The Sanctity of Logic or the Logic of the Bigots

Yesterday in Open Mic I posted a response by Kevin Hague to the mis-information of Family First over the marriage equality bill currently before parliament.

Predictably we had the usual suspects come out of the woodwork to bang on about “the gays”. The funny thing was, as is often the way with blogging the exact same issues that we were debating are also being debated elsewhere and the exact same results are happening.

Glenn Fleishmann encountered a person much like Andrei or Lucia in their world view. He wrote a post called the Sanctity of Logic about his encounter. It is very enlightening…though perhaps not for Whaleoil readers as we have seen the exact same tactics and arguments deployed here.

I got into a long debate a couple of nights ago with a self-identified Catholic pro-lifer, Suzanne Fortin (@Roseblue), who has an answer for every question as to why same-sex marriage shouldn’t be allowed. None of them rely precisely on legal precedent; rather, they seem to stem from a specific set of historical values, a reading of what “natural” means, and an insistence on a property that only a pair of men and women can share.

I spent hours engaged with this woman partly because I wanted to know exactly what people who maintain this line of reasoning are really espousing. Here’s what I came away with. 

She was game, almost so much that I thought she might be a troll, making up stuff to confuse those of us who support the notion of government not intruding on personal decisions about who we love and how our children are raised in safe environments. I appreciate that we had a long and civil, if tense, discussion that ultimately involved dozens of other people, including a woman in a same-sex relationship who has given birth to five children, and another who lost the ability that afternoon to ever have children, and was outraged at Fortin’s statements.

Here’s what I learned from her, if you’re trying to understand the thinking of religious fundamentalists on the issue. This is apparently a bit of catechism among people who think like this and it starts with three principles.

  • Complementarianism requires a man and a woman in marriage.
  • Heterosexual monogamy is natural, while homosexuality is not.
  • Procreation is the basis of marriage.

It’s all the same stuff…and equally inane. Reading through Fleishmann’s post though you get to see the logic failures and the outright ignorance and willful manipulation of facts that opponents of marriage equality will resort to.

I especially like his conclusions about her arguments that procreation is the basis of marriage…the very same arguments that Andrei and Luci have used.

The logical conclusion of her arguments would be:

  • Penis-vagina child creation is best. Failing that, any current medical intervention to get a married sperm and ovum together is just fine, including in-vitro fertilization and other techniques that involve no penis-vagina contact. Her position on turkey basters is inferred.
  • If you can’t have kids, either current procedures will allow you to have them, or some magical medical procedure will be invented to repair you, such as an artificial uterus. Even if there’s no cure, the fact that it could be cured means it’s ok.
  • If you don’t want to have any kids, the fact that you could, accidentally, makes your marriage legitimate in her eyes.
  • Lesbians can’t have children even if they give birth. Because those children, bereft of a married sperm-ovum combination, can’t have a loving home.

What’s odd is that her arguments have a strange eugenics tinge to them along with the religious. Because her worldview doesn’t require actual intercourse as the sole method of procreation, that means she’s concerned essentially about the combination of genetic material from marriage couples.

I asked her if she had heard of parthenogenesis. She didn’t reply.

I brought up anti-miscegenation laws, slavery, and other issues, noting that in years past her arguments about nature and historical practice were given in often exactly the same words, and we’ve moved on. Her response was that procreation was unique.

It is astonishing to watch this unfold. I have watched over the months the very same thing unfold here at Whaleoil. People ask me why I bother…and Fleishmann has an answer to that too.

Many people wondered why I bothered. But I wasn’t so much looking to convince her, but to understand the shape of her logic, because so many people clearly believe similar things.

What became clear is that her appeal to nature was “natural law,” a religion-derived interpretation; her invocation of a sometimes magical “potential for procreation” in theory and not in fact a derivation of Catholic thinking and never encoded in American law in this way as a marriage requirement or basis; and her dismissal of adopted parents (but, weirdly, not children) among other characterizations that she finds very few marriages actually meet her test for approval.

