Matt McCarten on Gay Marriage

Matt McCarten writes in the Herald on Sunday about marriage equality:

Inflicting marriage on gay couples is a foregone conclusion in this country and in other civilised secular countries.

Heh, everyone deserves a mother in law.

In the United States, 63 per cent of people now support same-sex marriages. Even the Mormon Church, which has funded large anti-gay marriage campaigns, has quietly given up its fight.

New Zealanders have always been more liberal than people in other countries. So it was a shock that two recent polls showed support for marriage equality was decreasing.

Supporters of MP Louisa Wall’s campaign for a law change blame the latest numbers on a late misinformation campaign organised by churches.

It won’t matter, it’s a done deal. 

I was buttonholed this week by a young Catholic priest who confirmed this. I don’t meet many conservative true believers, so I was happy to hear his dogma on why homosexuals were an abomination and mustn’t be allowed to marry.

The irony of having a young virgin man in a frock, not permitted to marry, employed by what many would say is an anti-women institution riddled with suppressed homosexual men and paedophiles, preaching to me on the threat of gays to heterosexual marriage, was lost on him.

Why do religious people feel they have the right to tell other people how to live their lives?

Heh…exactly.

Dressing up old-fashioned homophobia as some sort of religious crusade is ignorant and dishonest. Anyone who has read the Bible knows the martyr, to whom we owe this weekend, never mentioned homosexuality, let alone opposed it. Jesus hung out drinking with a bunch of bachelors (draw your own conclusions) and, although he openly consorted with single women, he never felt the urge to marry.

Nowadays, Christians would have us believe marriage is a God-given right. It’s not. It’s a secular institution where two people make a commitment to share their lives together. They may choose to add their own biological children or adopt. The state recognises the relationship and grants legal rights. Churches have no role unless the couple choose to hold a ceremony on their premises.

Bob McCoskrie reckons that ministers and priest would be “forced” to marry queers…I’m paraphrasing but that is what he and his supporters mean. But riddle me this….why would anyone on their wedding day want to force some miserable gay hating priest or minister to marry them?

The only question is whether everyone has the same rights. Of course they do. Civil unions were always an interim step before society caught up with its obligation to accept full equality.

Jesus was a liberal and spent his life fighting against injustice. If you’re a Christian who opposes marriage rights for every couple in love, you’ll know Jesus died for your sin.

This Easter say a quiet prayer, accept his forgiveness and do the right thing – change sides.

Well said Matt.

 


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.

  • starboard

    “Supporters of MP Louisa Wall’s campaign for a law change blame the latest numbers on a late misinformation campaign organised by churches”

    Bullshit. People have been fed a load of crap, deceit and lies by the gay lobby, Joe Blog is now asking questions as to why sodomites should be allowed to blight the holy institution of marriage.
    A binding referendum is the only answer. The gays don’t want that because they know the outcome will be against them. Stick to your shitty little civil unions and leave the sanctity of marriage to the normal folk.

    • All good right up to the bit in brackets. Just don’t.

      • LesleyNZ

        Yep – no need to use bad language star – especially the f word. Hope you are feeling better Petal.

        • Bad language doesn’t worry me. It reflects on the writer and can stand. Just don’t want to see personal attacks and all the other normal ‘don’ts’ expected of a lively yet civil speakeasy :)

          And no, I’m not feeling better. Unless the next few experts figure out how to start untangling the knotted rope in precise sequence, we’re all just pulling at it wildly hoping something works out.

          I’m told that’s the way it is sometimes.

          • mick le prick

            oh no Petal all your pain must be cos of the gays lol

      • Gayguy

        Please do not censor Star. It is better to let him shine in all his hate and bigotry, Let him curse and swear because it helps show the worthlessness of the so called evidence he makes up/puts up.

        • Censor star? Never. But the (now removed) bit was a direct, unprovoked personal attack. Those go over the line and I need to ask people not to do them.

          • Gayguy

            No I didn’t see what he had posted. But I can imagine the filth and hate scum like Starboard put out there.

          • BJ

            Starboard did not call you by anything – he merely suggested what you would be calling him – and he is right there

          • Gayguy

            Oh please, SB calls me all sorts of lovely things. I simply speak the truth.

        • BJ

          Are you a scientist? The only thing scientific about this issue is its one big dangerous experiment. This is not about a chemical reaction – it’s about consciousness and psychology and wisdom and moral dilemmas

          • Gayguy

            When evidence is provided from religious far right discredited sources, you do not need to be a scientist to laugh at it.

          • BJ

            Follow the conversation – I have never purported to come from either of those places and I don’t at all. You are right there is no evidence – happy? – that doesn’t make it ok tho

          • Gayguy

            Ok, seeing as there is no evidence to support anything you say, why are you right?, (despite everything you claim having been disproved).

          • BJ

            This should be about humanity being intact not about individual egos that are having trouble feeling ok in the world. And this proposal will only make you feel worse because you will have contributed to the heart of what humanity pinges on, being torn down – thats what I don’t have evidence of – but I know it to be true

          • Gayguy

            Ahhh so you just know. Despite every time someone “just knows” about every equality issue throughout history being proven 100% wrong.

            Ok then, soooooo yeaaaaaaaa. I guess from now on there is no point in even engaging you. No matter what the proof is, YOU just know.

    • Gayguy

      The only lies that they have been fed are by people like you.

      Over the last few days I have repeatedly asked you anti marriage equality lot for valid evidence of your position. And what happens… nothing. You all have run away. There is not one bit of valid proof that supports what you think, and everything that you have put out has been false, misleading, lies or hate.

      So I ask again provide one, just one, bit of VALID. NON DISPROVED, UNRELIGIOUS bit of proof to support your argument.

      • starboard

        You have been given plenty of links to follow in the past..you choose to view them only from your gay bias then scream at everyone and call them homophobes blah blah.

        “Marriage one man one woman, the gays can call their union what they like, marriage is taken.”

        Cows sums it up nicely at the beginning. Marriage is taken..youre the one who chose the path of abnormality and non mainstream so tough titties.
        You cant..and will not have it both ways gayguy. You and your ilk are up against it and always will be for you are the minority. Suck it up .

        • Gayguy

          The links you have provided have been a joke. Links to discredited institutions, religious websites etc… are worthless.

          Provide REAL research and you might be taken seriously. Because people like you are just a joke because of how you defend your position and what you use.

