H/T:  Kevin Hague


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.

  • Travis Poulson

    Homo propaganda.

  • Andrei

    LOL – that’s dredging the bottom of the barrel, its not an argument for gay “marriage” at all, it is a mockery of normal people, made by the pathologically abnormal

    • Gayguy

      Really, so you are in the advert Andrei seeing as you are abnormal.

      • Andrei

        If those of us who are opposed to gay “marriage” made an ad caricaturing homosexuals there would be outrage and you would be fair fizzing.

        This thing is ridiculous and insulting as it is intended to be

        • Gayguy

          Have you seen Little Britain?

          We have no probs with the piss being taken. It is when it is done with hate that there is the problem.

      • Andreis an out pervert and immoral sicko…..leave him to himself….

  • LesleyNZ

    So would make an advert like this? Very condescending of MP Kevin Hague. And using a child like this.

    • Travis Poulson

      No surprises there Lesley, every election campaign they exploit children on their billboards.

    • LMAO… Condescending of MP Kevin Hague? It was Kevin that asked people to watch it! I agree with Cam, he seems to be the sort of person you can have a beer with. He definitely is able to laugh at himself, which is a very important character trait for a Good Bastard.

      • LesleyNZ

        Definitely he is condescending and mocking at those who do not support gay marriage. So Kevin Hague thinks this video is a bit of a joke? And he is an MP……

        • Gayguy

          As they should be mocked, unless they can, at last having failed to do so thus far, come up with an argument that is not based on hate.

  • Jman

    Lame. Everything in that ad was just straw man arguments. I’ve never heard any sane person argue that gay marriage would cause normal couples to suddenly want to get divorced or stop loving their kids. This is another example of the gay lobby using deceit and lies to push their agenda.

    • Danny-boy

      If this was such a straw-man, why do opponents of gay marriage use language like “the defense of marriage”? Exactly what threats are you defending against?

      • Jman

        The threat is that a few politicians or judges are being empowered to redefine an institution that predates our civilisation by several millenia. Thats my objection. Marriage is what marriage is and nobody should have the right to say that marriage is now something else.

        • Danny-boy

          Politicians ARE empowered to define/redefine/set policy for institutions within the political sphere. That’s what politicians do. Regardless, you’re talking in abstractions. The term “defense of marriage” was crafted to elicit a evoke a threat to marriage in the particular. Exactly whose marriages are under threat?

  • CoNZervative

    If gay marriage is so incredibly awesome, why are its arguments so predicated on mockery and denigration of others’ relationships? Just push your positive points gay peeps. This was so lame. It’s easy to make facetious videos of loons on either side of the argument, it does not advance the debate one jot. Shame on Kevvy H.

    • Its not…..They were attacked first and their finally giving a bit back with humour showing the silliness of their opponents case is well within bounds and quite justified.

      These poor little Christians,.. whinging again because they have been fronted on their hate and abuse of others….awwwwwww!

  • unsol

    That is hilarious, gotta love sunlight on bullshit! The only thing I dont like – bringing children into the debate. Not because of the issue per se, but more because I dont think children should be part of any debate pertaining to our laws – whether on the part of teacher, religious, green or LGBT taliban.

    As for those who claim that the arguments for marriage equality are based on “mockery and denigration of others’ relationships”, Aside from the sheer hypocrisy & irony of someone in the anti brigade making such a claim (seriously, broke back mtn dude, have you not seen some of the comments on here – in fact, havent you made some of them? Btw, did you know Lucia Maria thinks that as an Anglican you are doomed to hell? Anyhoo), it is just complete & utter rubbish.

    Most of those who oppose are so blinded by their own ignorance that they are incapable of arguing things rationally. So mockery is the only language they can hear.

    Given that the debate about whether same sex attraction is OK was dealt to 20 years ok, whereby the conclusion was an emphatic yes, the only reason the handwringers still bring it up now as a line of defence against marriage equality is because they have no arguments.

    So whether it is wrong, right, natural or whatever, is irrelevant.

    Gay people have sex, build relationships & yes even have kids. The law has said they can do all of the above – the latter even via adoption.

    The only thing that would change is that they would be able to adopt as a couple & have the knowledge that they weren’t being separated out like a bunch of lepers from mainstream society. Note, DIA states “with a couple, if they are not married, only one member of the couple is allowed to adopt and has his or her name on the new birth certificate”. The same therefore goes for ANY de facto couple.

    So despite the wailing, cries of the pending apocalypse & desperate attempts to keep NZ back in the days of antiquity where women & children were chattels that could be bought, sold, abused, discarded & even raped at whim, times have changed my friends & foes & this is merely a matter of the law catching up.

    The law says we cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation & given gay couples can do every thing hetero couples can do BUT get married this Bill is a question of when not if.

    So get over it. Accept your loss & move on & trust me, your marriage wont even notice the difference. And if it does, well clearly it was doomed for divorce anyway.

    • Btw, did you know Lucia Maria thinks that as an Anglican you are doomed to hell?

      Never said that and I also don’t think that.

      Unsol, you are extrapolating out from something I did say … always a dangerous thing to do!

      • Loose Unit…the dogma you believe makes that a pretty much default position you have to hold to…

      • unsol

        Have a re – read of what you said re Anglicans vs communion….same thing….& don’t go back & do a sneaky edit either!!!

        • Hi Unsol,

          I know what I said. It was a quick comment in reply to Gayguy. As Anglicans do not have a valid Eucharist (ie Holy Communion), the restrictions as to who can receive and the state of their soul do not apply in a real sense, irrespective of any rules they might have.

          As to those who aren’t Catholic where they are not guilty of vincible ignorance, God is merciful. The more you know and the more that is given to you, the more is expected of you.

          • unsol

            Ok thanks for the clarification.

          • :)

  • Gayguy

    I have to say it really does sum up how many of the anti marriage equality bunch come across.

    • Jman

      Well clearly you are deluded then. You see people opposing something that you support and you therefore ascribe beliefs to them that are in fact far from true. It is your own clouded vision that stops you from being able to tell truth from fiction.

      This myopia of yours is evident even in your referring to them as “the anti marriage equality bunch”. A more accurate description is “the anti redefinition of marriage bunch”. An important difference but one which the gay lobby seems unable to grasp, instead preferring to hysterically wail about hetero’s not letting them visit their dying partners in hospital.

    • J.M

      Try a vagina mate, it’s a much more user friendly orifice.

      • unsol

        Given the way you talk on here it is doubtful you have ever been close enough to a vagina to comment…

    • Kacanga

      I agree with you GG, this is the language that is used, and the implication that its the end of civilisation as we know it.
      Whereas I think in 5 years time the only people that will notice the difference are the minority that are concerned about the issue now, ie gays, bigots and fundies.
      BTW, not that it should make any difference, I’m totally and happily hetero.

  • Its mocking the religo hate tards as they should be….with their own nonsense played back at them. Poor dears can’t take it….

  • 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.”