If you believe procreation is a blessing bestowed by the, a, or some god(s), you won’t hear any complaints from me. The process and results are a secular miracle if not also a religious one. But when you define that miracle as a protected right that you want to enforce on everyone else, you are the one at odds with the way in which secular society works.

She’s a bigot and lacks empathy. It’s worth understanding her point of view, as we continue to need to counter it to increase the amount of love and happiness in the world.

I agree with Fleishmann about people like Suzanne Fortin and Andrei and Lucia. They are bigots. We still need to hear their arguments, mostly to laugh at them but also to find out where their attacks are coming from…then counter them, again mostly with laughter.

I believe that they are angry and bitter, they surely must be to mount such a bitter and angry attack on people who in all likelihood they will never ever meet. Their lives must be filled with sadness and bitterness. It is the only thing that explains their need to interfere in other peoples lives so much.


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.

  • Andy

    There is no difference between you and them.
    You are a bigot as much as them.
    They hate gays you hate Catholics.

    • J.M

      Hear hear.

    • I don’t see it that way. Whale hates boy buggering, stealing, lying, child raping, crime covering people that are also Catholics.

      Don’t see how I can disagree with that, can you?

      • What Pete said…as soon as the the Catholic Church stops the boy buggering, stealing, lying, child raping, crime covering I’ll find another target, but meanwhile they are front and centre also pointing the moral finger at others.

        • Jimmie


          • Gulag

            Whaleoil has regular quotes from the Bible then posts the opposite of what the Bible commands.

          • Jimmie

            Possibly. However I gave him the +1 as he is quite correct for chasing child abuse in the catholic church – it aint on

          • His blog is about bigotry not child abuse. Cam thinks its ok to call people (incl, gays) opposed to redefining marriage, “bigots” but gets annoyed when someone calls him on his Catholic-hating. More children are abused by non-catholics, so I’m not sure where the logic is (“some of their priests are gay, and some abuse children, therefore all Catholics are worth ridiculing and I can call them bigots”) failing completely to see the Titanic hull timber in his own eye. ~ J.

          • Wrong again….yet another logic fail.

          • Anti-Liberal

            Using the word ‘gay’ conflates the behaviour with the identity of the individuals…

    • Your logic is inarguable, Andy. Tu che!

      • Actually it is easily arguable, but if you are too stupid to understand how and why it is arguable then that is hardly my fault is it?

        • “too stupid to understand” the ol’ logical riposte again. Come on cam, accept that Andy has hoisted you with your own petard. You can’t have it both ways. ~ J.

          • He did no such thing. I am as far from a bigot as you are from being gay despite using a really gay looking cowboy picture in your avatar at your blog.

          • Lion_ess

            Brokeback mountain-ish even

          • Brokeback Mountain is actually an anti-gay film…have you not watched the ending? ~ J.

          • Jimmie

            Redheads?? ;P

          • Agent BallSack

            They have no soul and are therefore free game.

      • James Gray


    • Mitch82
    • Rodger T

      Quite right Andy,cos` catholic priests should be able to rape children and prey on the vulnerable with impunity,after all they are spreading the word of god and we all know what it wants for humanity.

    • Andy, you just got immortalised in the Blogosphere here. Go you good thing!

      • On a tumbleweed of a blog with barely enough traffic to get run over.

        To put some things into perspective…you get around 248 pageviews a day.

        I get about 70 pageviews a minute, or in other words all of your traffic in under 4 minutes…immortalised? Hardly

        • Yeah, but John goes for quality, not quantity.

          • Lion_ess

            One is usually indicative of the other

          • Yeah the excuse of a loser…you know the one with the highest score wins in sport don’t you…and score signify quality…but in your weirdo world the Crusaders played quality rugby and scored no tries while the Blues played crap rugby but scored 5 tries…quantity over quality…wins everytime

          • Ok Cam, your penis is longer than mine. I’ve been running six months…man, touche.

          • 113,682 views in six months; 165 countries, translated into 4 languages; I’d say that was far from losing Cammy. ~ J.