          • starboard

            Unless its from a queer point of view you wont be happy. Discredited institutions? Discredited by who? Your lot? Worthless? Why? Because you say they are ? Ppffttt!

          • Gayguy

            Wrong.

            If it is from a factual point of view with real evidence to back it up I will be happy.

            And discredited by other researchers, science, etc… Most of whom are straight BTW.

            It has nothing to do with “because I say so” it has to do with REAL VALID research carried out by very smart people. There is nothing to support your view that actually holds water, or has not already been proven nonsense.

            But please by all means, find me that one bit of valid peer reviewed, accepted, not debunked non religious bit of proof that you are right.

        • minarchist_kiwi

          Starboard everything you have said, have written, have ranted and have lobbied about this issue in recent months has fallen on deaf ears when it counts.
          Every piece of evidence or argument you have or could ever produce has been greeted by 77 MPs with eye rolling and smirks at YOUR abnormality and non mainstream-ism.
          So ‘tough titties’ hahahaha!

      • Mediaan

        Thousands of years of human history.
        Now it’s your turn. Where’s your evidence?

        • Gayguy

          Ummm, the 1000s of years of human history support me. Try again.

    • Rodger T

      Oh the sanctity,

      • LesleyNZ

        The above mentioned Hollywood marriages are no example of what marriage should be. Same-sex marriage fits very well with them.The 43-50% of marriage failures mentioned are not traditional at all – more “modern” marriage.

        • Rodger T

          Spin it anyway you like Lesley,despite the fact that you are not the final arbiter of what “marriage should be”.

          I notice you still cannot explain, after all the 100s of posts on this issue, how the introduction of SSM will impact on your marriage.

          • LesleyNZ

            Nor should you or our politicians be the final arbiter then. We should decide – by way of a binding referendum. I never said it would impact on my marriage. SSM can’t impact on my marriage because SSM is not the same as my marriage and never will be. Those who want SSM for themselves want something that they can never have. They might think they can have a marriage but true marriage is only possible between a man and woman.

          • BJ

            And Roger by now you should have got it that our concerns are not for ourselves – that would be shortsighted, selfish and self-centred

          • Rodger T

            Elucidate your concerns then BJ,you know ,the big picture argument.

          • Gayguy

            Didn’t you know, BJ just “knows” the world is doomed because of gay rights. Facts be dammed.

          • BJ

            I never said that – you are the twister of conversations. But while we’re on the subject where is ALL YOUR scientific peer reviewed proof of everything – please direct me to it and I will willing read and digest it

          • BJ

            If you are that interested you’ll need to go back to all the posts on this subject because I have more than covered it and don’t feel inclined to do so all over again for you

          • Rodger T

            No ,I didn`t think you could.

      • Hazards001

        Are you for real? Do you honestly believe these shit bags are a reflection of society?
        These pricks are the reason I don’t turn on the television and do monitor what my kids watch. Outside of that your post has no relevance.

        • Rodger T

          The anti lobby has constantly bleated that SSM will destroy the sanctity of marriage.
          Newt Gingrich is a politician that has constantly played on his religiosity a baptist, a lutheran and now a catholic,so important is the sanctity of marriage to him he dumped his first 2 wives when they were diagnosed with cancer.
          Larry King ,jewish has had 8 wives ,obviously loves the sanctity of marriage.
          Indeed the rest are fuckwits,but just because you don`t like the facts,does not make them irrelevant, seems like the traditionalists and modernists are quite capable of ignoring the “sanctity” when it suits them.

          • LesleyNZ

            The sanctity of marriage is already on the way to being destroyed – by those you quote above and the fact divorce is nowadays a non-event. The meaning of marriage has not changed – but it will with SSM. The fact you posted about the Hollywood marriages tells me that you know what a sham some heterosexual marriages are and how the meaning of marriage has been cheapened over the years.

          • Rodger T

            We probably have a point of agreement there Lesley,Hollywood marriages have been a joke for decades,but I fail to see how they have cheapened my marriage or your marriage.
            I don`t have any facts and figures ,but I am under the impression divorce rates have been steadily falling over the last few years.
            We`ll just have to agree to disagree on the effect SSM will have on society as a whole. : )

          • LesleyNZ

            Correct – time will tell………..

          • Hazards001

            So your argument is based on the fact that all the people you have listed above are appalling human beings and complete fuck wits. An opinion I personally hold for all of them King and is shit show and Gingrich and his crap politicing included, as a bases for a change to marriage laws.

            They haven’t I assume actually said they are against gay marriage or I imagine you would use that as part of your argument? Understand that as I despise them all I have no idea where they stand or what they’ve said.
            I say again your post was irrelevant and typical of the rainbow sensationalists.

  • BJ

    “New Zealanders have always been more liberal than people in other countries. So it was a shock that two recent polls showed support for marriage equality was decreasing.”

    Why be shocked – people are just waking up to the fact casual acceptance of such a shift for society requires a lot more thought and public input.
    To approach it from the business end of things – marriage is the name of a contract – as it stands in NZ the Marriage Contract is between a man and a woman – if the Gay community want a formal contract along the same lines – go write up your own contract by another name because an ever increasing majority of NZers don’t want you using ours

  • Andrei

    Why do religious people feel they have the right to tell other people how to live their lives?

    See that is the sort of distortion, if not outright lies that underlies this whole businesss,.

    Nobody is telling anybody how to live their lives and nobody on our side wants to as far as I know.

    If two, three, ten people of any genders want to shack up – go for it.

    Trying to stop the changing of the meaning of an institution is not tellingh anybody how to live their lives.

  • In the United States, 63 per cent of people now support same-sex marriages.

    Not according to Pew Forum: Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage.

    49% are in favour and 44% are opposed. Both those in favour and those opposed increased this year.

    • BJ

      Every where I read about this it is now glaringly obvious that so many have had the wool pulled over their eyes and they are waking up to the fact this requires everyones input – it is their duty for generations to come. I want to shake every apathetic, don’t have a view or it won’t affect me person and get them to understand this is a moral dilemma that requires the exercise of the utmost integrity. It does not take much to extrapolate the snowballing effects into the future where we will have well and truly lost our way because a minority today can’t accept themselves as being different

      • Dumrse

        Agree entirely. Lets just extrapolate this out 10-15 years and see what we will have. The anti smacking legislation has given us a generation of ill disciplined prats…….. What else is to come ?

