            You may get a few likes on here because most commentators (not necessarily readers mind you – few people bother to log in compared to those who visit) are anti marriage equality, but that is where your kudos starts & ends……especially when you come so close to getting the upper hand then ruin it by saying “poofter brigade”


            5 love to me. Look forward to seeing you in the next round….!

            Thanks for the backhanded compliment..give me a reason to return the favour aye!

          • grumpy

            5 love? I think you have your games confused. You seem the only one here who can conceive of any justification of gayguy’s behaviour. Perhaps your enthuisiasm for “marriage equality” has dulled your judgement?
            Anyway, the judge has easily debunked that term, a fact that seems to have infuriated you somewhat?

          • unsol

            Infuriated – you do realise it isnt a NZ law issue…

            As stated above I have observed what gayguy is like, but this doesnt mean his stance is irrelevant or wrong.

  • J.M

    Kevin Hague may wish for gay marriage, and I sympathise with him and see his point of view. However, as homosexuality weakens society, we should not permit gay marriage, or encourage homosexuality in general.

    • Gayguy

      You can keep spouting that lie, but you have yet to provide factual proof on this garbage.

      • J.M

        Not garbage at all. Look, what you do behind closed doors is your business, and I don’t think we should recriminalise homosexual acts.Why does homosexuality weaken society. Simple, demographics and disease.

        • unsol

          Rate amongst heterosexual young Maori is far higher when it comes to all forms of disease.

          • JimboBug

            Yeah, but most people who are against gay marriage probably also believe that Maori should like in some reservation – but not mingle with us.

          • LesleyNZ

            That is a silly thing to say.

          • unsol

            Re-read and then try and again. Inaccurate yes, but silly? No.

          • unsol

            No, disagree. Most people I have read on here are very against any separatist laws & considerations for Maori. Including me.

            But you do bring to light yet another example of inconsistent values coming into play.

            If most commentators are so keen to ensure it was one law for all re Maori, then surely demanding separate laws for LGBT makes them hypocrites?

          • J.M

            Including HIV? I doubt it.

          • unsol

            No not HIV, just the every day STIs that can cause tragedy & long term serious side effects…..

            HIV also only applies to less than one half of the gay population – gay women dont tend to get it.

            Further, given LGBT are such a minority & the incidences of HIV amongst gay men are minuscule compared to the massive level diseases/health costs & long term effects of poor hygiene & nutrition (smoking & obesity leading to diabetes & cardiovascular issues) we see in low income Maori & Pacific Island households, your comment is even less relevant.

            As for stating homosexuality weakens society due to demographics – gender, age, ethnicity, home ownership, income? What rubbish.

            If making such a wild generalisation at least try to substantiate it & make a distinction between gay men & gay women (since you don’t seem to realise the term “homosexuality” applies to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals & transgenders).

        • Gayguy

          Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time. Societies have NEVER fallen because of sexuality. You are spouting pure garbage, unless you have REAL PROOF otherwise. So by all means please let us see this proof.

          • LesleyNZ

            What about Sodom and Gomorrah and the sexual debauchery of the Roman Empire that contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire?

          • unsol

            What about them? Given that little archaeological evidence has ever been found around the regions where they were meant to have existed any claim pertaining to them is almost laughable, rather than credible.

            Further, sexual promiscuity & sexual immorality is completely different to sexual orientation.

            The story of S & G pertains mostly to the suggested gang rape intended for Lot & his guests (the Angels) – the two anasim which from Hebrew means men as in people, not gender. Interestingly, Lot being the stirling man that he was, tried to divert them by offering the mob his virgin daughters.

            In addition to this, Genesis doesnt specify what the actual “wickedness” was.

            Further, if no wickedness of any kind is meant to exist, if S & G really are the proof that it wont be tolerated, then how is God still allows people the free will to do the very wicked things we see today – things that have been going on before, during & after S & G were supposedly torched.

            Problem with your arguments Lesley is that most people either find them completely irrelevant or, if they are like me, know just as much scripture & discounted mainstream funde interpretations a long time ago.