          • There are more flies at a tip Cam, than in a fine restaurant.

          • Anti-Liberal

            Riiiight… So the author with the most book sales to his name is the best? The most widely read, yes. The best? No. Your logic is very poor.

      • Oh…and your total pageviews for all of time is at 24,703, which is generally what I do before 5pm each day. Perhaps Tumbleweeds was too generous…

        • 113,682 views in six months; 165 countries, translated into 4 languages; I’d say that was far from losing Cammy. ~ J.

          • 24th is 23rd loser, who is number one pal?

  • Odd. I was having a very similar debate with Lesley over in Facebook around the similiar points made above. In fact I have that comment thread open (it was from Jami-lee Ross’s comment on his inbox filling with the “conservative” emails against the Bill – again)

    Ironically in Fleishmann’s last quoted piece you have here Cam especially around Secular Society – which NZ is, and by extension Social Construction was what I said as well especially when National Party and National Voters got trotted out.

    I’ll place my long quotes here: Feel Free to make a separate post out of them Cam – I wont mind:

    1) Person One: Couldn’t have argued the case any better! Thanks for the reminder of this clip from a great show – and more importantly for the reminder that the arguments being used so forcibly at the moment are selective and outdated (even in a Christian context).

    Lesley:According to you Darren but some of us disagree. There are a lot of National Party voters who are not at all happy that social engineering is continuing under the National Govt’s watch.

    My Answer:Lesley the National Party as of current and it has been for a very long time and is set in the Party’s Philosophies – National Stands for: Individual Freedom, Individual Choice and Individual Responsibility. That by in very definition puts National both under the Social and Neo Liberal sectors of the political spectrum. National in her purist of forms would via the State act as nothing more than a moderator in society and the economy that both would be able (as we are meant to be intelligent enough) mould, live, adapt or even throw out according to its people, desires, wants, thinking and surrounding physical and social environments. Basically as a moderator you are making sure society does not run away and have a meltdown (pretty much like a nuclear reactor).

    National through its core philosophies is not conservative thus not a regulator of the economy or society (that is it should not be coercing us apart from the justice system when a crime (including white collar crime) has been committed). However such coercive regulation by enlarge extends from the current legislation forbidding gay marriage as it currently is Pre-Bill. The State should allow society as such to deal with it as Christianity is not exclusive on Marriage in this globalised world and thus not act as a regulator on the gay marriage issue when our population is so and has always been so heterogeneous. Also a reminder we are not a Christian State but a Secular State so what the Parliament is doing is acting according as a Secular (Liberal) State would.

    So think very carefully either voting for National or being a member of the Party with its core liberal philosophies at present.

    Now I then replied to another point made by Lesley:

    Lesley:You can not lump traditional marriage and gay marriage together. They are not the same at all.

    Myself:Social Construction. We and the State can lump it together as the State and Nation are secular, society is heterogeneous, and the state should be moderating and allowing society to maturely answer its own mind with the Gay Marriage situation. Not coerce the society from an ever shrinking minority if I strictly follow Statistics NZ and the Census data on what “its” (that ever shrinking minority is) interpretation is.

    As I said previous: The Liberal Secular State is a Moderator not a regulator. It has to moderate to incorporate all of society, not just those of select few.

    Phew long piece there.

  • J.M

    In my case, I bear no hatred towards homosexuals and support their right to do whatever it is they do behind closed doors. I even support property rights for gay couples. I simply believe that we should not encourage homosexuality as it weakens our society.

    • How does a man ramming his…. well, how does it weaken society? I can’t work that one out.

    • mick le prick

      How the hell does it weaken our society?


      Tougher than you, just how does homosexuality weaken society

      • J.M

        Demographics and dare I say it disease. NZ thankfully does not have a demographic crisis, but a number of other countries do.

        • Tony V

          Demographics? Explain cos I don’t get yr logic.

          • J.M

            Simple. In a number of countries, the indigenous group are being outbred by Muslims who will eventually take over by weight of numbers if nothing is done. Some homosexuals do I concede have children, but for the most part they don’t, and simply weaken their societies as a result.