        • BJ

          If there is not basic conservative order maintained the outcome is anarchy and when marriage is undefined, when man and woman are not tempered by cooperation at that basic level – it will be all out war.
          This is not advancement it is regression to the debauchery of Roman times and beyond that to a totally uncivilized world

      • Yep. This is a propaganda war. Unfortunately, I think this thing is coming in as a chastisement.

    • Polish Pride

      Not according to Pew forum!?!!!
      seriously????

      “Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life delivers nonpartisan, timely information on issues and debates related to religion,”

      • And your problem with them is? ….

        • Polish Pride

          Its not exactly an impartial unbiased source now is it…

          • No one is impartial and unbiased. Pew Forum are certainly very interested in religion and public life. If they were trying to fudge anything, then they’d not be showing an increase in support for same-sex marriage, which has been continuous for a while, as well.

        • Gayguy

          Their research cannot be trusted, just like the Witherspoon Inst. If it cannot be trusted, it cannot be used.

  • LesleyNZ

    Jesus was not a liberal and he did not spend his life fighting injustice. Yes he spoke against injustice . He did not need to fight injustice. He had the power to destroy those who were unjust if He wanted to. His life was spent glorifying His Father God and doing his Father’s will. He breaks down barriers and offers salvation to all people of all races and gender and from all social classes. Jesus is able to offer the solution to all of life’s problems, in particular the problem (the mystery) of death and life after death. He came to earth to save the lost not to “hang out” or “consort with single women” . Through His death and resurrection Jesus defeated the one who has power over death – the devil. Matt McCarten is showing his ignorance of scripture and scoffing about the Lord Jesus is something that he will have to answer to God to one day. Jesus is God. Jesus did not tolerate sin – any sin including, homosexual acts.
    Message back to Matt: This Easter say a quiet prayer and do the right thing – change sides and get right with God – repent and turn from your sin and accept Jesus as your Saviour. Jesus died on the cross for us all and He paid the penalty of our sin – so that when we die we will have eternal life. Whilst Jesus did not come to earth to do away with the 10 Commandments – he came to fulfill them. Although Jesus taught us God-honouring way of living here on earth, His main message for us was to seek first the Kingdom of Heaven.
    1 Peter 1:3-5 English Standard Version (ESV)
    Born Again to a Living Hope:
    3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5 who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

    • Lion_ess

      Oh dear.

      • LesleyNZ

        Oh dear what?

  • Orange

    He sounds really ignorant about Jesus. Sounds like most liberals who think it’s academic to just make stuff up.

    • BJ

      Yeh like Gaygay asking for peer-reviewed reports

      • cows4me

        Get with program BJ, according to the pushers the science is settled, it’s a bit like AGW and we all know how that’s turning out.

        • BJ

          The only science that should be involved here is biology – man+woman body parts come together in Wholly Matrimony to create and share in the caring,teaching and guiding of the joint fruit of their loins to go out and contribute to the world as a well adjusted, male and female influenced, understands why society works well at present – child.

          So lets don’t stuff it up for future generations

          • Gayguy

            Only people like you will stuff up future generations. Luckily people like you are vanishing. Much like racists.

          • “Luckily people like you are vanishing. Much like racists.”

            Racism is vanishing?

            Are you really the same gayguy that normally posts here?

            That’s the second load of nonsense you’ve posted today.

          • BJ

            Because the truth is hurting – its getting under his skin – he knows this is not good for humanity and that it is selfish,self-centred and very shortsighted.

          • Gayguy

            But the truth is, you have lost. Equality will happen in the next few weeks. Nothing you say or do can stop it.

          • Gayguy

            Racism in NZ is seen as a disgusting thing. And more and more people like starbaord, like BJ, etc…are being seen as disgusting, out of touch, vile people.

          • BJ

            …etc… You’ve really lost it today

            I believe it is my duty to consider what we are leaving future generations to deal with – I come from an unselfish stance – can you say the same?

          • I have become more racist as I have become older. I’m not proud of it, but you know what? Fit in or fuck off. I always used to judge everyone as a clean slate, but that started to cost me money, so now I have to pre-judge people based on nationalities simply because enough of their countymen took advantage of me in the past. Racism isn’t always blind. Sometimes it comes about because the percentage of experiences you have lead you down that path. I realise that every time I “protect” myself by making a racist judgement I can harm someone who never deserved it in the first place, but the alternative – where I get taken for a ride more than the average when race is not taking into account – doesn’t sit well with me. Idealistic me was a non-racist, or tried very hard to be. Older, experienced, battle scarred me is now very careful when dealing with peoples from some corners of the world.

            EDIT: It’s hard to gauge the general deteriorisation of society as an independent factor from accounting for race. Perhaps the world is generally a less lovely place now.

          • starboard

            You must see how abnormal you are. Imagine if everyone were gay..your complete utopia..it would be the end of civilisation ..unless, like I said once before, you can pump a baby out of your ass.

            You disgust me.

          • Gayguy

            You really are amazingly stupid.

            My “utopia” is not one where everyone is gay idiot. It is where everyone is equal, and people like you are gone.

          • BJ

            No You want everyone to think as you do to make you feel ok

          • Define equal. Nobody is equal. I wouldn’t want them to be.

          • Gayguy

            We have the same rights. Simple as that.

          • BJ

            Trying to get me to say ‘you are ok’ is never going to fix your incomplete self and neither is joining an institution you will never be truly part of – your self loathing will see to that

          • Gayguy

            LMAO, ohhh my now you are getting desperate.

        • Gayguy

          The science is settled. It is only the far right and religious zealots who are still crying about it.

          But by all means, show me some VALID, NON DISPROVED, NONRELIGIOUS scientific evidence that proves sexuality is a choice. Lets see it.

          • “The science is settled. It is only the far right and religious zealots who are still crying about it.”

            WRONG. This is more an age divide than a political divide. Young rights support gay marriage.

            Come on now, don’t undermine yourself like that.

          • cows4me

            The only reason the young support this is because they do not have the life experience to know they are being sold a lie. Also look at all the lovely catch phrases the gay marriage crowd trot out, equality , bigotry , human rights, none of these have anything to do with gay marriage. When you are young you are idealistic and want to change the world. When you grow a few brain cells you begin to realise you were not as clever as you thought you were. If this crap goes through many will regret their ignorance and it won’t only be the young.

          • Gayguy

            Ohhh dear, so what is John Keys excuse?

            The level of arrogance in that post cow, is stunning even for you.