          • Rodger T

            Logic would dictate that this may happen whether same sex marriage is legal or not.
            You need to produce evidence that legalising SSM will encourage more people to become homosexuals above and beyond the current 2-4% of the population that occurs naturally in society.

          • J.M

            I would dispute those figures, and dare I say some people actually choose to be gay. Getting those people to choose heterosexuality by discouraging homosexuality as a choice is solid public policy in my view.

          • Agent BallSack

            I doubt very many people ‘choose’ to be gay. And if they did it would be a very low percentage. I would say more people choose to be bisexual, or onanistic or just plain out hedonistic than gay. Would appreciate links to studies on people choosing to be gay.

          • Jack The Ladd

            Not too long ago GM meant General Manager, then along came GM to mean Genetically Modified now we are going to GM = Gay Marriage . Given you doubt people choose to be gay, then perhaps the second GM is the cause of the third.

          • Rodger T

            Quite possibly some people do choose to be gay,but I would doubt in sufficient numbers to affect the population to the extent of what you are suggesting.

            From NZ,


            From that paragon of internet infromation , : )


          • Agent BallSack

            “…..The largest and most thorough survey in Australia to date was conducted by telephone interview with 19,307 respondents between the ages of 16 and 59 in 2001/2002. The study found that 97.4% of men identified as heterosexual, 1.6% as gay and 0.9% as bisexual. For women 97.7% identified as heterosexual, 0.8% as lesbian and 1.4% as bisexual. Nevertheless, 8.6% of men and 15.1% of women reported either feelings of attraction to the same gender or some sexual experience with the same gender. Half the men and two thirds of the women who had same-sex sexual experience regarded themselves as heterosexual rather than homosexual.”

            Far, far below the supposed 1 in 10 the media are inclined to report as a confirmed fact.

          • Gayguy


          • unsol

            Most estimates are around 10% arent they? And since women outnumber men by 70,000 (except in CHCH!) I assume of that the majority of LGBT would in fact be lesbians.

          • Rodger T

            More than likely you are correct Unsol, that 2-4% came off the top of my head from an article I had seen a month or so ago.
            I just cannot see how even 10% could affect population to the extent J.M is suggesting.

          • Agent BallSack

            There are statistics, damn statistics and lies – Mark Twain
            IF our country is over run by Muslims you will have nothing to worry about, homos are persecuted by that religion. Something they have in common with just about every other religion.

          • What have muslims got to do with homosexuals “weakening” our society?

          • Gayguy

            He believes that Muslims will have more babies and take over the world

          • Gayguy

            Sooooooo it is all down to babies?

            Your argument is pure nonsense. Based on that infertile heterosexuals weaken society, as do those who choose not to have kids.

            We are in no fear of vanishing because of the gays, or infertile hetros, or those who choose not to have kids.

      • Kacanga

        Brilliant vid, just about pissed myself laughing

    • Gayguy

      Which is just plain nonsense.

      What is your proof that it weakens anything?

      Oh and one does not encourage being gay, you are or you are not.

  • Muffin

    Who cares, surely we have lots of far more important things to be worrying about and fixing. Fags want to get married, good luck to them.

    • unsol

      You realise the irony of what you’re saying re your alias & the subject of this post?

      • Some of us wish we could choose our aliases again ;)

        • unsol

          Why did you choose Petal? I always thought you were female as you’re very eloquent & articulate your points well with a neutral syntax….9 times out of 10 on this blog it usually means you’re female (testosterone seems to get crazy on here at times!). Mine’s a shortened version of my blog name…a blog that I cant be bothered writing anymore as I tend to always write essays!

          • It’s a long story, but I’ll try to condense it down. My Internet history goes back to mid ’80s. I have owned and run discussion systems and participated in them and others. I really like to have a chat about something, but I find the personal attacks distracting. Over the years, I noticed that men tend to be less offensive when they think they’re talking to a woman in a public place. When I first joined WOBH many, many years ago now, I didn’t expect to have much of an involvement, and decided to present as a gender-neutral person. I wouldn’t say “my wife and I treat our kids like X”, but would deliberately reword things to say “as parents we both treat our kids like X”. I intentionally never corrected people when they got it wrong, and eventually even chose a feminine avatar pic to feed into the deception. When Cam asked for help, I was very happy to help out. I feel I have been part of his journey surreptitiously, and I feel a big part of this community in spite of having kept my head under the pulpit for years. I told Cam I had no need for personal glory, he was happy with that, and asked what I wanted as a blog login name. I said “Pete”, and so “Pete” and petal could continue as two separate entities. I could help out behind the scenes, quietly, not really having any public presence as “Pete”, and continue my participation in public as Petal and nobody would be the wiser. Then a few weeks in, Cam decided out of the blue to make Petal (and Travis) moderators. That outed me. I suddenly had to explain why I was Pete here and Petal there, and lots of people were justifiably confused about it all. But what was done could not be undone. There is already someone commenting as “Pete” that isn’t me, so that wasn’t an option either. Quite lamely I’ve since pretended that Petal stands for PETe At Large, but to be honest, one of my mates started to call me petal (I actually asked him to stop before it stuck, and kindly he did), but at the time it was on my mind, so I chose it as an alias. I really never thought it would come to this :)

          • unsol

            Crikey that is a long short version! :p

          • Yeah. Don’t ever ask me questions. :)

  • Jimmie

    You could argue that everyone is a bigot. Catholics are bigots for disagreeing with the gay agenda. Gays are bigoted against folk who don’t like their political agenda (see gayguy) Maybe the only folk who truly aren’t bigoted are living at the cemetery.

    To throw a curve ball at you WO I would say that Jesus Christ (from a liberal point of view) is more of a bigot than anyone. He expressed the opinion that there was only one way to heaven (through Himself John 3:16 & v3) and all others ways would not work. (See parable of the Broadway/Narrow way parable.)

    In fact In John 3 v18 he says that folk who don’t believe in Him will be condemned – oops this doesn’t sound like an airy fairy all inclusive Christ – sounds very bigoted eh?

    The reason why a liberal pinko such as yourself has issues with folks speaking against the promotion of the gay rights agenda is that you seem to be a believer in the modern notion of relativism – there is no right or wrong except what society at any particular time decides it to be. (And its twin sister – equality at all costs in matters of morality)

    However it doesn’t take a lot of reading from the Bible to realize that this neither of these viewpoints can be supported from the Bible. In fact the Biblical point of view is a total opposite to the liberal agenda. The gospel states the concepts of right and wrong as absolutes – which are determined by God Himself.

    The power of choice however is portrayed as still in the hands of people. Either choose to follow God’s ways and accept his Salvation, or thumb your nose at God, live however you want, but remember that when you depart this earth there will be an accounting for your life that won’t end well.

    As a Christian I don’t have a problem with the concept that most folks don’t want a bar of the Bible or Christian teachings. I do however shake my head when I see you trying to contort yourself by trying to marry (wrong word choice I know) your Christian beliefs with the liberal agenda – they are incompatible.

    Either be one or the other – and be happy with your choice. Trying to sit on the fence and proclaim both as wonderful just makes you appear wishywashy. (But however I admit does generate great internet traffic flows)

  • Agent BallSack

    We are all likely bigoted to some extent, we are programmed by our parents at a very young age to dislike this, that and the other. Whether it’s ‘currymunchers’, ‘mobsters’, god forbid ‘law enforcement’ and a slew of other programmed behaviours. What sets most of us apart from animals is our ability to change our beliefs as we learn more about the world around us. Live and let live, turn the other cheek etc etc but the main one I think a lot of Christians find hardest to live with is ‘Do unto others’. Perhaps we should outlaw christianity again to remind a particular group of society what it’s like to be persecuted.
    No I am not gay and I hated gays with a vengeance when I was less forgiving and tolerant of others different beliefs but as I have grown, I have realised it was without cause. For instance Lucia Maria – I may think religion is a load of bollocks but I don’t think less of her for practising it, that is her right – yet I despise what the catholic church allows under it’s protection. Or Kosh – never cared he’s as queer as a 3c coin, just his slavish devotion and unbending belief in the current school system.