          • BJ

            So true. The young hear those words and don’t even consider any issue on a deep level – they are already sold, deceived, manipulated and they won’t know it until they have lived a few more years, They don’t think of the repercussions of not exploring the consequences

          • Gayguy

            I said “far right”. The young rights are not far right. Nor is the National party. I suggest before you chastise me, you read what I have actually said.

          • Oh, we’re bringing the National Front into this now?

            My point stands – this isn’t a political issue but an age issue. And it appears I am way too young for my years.

          • Gayguy

            Rubbish this isn’t a political issue. Why do you think all those MPs now flock to the BGO. Why do you think the day after Obama comes out for equality Key does. Why do you think a man like John Banks is supporting gay rights now? Politics.

            And no I do not believe someone like Banks has changed with age. The things he said during the Homosexual law reform was pure hate speech. He is doing this for political reasons, nothing more.

          • BJ

            No science involved here – rather psychology – a weakness, maybe before birth,during or in one instant in the very early days where some affront to ones sexuality makes their conscious self not feel confident to be intimate (in the true sense of the word) with the opposite sex out of fear of ones own sexuality. No science at all – you’re barking up the wrong tree -sorry – you’ll just have to deal with the fact its your own fault because it’s in your psyche.

      • Gayguy

        LMAO, soooo because you cannot find one bit of proof to support your position, you want to have an unscientific report from kiwis.

        Well given every single poll shows more kiwis support marriage equality than oppose it, there’s your report.

        • BJ

          Who said it’s a scientific issue that needs proving? – time will be the great revealer and I haven’t seen any poll that could possibly be taken as the voice of the people and before you harp on about the results thus far not suiting my stance you can be sure that if it read the opposite you would be the first to whine it wasn’t fair to say a couple of media polls was representing the people

    • Rodger T

      OMG ,and you wrote that without a sense of irony?
      Your entire theology is made up,you can`t even present evidence that your holy Jeebus ever existed let alone evidence for your particular god.

      • Orange

        I regularly have, yes.

        • Lion_ess

          Seen any sign of him today?

          • Orange

            I take it you know I exist but don’t trust me?

          • Rodger T

            So you are god O?
            And here is me thinking Brian Tamaki was,he might send some of his minders around to have a chat .
            Do you love us but have a special place in hell if we don`t love you back ,like the Abrahamic one?

          • Lion_ess

            I presume someone with the moniker Orange who posts comments here exists – I have no reason to evaluate whether or not I trust you. Why do you ask?

          • Orange

            Just trying to pre-empt a misunderstanding that usually arises on requests “for evidence” regarding issues of faith and reason. Some confuse them and it leads to no end of trouble. You have stated the difference accurately. So I can now answer, “Yes absolutely.”

  • OneTrack

    “But riddle me this….why would anyone on their wedding day want to force some miserable gay hating priest or minister to marry them?”

    Because it’s their “right”. If this wasn’t the next item on the list Louisa Wall would have quickly put the requested exclusion in the bill. She ddn’t. She refused to put anything n for ages. And when she was finally forced to put something in, it was(is) still ambiguous.

    • Then that is what you should be opposing…not gays wanting to marry. There are toe distinct isses….one is respecting the rights of people to marry…and one is the possible violation of rights of people who don’t want to have any part of the former.

      • BJ

        And the question should be – if everyone is being honest – is this a rights issue – and the answer is no! Any adult can get married to a person of the opposite gender – that is the same right that we all enjoy – we are all equal in that so wanting to change what it is that we all already can do is incomprehensible and ludicrous – in fact it’s Mat Hatter Tea Party kind of mad -what sick sick world this is becoming.

  • cows4me

    What would mad Matt know, dopey lefty. So civil unions were only an “interim step”, pigs arse they were. So when that nasty piece of work was selling civil unions to the masses where in the fine print does it say “interim step”, it does not. It was sold to the populace as the bees knees in the gay world, of course this was horseshit just as gays are know claiming that marriage is all they seek, crap. Matt claims churches have no role or obligation to marry gay couples, yeah right. As soon as this crap is rammed down our throats I give it five minutes before some gay couple takes a minister or whatever to court for not recognising their equality. Think it won’t happen, don’t be naïve. Marriage one man one woman, the gays can call their union what they like, marriage is taken.

    • minarchist_kiwi

      Let me ask you this cows “what would YOU know” about gay people? know any? socialise with any? actually asked any their opinions on this or any other issue?

      • Kimbo

        I know “some” gay people, and they are cool, and I am confident they wouldn’t do what cows4me has edescribed.

        But then I do know “some” who would. Which was the poerative word cows4me used. Not “all”, “many”, or “most”. Just “some”.

        Being gay doesn’t make you a manipulative arsehold. But then neither does being exclude you, like hereosexuals, from being one either.

        That I think was I think cows4me is arguing

        • BR

          It would only take one homo, a court case and an activist judge.

          Bill.

      • Kimbo

        sorry, typo: operative

      • cows4me

        I’m sure I don’t speak for all heterosexual married people, wouldn’t claim to. I’m all so sure not all gay people think gay marriage is right. I’m simply stating what I feel is right, take it or leave it. As for your questions, “what would You know” about gay people, probably as much as you know about straight people, yes, yes and yes to the rest.

        • minarchist_kiwi

          Glad to hear it! Had some loon ranting at me a couple of weeks back about gay marriage and turned out he had never knowingly actually met any gay people (a topic on which he believed he was an expert!)

      • starboard

        “Today is my 40th birthday. Not the catastrophic event I was expecting.
        I am pleased to say I still have a full head of brown hair (most of my friends and guys I went to school with are grey, bald, or both haha), still a flat tummy, still weigh only 62kgs and pleased to say I have never smoked, taken drugs or drunk alcohol (and no, I am not a mormon).”

        ..and what would YOU know having never really lived ! LOL

        • Gayguy

          So from your mocking reply are we to assume that you are an overweight chain smoking pill popping drunk?

          You can still have a life filled with experiences and fun without ever having been high, pissed or fat.

          • starboard

            angry little gay aren’t we… I picture you like the only gay in the village off Little Britain..heh

          • Gayguy

            That should be a capital A at the start of your sentence.

            Well I am rich, and successful in what I do, so I guess I am like Matt.

          • grumpy

            What? rich by stealing from the taxpayer?