    • Nice one AB.

    • Rodger T

      Unfortunately AB, christianity is built on the myth of “persecution” so that approach is unlikely to get them to see reason.

      • Agent BallSack

        Nice Rodger -:

        “identifying oneself as a persecuted minority necessarily identifies others as persecutors. It turns disagreement into a struggle for survival with an innocent “us” pitted against a hateful “them.” This polarizing view of the world not only makes it impossible to have meaningful dialogue and collaboration, but it can also be used to legitimize violence against others in the name of “self-defense.” Perhaps the worst effect of this misuse is that it harms those who truly are persecuted: Sadly, people of many religious traditions continue to be persecuted around the world, and yet their voices are drowned out by our own.”

    • Top comment so far

    • Cadwallader

      Superb comment. The ability to change our beliefs is indeed an emblem of growth and maturity. When did Mr Minto cease to function?

  • Pingback: The Whale Gets Another Harpoon | coNZervative()

  • Gawd, what is this?

    Sycophant City?

    You guys are like a bunch of Nth Koreans sucking up to Kim Jong Un.

    Even running excerpts from the extreme left Guardian yesterday to validate your opinions.

    Hopeless group think poodles.

    • Agent BallSack

      What would you prefer? Mein Kampf?

    • Rodger T

      LooooL, once again the Bedwetter express rolls into town,unable to formulate a reasoned and logical rebuttal to the proposition ,can only resort to throwing faeces at the messenger like a demented chimp.

      • Orange

        Actually the posting itself is bereft of logical rebuttal (unless you’re including the “Nazis drink water too!” argument) but full of ad hominem. Hey I’m actually open to being convinced change is a “good idea” but the fact the response continues to be centred in the “they’re all bigots” line doesn’t impress me in the slightest. That’s just BS.

        • Rodger T

          I guess we all have different standards of what represents logic,but I will confess I agree with you on the bigots/haters line.
          I have never been a fan of that label and feel that it gets peoples backs up and makes them more intransigent on both sides of the argument.

          • unsol

            It does get peoples’ backs up but what else can you call it? Most people who comment on here opposing ME do so with blatant hatred, contempt & intolerance. They don’t offer arguments & respond with comments like Redb to anyone who disagrees.

            But those who claim the attacks on Catholicism are bigoted have a point too.

            While it is fair to hold them to account – not because they are the main perpetrators of child abuse, but because they are the only organisation in the world that claims to have the moral high ground whilst doing everything possible to enable & cover up child abuse inflicted by their priests, attacks on the actual faith are indicative of bigotry.

          • Rodger T

            As usual unsol ,I can`t argue with your impeccable logic.
            It is just a term I don`t like to use, I prefer “Dick” but bigot is technically correct. : )

          • unsol

            You mean my illogic…. :)

            But yep it is term that is overused that ironically tends to undermine the cause it is meant to support. Bit like anything that hits the mainstream really!

      • unsol

        Beautifully put RT. You must have laughed your ass off writing that! I couldn’t possibly lower myself to reply to such an arrogant & silly comment, and if I did there is no way I would be able to pawn him like that. I’m the tl:dr type so witty few liners generally escape me…brilliant work!

        • First you say this-

          “My biggest issue is those who have nothing to say by way of argument & who make comments that are not only derogatory,”

          Then you applaud Rodger T’s witless inebriated and dull personal attack.

          Maybe you can explain why I should regard you as anything more than a completely illogical loon suffering from verbal diarrhoea,

          • Rodger T

            Lol Red, you post throwing invective,edit your post without acknowledgement and now you are crying about a personal “attack”.
            Once again you prove that the only one getting “baited” here is YOU.
            If you can`t handle the heat …you know the rest.

          • Learn to read sycophant. I’m not “crying” about your pissant cowardly attempt at a personal attack, I’m pointing out the abject hypocrisy of the irrational loser Unsol.

          • Rodger T

            Of course, your personal attacks on everyone who fails to agree wholeheartedly with your witless dribblings are the height of keyboard warriorness.
            Get your mummy to open the basement window.

          • unsol

            Irrational loser? I thought I was an illogical loon? How old are you? Kindergarten kids behave better.

            No need to have a tanty just because I so eloquently pointed out the lack of logic in your assumption of my so-called hypocrisy…..

          • Self Baited lololol

          • unsol

            These posts are in the affirmative on marriage equality & the likes of Roger simply agree. Onus probandi doesnt apply as WO has provided the proof in each instance.

            When you disagree with the post then onus probandi must shift to you.

            “Illogical”, “loon” – prove it.

            Verbal diarrhoea – I did say that I am prone to writing long posts.

          • Agent BallSack

            Rodgers attack was aimed at your witless and dull post that has been edited 3 times at last count. First you attacked everyone calling them sycophants and buffoons, following up with a general attack on everyone who doesnt subscribe to your views, then edited it so as not to look like every other Redbaiter post that existed. Will the real Redbaiter please stand up. If you say something stand by those words or rebut them in subsequent posts, rather than edit.

    • Rodger T

      It is polite to acknowledge when you edit your original post.

      • Haha, that’s funny. After your response below, you’re lecturing people on politeness??

        Good grief, are you totally blind to your own fuckwittedness?

        • Rodger T

          I bow before the Master of Fuckwittery.

    • Did anyone else read the Lianne Dalziel bio piece? I mean, anyone would think she was Santa. Who wrote it, Lianne? and this is a “right wing blog”. (Choaking sounds). ~J.

  • unsol

    Logic & bigotry is mutually exclusive.

    One thing I have noticed is that at least the likes of Andrei, LM, Lesley or Random actually attempt to put forward arguments of sorts to back up their views. For whatever reason – whether poor interpretation of the Bible, brainwashing by Ministers or just general ignorance about life, their faith precludes their acceptance of same sex relationships. And I can accept that. Even understand that. But I don’t think this means they have the right to dictate what happens in the personal lives of others. No one does; including the State.

    My biggest issue is dickheads who have nothing to say by way of argument & who make comments that are not only derogatory, but also indicative of nothing more than a child having a tantrum: “it’s just wrong (stamps foot & storms off…..or hangs around for more of a telling off)”.

    These people are the real idiots of this country. It worries me that they have been given the vote. I know children at the Riding for the Disabled who would be far better equipped to vote on the issues pertaining to this wonderful country than they are.

    If it is not religion then how on earth can they come to the conclusions they have? A normal part of growing up is questioning the things you think & assessing whether there is substance to back up your views.

    Clearly many who comment on here opposing marriage equality have yet to go through this developmental process as they have failed to question anything:

    Who told them being gay was so wrong, unnatural. How come they overlook obvious & widely publicised child abuse stats & still conclude that gay men are the biggest threat to children?

    How come they claim children must come from a family unit containing a mother & a father in order to grow up & become well adjusted, self-managing & mature contributing members of society when all throughout history children have been treated as chattels, a meal ticket or a sex slave by their heterosexual mothers & fathers? That the very family unit meant to provide a safe haven, a save place to fall when life throws curve balls has been the one to mistreat, abuse, neglect & malnourish them at whim?

    Where is the research that says children with loving gay parents are worse off that the dysfunctional traditional family unit that accounts for more child abuse than any other since times began……starting with Adam & Eve.

    There is none. Hence the tirade of comments from the anti side that usually swamp these kinds posts

    • Anti-Liberal

      The Bible says homosexual behaviour is wrong. Christians and non-Christians alike can waste their time trying to argue the rationality of either side, but it is as God has said it is – no matter what seems to you or me to be reasonable or fair or preferable. And no, I don’t care that non-Christians will slam me for not providing arguments for or against.