          • Gayguy

            Oh by gum yes. I sneak into tax payers homes in the dead of night and take from their wallets and purses. Then I hack into their accounts and transfer alllll their money into mine.

            Muha ha hahahaha!!!!!!

          • greenghost

            grow up

          • Gayguy

            Get a sense of humor.

          • greenghost

            Get funny

          • Gayguy

            Use full stops.

          • greenghost

            !!

          • LabTested

            Really “without ever” having been high or pissed. I think the “life filled experiences” you are describing is being a boring twat who will not at least try something before rejecting it. It could be lack of friends or lack of a social life.

            What loser has never gotten pissed at least once in their life

          • Gayguy

            Judgmental much? So in order to have a good time you mush be drunk or on drugs.

            To me that is just plain stupid.

          • mick le prick

            No Star is one of those self loathing closet cases who sits up late at night spanking to gay porn, while the wife is in bed with he vibrator switched to nuclear. (Star thats why the lights flash n dim) lol

          • Gayguy

            LOL.

  • LesleyNZ

    Matt also says: “Science and common sense show homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual preference is caused by a gene before a child is born.” Now which gene is that? This is just a silly as saying adultery happens because of a gene, or someone steals because of a gene. Maybe Matt really meant that sexual preference is caused by a “genie” before a child is born. I don’t think it is very wise for pro-gay marriage campaigners to hold Matt McCarten up as their poster boy.

    • starboard

      especially the fraudster McCarten who kept his employees paye from the IRD.

  • Polish Pride

    Matt McCarten – that is legend, the single greatest article written on this topic so far. Hit the nail squarely on the head. Well done than man!

    • LesleyNZ

      You are being sarcastic aren’t you?

      • Polish Pride

        Nope no sarcasm that article summed it up beautifully

        • BJ

          Actually a link to an article by a gay man against this ludicrous, dangerous idea summed it up perfectly

        • LesleyNZ

          Really? The greatest article. Now come on – even though I don’t agree with the Whale on gay marriage he has written much greater articles than Matt’s ill-informed opinion. I want to know what the gay gene looks like. Matt reckons he knows.

    • BJ

      An empty egghead just repeating the same old same old regurgitated sophostry. Look that word up because thats what a gay man of great intelligence said the argument for gay marriage is – false reasoning!

      • mick le prick

        DOH! whos is the egg head repeating? lol

        • BJ

          DOH! I attributed it to someone

  • BJ

    !79 responses on Matt McCarten’s Herald article and the majority against Gay Mar…ge speaks volumes. The proponents of Gay Mar…ge have worked very hard to sneak this ridiculous idea past the sleeping giant (the not very alert public) Well the giant is waking up – and he’s not happy

  • peterwn

    “why would anyone on their wedding day want to force some miserable gay hating priest or minister to marry them?” I do not know, but I can imagine a certain type of person would try that on. Like Mr Tito the book binder – He was asked to bind a book with content he considered objectionable and refused as was his right. The client did not genuinely want the book bound, but wanted to pull Mr Tito’s tail. Client then claimed that the refusal was discriminatory and threatened action.

    • BJ

      Yes this is not about freedom and equality – it is about control and lack of freedom

      • Gayguy

        Yes, that is what your side is pushing.

        • BJ

          You are the one trying to force something

          • Gayguy

            I know how much you hate equality, but tell me, what are you going to do when this bill passes?

          • BJ

            Please don’t assume you know me at all. The word you keep using so readily is in your vocabulary not mine. I do believe in equality – I do – I am a moderate person in all areas of my life but I do not accept this is a question of equality at all – and you can’t say that needs a scientific paper on it. You weren’t here yesterday so you need to go back to a link put up by starboard written by a gay man that explains my beliefs and position on this entirely

          • starboard
          • Gayguy

            I have read all your links, and they are a joke.

          • starboard

            I rest my case. Good night.

          • Gayguy

            Well they are. Does the truth hurt?

  • Hazards001

    “Why do religious people feel they have the right to tell other people how to live their lives?”

    Ummmm…why do politicians?

  • Mr_V4

    Matt – Pay your taxes.

    Shame on this blog providing the tax fraudster with a platform.

  • Kimbo

    “But riddle me this….why would anyone on their wedding day want to force
    some miserable gay hating priest or minister to marry them?”

    So they can make a shit-stirring media fuss about the “homophobic hegemonies that oppress the marginalised within the LGBT community”. WO, your blog is a constant source of necessary exposure of the manipulative left-wing. Some people just can’t help themselves.

    Unlike Andrei and Lucia Maria (whom I despise, because they try and deceive by saying their religious views are irrelevant to why gay marriage is wrong for non-Christians) , I don’t think I have a problem with a secular version of gay marriage.

    But unless there is COMPLETE freedom for churches (including Roman Catholics) to refuse their clergy, celebrants, and premises if their conscience and spiritual beliefs dictate, then you can guarantee the permanently aggrieved will be manipulating events to use the aparatus of the state against their ideological opponents.

    • Unlike Andrei and Lucia Maria (whom I despise, because they try and deceive by saying their religious views are irrelevant to why gay marriage is wrong for non-Christians)

      Where have I said that?

      • Kimbo

        I thought you decided not to discuss anything with me again?

        Also, you are an arrogant Papist, who has constantly refused to answer many of the questions I have previously asked you. On what moral basis do you now expect an answer from me to one of your questions?

        • On moral basis that you are lying about what I’ve said.

          • Kimbo

            “Where have I said that?” is a question, grammatically-challenged Papist control-freak

          • ZenTiger

            It’s a bit outrageous Kimbo (Steve) that you make an assertion about what Lucia has said (“they try and deceive by saying their religious views are irrelevant to why gay marriage is wrong for non-Christians”) you refuse to quote Lucia and Andrei where they say exactly that.

            Then you duck and weave and worry about punctuation when a reasonable request is made to prove the assertion by a direct quote.

            I say that is outrageous, because you are well known for stalking women and making vile threats against them and then claim they are lying.

            Now, do I need to go to the trouble of proving the obvious and back that assertion up with proof, or can I operate at the same level as you, you bigoted misogynist?

          • Kimbo

            Not so Zen Tiger.

            As I have posted 2x before, “”There is what people say, what they mean, and “so what”.

            I’m an equal-opportunity guy who despises bigots and mental-control freaks of both genders and all ideological and religious descriptions. Now kindly stop running the tedious “you are persecuting us/women for our views” when in reality you and your two creepy friends have wandered over to this site and think you can say whatever you like unchallenged.

            You are also a hypocrite, because last time I sought to engage withn you, you said this was not the forum to so so. Ha! Not when it suits you, obviously. Or do you want me to provide the link to remind you?

            Now kindly stop running interference for anti-semites, and poeple who think what the Pope says should shut down any and all argument, and crawl back under that rock where you came from.

          • ZenTiger

            Must be insult de jour to throw in anti-semite without needing proof as well. And why don’t you find the link (that would be a first) where I refused to engage with you (which makes me wise, not a hypocrite) because then people can see the actual context of the comment – where I invited you to continue the discussion back on my blog as the rubbish you were spouting was completely off topic.

            Now kindly stop dodging the issue and provide a quote for your opening accusation and stop pretending to be an “equal opportunity guy” when all you mean is you just like making shit up.

          • Kimbo

            “Now kindly stop dodging the issue and provide a quote for your opening accusation”

            No, I didn’t say Lucia Maria said it. For the fourth time, seeing as you are especially obtuse, “there is what people say, there is what they mean, and “so what?””

            More than happy to post the link,

            http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/12/whaleoil-awards-worst-political-blog-3/

            …in which, as any impartial observer will note, I wasn’t stalking Lucia Maria – I was simply pressing repeatedly for an answer in the face of her obfuscation to find out what her philosophical biases were, and whether they were acceptable in the context of public non-sectarian debate. She may believe her Pope is infallible. None of us non-Catholics even have to entertain that as a possibilty, or give it the time of day, nor give a fat rat’s arse when it comes to deciding whether we have gay marriage in NZ. Which doesn’t make us anti-Catholic bigots. As long as the Pope sits in Rome, minding his own business, and sticks his nose out of New Zealand civil affairs, no one will get offended.

            Also, I happen to think, in the interests of openness and honesty, that when Lucia Maria and you come dancing in thinking that Catholic theology should be reflected in the civil laws of secular New Zealand, and when an anti-semitic plot theorist and religious fascist like Andrei comes arguing it is self-evident that gay marriage is an attempt to curtail our freedoms, poeple have a right to know your ideological pedigree. That isn’t persecution, or invective. It is simply a case of putting all the cards on the table. You’ll note I’ve answered your accusations squarely. Not surprisingly, your gutless cossack pogrom-promoting friend Andrei has not, and just like like Lucia Maria, whenever they or you are pressed to lay out those cards, you melt away into the background, refusing to answer questions. What a pack of gutless cowards!

            As per the link, I note, despite my attempts to press and clarify, WITHIN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN YOU SOUGHT TO INJECT YOURSELF you did the chicken run last time we spoke.

            You had your chance, and you said no. So you don’t deserve to be treated like an adult, Instead, you are a troll, running double team for trolls.

          • ZenTiger

            Of course you said it Kimbo. It’s right above attached to your name, and of course you cannot get a quote for it because Lucia never actually said that, so now you now back off and duck and weave.

            You said it, and then you backtracked. When it boils down to it, Lucia didn’t say that at all, and you only have “but that’s what I said she effectively said”.

            Just as I have never argued that “you come dancing in thinking that Catholic theology should be reflected in the civil laws of secular New Zealand” but you are quite happy to suggest that is a fact, and now I need to ask you yet again to find evidence, because there isn’t any in anything I have ever written (and you increasingly demonstrate you do not have any inkling of my political opinions). And then you’ll dance off yourself and say that you are allowed to misrepresent what other people say. Well, you are being called on it.

            You don’t answer accusations squarely. Did I not invite you to continue to comment on my blog to continue the conversation. Your deduction that I said “no” to discussion is therefore a kind of lie, because you deliberately ignore that aspect of my response.

            I am not a troll by any definition. You make accusations, and I’ve only asked for the evidence, which you have failed to produce. You don’t ask questions, you just spray accusations and lace them with invective, which is why they don’t “answer” them. They don’t “melt away into the background”, they are very much active in the public domain, it just so happens that the public domain is not just Whaleoil’s blog, it also includes Kiwiblog, our own blog and many, many others. Again, just you putting a spin on things that plays loose with the truth.

            People don’t run away from you Kimbo, they just get tired of your idiotic arguments and warped accusations.

          • Kimbo

            Zen Tiger: Proof that Lucia Maria is trying to “deceive by saying (her) religious views are irrelevant to why gay marriage is wrong for non-Christians”: –

            http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/09/we-need-marriage-equality-because/

            Mitch 82: “Because despite all the silly arguments (it’s wrong, it’s not normal, it affects the sanctity of MY marriage, God said it’s wrong, it’s make believe, it’ll cause the destruction of society, on and on), nobody has come up with any lucid argument as to why those in a same sex
            relationship can’t have the same marital status as the rest of us.

            It always comes back, one way or another, to a religious or ‘moral’ viewpoint that “Marriage is this, you can’t change it, Because. Just because.

            Why does a woman have the right to vote?

            Why does a Maori man have the right to marry a European woman?”

            Note, Zen Tiger, that Mitch82 makes the argument that objections to gay marriage are religious, not logical.

            Now watch how Lucia Maria, uninvited, responds:

            “Those are all lucid arguments in your first paragraph, however, you just don’t accept them”.

            OK, fair enough. So let’s see, does Lucia Maria state that it is her Catholicism that we should “accept” to rebut Mitch82’s argument? Nyet! Of course she can’t argue that, because it would prove his point that lucid objections to gay marriage outside of a religious framework of authority don’t exist.

            Instead, we have Lucia Maria’s supposed appeal to reason by a long and convulted argument, culminating in a misapplied analogy which she backs up with the usual Papist trapping introduction of, “Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is a completely different thing”. Say’s who?! What, or more precisely whose teachings says it is different (I’ll give you a clue – he lives in Rome) for Lucia Maria’s confidence it is so?: –

            “Voting is way different from marriage. Societies can exist and thrive without voting, but they can’t without marriage. Race is also not a barrier to marriage, but lack of consent should be. So, if a Maori man proposes to a European woman and she accepts, and both have no reason
            that they can’t get married (ie too young, or already married) then there should be no problem – as is today, those marriages are totally accepted as valid.

            Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is a completely different thing. It’s like (continuing on with Andrei’s theme) trying to play rugby without a ball and instead tossing the players around”.

            At this point Mitch82 rightly calls her out for bullshit on a crap analogy:

            “You’ve gone from arguing sanctity of marriage to some meagre ‘All Black Selection’ argument. It’s quite pathetic. Just give up. At the beginning you looked like you were in a good position – skip forward a week and you look quite feeble.

            Gay marriage is happening, just deal with it. I WILL offer you this. If it passes, I WILL offer you a free ride to the airport if you are heading to the middle east. Fair enough?”

            To which Lucia Maria, having had her arse handed to her on a plate responds trying to save some dignity:

            “I’m not going anywhere, Mitch. Same-sex marriage is a temporary experiment that will be rolled back because it has no real social value.All the sane people aren’t leaving, we’re just riding the storm”.

            Note that, Zen Tiger: “no social value”. Not an argument, on the surface, from the teachings of Catholicism. But because only “sane” people would see it that way.

            Really? Over 50% of the nation are actually insane? Is that technically “insane” according to the legal, or clinical definition?!

            Mitch82 has rightly called Lucia Maria out for disguising her Catholicism, and appealing instead to reason and logic with misapplied anologies and non-sequitirs.

            Like I said, if this is about what the pointy hatted anti-Christ in Rome says we should do, then argue that. But don’t come this load of crap of (in effect) “No, no! This is not about my religion. Is it about self-evident truth about the “social good of society” – which begs the question if it is so self-evident, why do people see it differently?!

            And the real answer to that question: Because us non-Catholics haven’t submitted our mind and will to the Pope’s teaching, and people who think like him on the matter.

            Mitch82 had Lucia Maria pegged from the beginning.

      • Kimbo

        If it IS on the basis of your religious views that you think that gays should not be permitted to marry, then you are expecting that your leader, the Bishop of Rome (the anti-Christ to some of us) has a right to stick his nose into the affairs of New Zealand civil life, and his opinion is worthy of special merit and weight when Kiwis make the decision.

        I have news for you Lucia Maria – his opinion ain’t. You want to listen to the Pope? Good for you. But don’t shove your papal authority crap down out throat. And don’t expect any of us to give him or you the time of day. And don’t bleat that it is pesecution we we treat him and you with scorn and contempt. It isn’t. We just despise him and your opinions. It’s an equal opportunity thing, just like some us us despise muslim fanatics, socialists, Greenies, etc. We just don’t like noisy people who expect as of right, that people should agree with them, or be nice to them.

        Now kindly piss off, and go back to your huddle with your anti-Semitic coassack mate, Andrei. You dserve each other

        • Just as I thought. You have nothing. You state I said something and then can’t back it up.

          • Kimbo

            No, I didn’t say you said it. Yet again you are shoing you are grammatically challenged.

            As I replied to Andei, “There is what people say, what they mean, and “so what”.

            Now kindly crawl back under your religious-fascist rock from whence you sprang, along with your anti-semite friend, Andrei

          • Direct quote from above, your words:

            Unlike Andrei and Lucia Maria (whom I despise, because they try and
            deceive by saying their religious views are irrelevant to why gay
            marriage is wrong for non-Christians)

            So, back it up.

    • Andrei

      Indeed, matey I have never said that either.

      Haven’t argued this issue from religion but you probably demonstrate why it is so attractive to the moronic secular because at it is at heart it is an attack on religion.

      We all know its got SFA to do with “human rights” because everything marriage confers can be had for nothing by any couple of any gender combination. You don’t even need a bit of Government paper to garner all the “rights” of marriage

      • Kimbo

        I’m not your “matey”, you anti-semitic cossack bastard.

        Yes, you have argued it from a religious basis- you have simply put on a deceiving veneer of what your real basis for the argument is. There is what people say, what they mean, and “so what”.

        I don’t have a problem with someone arguing against gay marriage for religious reasons. But it’s when they cover it up they are liars and deceivers.

        The use of your phrsae, “the moronic secular” shows your true colour and ideology. Secularism is the friend of the truly peaceably religious, because it restrains not only the atheists, but also the religious bullies, like the Cossacks and their pogroms, and the Roman Catholics fundamentalists who think their Pope has “temporal authority” in earthly affairs.

        You want an example of where a secular government is the friend of religion? Forget Russia under Stalin (just another corrupt Tsar). Try India.

      • Kimbo

        You’ve also never said you get your ideas about pressure-groups who are seeking to corrupt Western Civilisation and society from the Protocols of Zion (a wonderful example the sort of literature that comes out of a non-secular society you would have us believe is best)…but that is almost certainly the play-book you are running.

        Now how about you stop continually dodging the question I’ve asked you on a number of occasions, and answer the following so that everybody round here can understand what they are really dealing with when you crawl out from under your rock and presnt yourself as a reasonable man, rather than the hate-monger you reallly are…

        Do you think there is an international Jewish secular-conspircay to corrupt traditional gentile values, of which the gay-marriage debate is a manifestation?

        A simple question, and one that will put to bed once and for all the suspiscions about you with a simple “no”, or “yes”…

      • Kimbo

        Still no answer, yet Andrei?

        Funny that seeing you are usually really talkative, sticking your nose in where it isn’t welcome.

        What is it about the “Are you an anti-semite?” question that makes you go so strangely silent?

    • Gayguy

      Churches already have complete freedom. But just to calm the liars and deceivers down, that part of the law has been strengthened.

  • Why does every Tom, Dick (snigger) and Hairy need to express an opinion on this?

    Matt McCarten is a hypocrite union stooge. WTF is he doing flailing around in the marriage equality debate?

    • cows4me

      You must be feeling better Petal, good put the boot in :-)

    • It’s a leftist cause, that’s what he’s doing in it.

      • Gayguy

        So not because he believes in equal rights then.

        • BR

          The likes of McCarten don’t believe in rights for anyone other than their political associates. He is promoting homosexual “marriage” to advance a political agenda. He is firmly of the left and a political wannabe.

          Bill.

    • Orange

      I’m most put out to find out you’re not a girl btw. No more flirting from me.

      • Yes. Well. I can’t say I noticed any flirting, so that gives us both deniability. I explained this intentional deception elsewhere. I never actually lied, but I didn’t correct the assumption either. It’s only when Cam made me a mod that Pete and Petal couldn’t co-exist without being found out. I would have preferred the dark shadows….

    • starboard

      b-b-b-because ma..ma ma mats are sticky beak lefty communist who has nothing better to do but stick his nose into everybodies bu-bu-bu-business.

      • Rodger T

        Sorta like you curtain twitching busybody christians, lefty communists and christians are birds of a feather.
        Fascinating how you can recognise your own ilk.

    • Dave

      Welcome Back Pete, hope your well !!!

    • BR

      Because the homosexual “marriage” campaign is overwhelmingly promoted by the left, of which McCarten is a fully paid up member.

      Bill.

    • Gayguy

      Because as a member of the human race and living in a country with free speech he is allowed to.

  • grumpy

    Wonderful, just flick over to WO and find he’s acting as fanbois for Matt (tax dodger) MacCarten.

    Has the wholevworld gone mad?

  • BJ

    Goodnight Gaygay sleep well. Would you please read the article this links to – it explains my position entirely. it is written by a gay man. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/

    • I stopped reading when he said “phillia” love, the pure non-sexual love between men is greater than the sexual love of heterosexuals. What the hell does he know? He clearly thinks heterosexual love is based in sex. (Not seem my marriage, has he? nudge nudge wink wink). Sex is the cherry on top. Could I never have copulation sex again, I’d never want to lose what I have with that woman. Doug Mainwairing presents as an aloof above it all intellectual when he’s basically just a mind wanking prat.

      Don’t bother to waste your time on it gayguy. It’s rubbish.

      • BJ

        A person of either gender who has pure love for others of their same gender is a reflection of the love they feel for themselves which is the ultimate authentic acceptance of ones sexuality – the reason we have gay people is because their sexual drive instead of that pure love for their same gender has come to the forefront

      • Gayguy

        I do not intend to waste my time on anything BJ posts. He clearly has no interest in facts, science or anything given he “just knows” gay rights/equality is wrong/bad.

        You cannot argue with someone who “just knows” and wants no part of facts.

        • LesleyNZ

          But what homosexual gene is Matt McCarten going on about? What does it look like and who discovered it? I thought the links Orange and BJ posted were a very good read as they were written from personal experience.

          • Gayguy

            When did you chose to be straight?

          • mick le prick

            So p[rove your jesus fiction is real?

    • LesleyNZ

      Gayguy says he (or is Gayguy a she?) has read it – he/she won’t like it.

      • BJ

        Every thing that gay man wrote is logical and reasonable and it is the total truth whether gayguy likes it or not

      • Gayguy

        I am a he.

        Oh and I will not be reading or responding to anything that BJ posts from today onward He has made it quite clear that evidence, proof, facts do not interest him. That he needs nothing to support his views. He just KNOWS gay rights are wrong and that the world is doomed because of them.

        You cannot seriously engage someone like that, thus there is no point in even acknowledging him or his posts.

        • BJ

          What is wrong is it is not about a right – rights have been met – it is about a word that you have no right to. Didi you read that link – it makes perfect sense – it is the truth and no argument on your side can stand up to that truth. To think you can engineer a one gender family and believe that could be good for children of our future…

        • starboard

          ..out comes the swinging handbag..lol

          • Gayguy

            If BJ wants to admit that claiming “I just know” is the dumbest thing he has ever said on this issue and offer up some real facts to support his position, great, I will reengage with him.

            Otherwise what is the point? At least with your SB you have your own sick twisted vile interpretation of stuff out there, I have yet to see you say “I just know”.

          • starboard

            Pot..Kettle. Im going to bed with my WIFE now whose FEMALE..so run along now and go and play hide the sausage with your man friend.

          • Gayguy

            I have nothing but facts and science and truth on my side.

            Have fun with your wife, as she is imagining being with Channing Tatum.

          • I had to look up who that was. If there was ever proof I’m straight. lol

          • Gayguy

            LOL. And if there was ever proof I’m gay. ;0)

  • Mediaan

    Does one generation possess the right to change something established over long human history?

    Gays want to change the whole millennia-long institution of marriage, from “one man one woman”, to “me plus any adult human I want to live and have sex with”.

    This is too big a change to be made by one generation and foisted on future generations. They only started pressing for it about 15 years ago. Which is, yesterday, more or less, in terms of human history. (Precursor states to marriage were still what we look on as marriage.)

    They further call their campaign, “marriage equality”. What utter nonsense.

    “Marriage equality” must mean, “equality between different types of marriages”. So it can’t possibly refer to this debate, as they are not comparing marriages. They haven’t got anything that can be called marriage.

    • Gayguy

      Humans have the right to change things as they see fit. If one generation to the next did not change things we would be living in caves to this day.

      • Mediaan

        Where are they defined, these handy “human rights”? I want to see the list. Before the mad left make up any more.

        Caves or not caves? That was individual choice.

  • Changeiscoming

    Matt who? And why are we listening to him?

  • spollyike

    Whale and all the other MSM are simply pushing the BIG LIE theory = if you repeat it often enough everyone will believe it. Problem is the rest of the population is becoming wise to this due the use of the BIG LIE to justify so many other RIGHTS for minority groups lately, and now the HOMOSEXUAL big lie which started in the 70’s is at risk of becoming derailed very close to their END GAME. Let’s do all we can to make that derailment happen!!!

    • Gayguy

      The only big lie is what the anti marriage equality people are pushing.They have nothing but lies to fall back on to support their point of view. Pro marriage equality however have all the facts, truth and science and morality on their side.

      • starboard

        lol..morality on their side..how much crack do you smoke a day?

        • Gayguy

          None. Drugs are for losers.

    • Gayguy

      The big lies are being told by the anti marriage equality side. Pro marriage equality has facts, truth, morals and science on their side, You have lies.

      • LesleyNZ

        “Pro marriage equality has facts, truth, morals and science on their side” Eh?

        • Gayguy

          Very much so. In all probability Jesus as well.

  • steve and monique

    Guess Woman getting the vote caused as much debate,as gay marriage has now.Did the world fall to bits when that happened.Oh that’s right it is not right in the eyes of the lord,and not natural. Sorry guys but you cant catch gay,and you cant cure it either.

    • Mediaan

      It’s crafty politicking. Can’t you see that?
      Just wait. Next thing, it will be gay anguish over not having a compulsory slot for a gay co-leader of the state.
      Naive or lazy, the yes MPs, if they get this Third Reading through.

      • Gayguy

        The third vote will see the bill pass within the 70s for support.

  • greenghost

    Equality? Acceptance? Try not wearing your ‘gayness’ as a personality – It’s not WHO you are, just like being hetero is not WHO I am.

    • BJ

      That would have to be the Sledge of the Day

27%