      • unsol

        New day new topic AL :)

  • I would like to see proof of all the following assertions that Glenn Fleishmann makes, because they are all totally incorrect, from a Catholic point of view:

    The logical conclusion of her arguments would be:

    * Penis-vagina child creation is best. Failing that, any current
    medical intervention to get a married sperm and ovum together is just
    fine, including in-vitro fertilization and other techniques that involve
    no penis-vagina contact. Her position on turkey basters is inferred.

    * If you don’t want to have any kids, the fact that you could, accidentally, makes your marriage legitimate in her eyes.

    IVF and turkey basting is wrong. The only valid way to create children is through the marital act, which also restates the marriage vows if done without contraception.

    Not wanting to have kids means there is no marriage, even if you have them later.

    • Agent BallSack

      So in your eyes a marriage is not spousal but based on progeny?

      • Not quite. It is both, and openess to life is a big part of it.

    • unsol

      What scriptures do you use to justify the fact that marriage without kids is not marriage?

      And do you support the view that Paul states quite clearly celibacy is the preferred option but marriage is OK if you don’t have any self-control (1 Corinthians 7:27-34)

      • I never said marriage without kids is not marriage. Marriage includes being open to life. As human beings we were made in the image of God and the family is an image of the Trinity, ie the love between the Father and the Son results in the Holy Spirit. So too does the love between a husband and wife create a wife third, a child, if God wills, that is.

        Ok, I’m going to go and have lunch. Brain and fingers not quite connecting properly.

        • unsol

          “Not wanting to have kids means there is no marriage, even if you end up having them”

          Isn’t that the same thing?

          • Not really. It goes to intent and how much you as a person can really give yourself to another, and accept another completely.

          • Gayguy

            So again I ask, does that mean infertile heterosexual married couples, have a marriage less than yours because they cannot have kids?

          • As long as they have been open to life (not contracepting or purposefully neutering themselves), an infertile couple are to all intents and purposes, married.

            Though, I know where this is going …

          • Gayguy

            They are your morals and values, not mine. And how big of you to allow an infertile couple your blessing on their marriage you sanctimonious pseudo christian up start.

          • Anti-Liberal

            You’re the judge of what a Christian is or isn’t? Very non-PC of you – fancy suggesting that not all world views or ways of behaving are equally valid…

          • Anti-Liberal


        • Rodger T

          Seeing as same sex marriage is legal in certain states of the US and a number of other countries and your loving god has not sent a disaster ,you know ,like a flood or something to kill everyone,can we assume he/she approves then?

          • No. God allows us our free-will and then also allows us to experience the consequences of that free-will, to a certain extent. Same-sex marriage will create natural consequences, it’s unavoidable, without God having to sent disasters and such.

          • Gayguy

            “Same-sex marriage will create natural consequences, it’s unavoidable”

            Ohhhh lord, I knew you were a batshit, poorly educated pseudo christian, but if I read that right (pleeeeeeeease correct me if I am wrong) you believe that gays will cause natural disasters????

          • Rodger T

            Well GG,an Islamic cleric claims bare breasts cause earthquakes,so I guess its totally natural for others to utter their empty threats of devastation for acts they don`t approve of.


          • Gayguy

            It is people like that and Lucia that make me embarrassed for faith in general.

          • You read it wrong. Try again.

          • Rodger T

            Perhaps you should elaborate on on the natural consequences that are unavoidable?

          • Lots of posts on my blog on that. One of the natural consequences is a much more powerful state that will interfere in people’s lives to a greater extent. There will be new thought crimes and religious liberty will decrease.

          • Gayguy

            Ahhhhhh, the end of the world argument.

          • Lion_ess

            This is already happening in the UK, but is not a “natural consequence” of legalising Gay Marriage.

          • Gayguy

            Natural consequences… loving families, and well cared for kids??

          • Anti-Liberal

            Yeah right.

        • Lion_ess

          So the Adam / Eve /Cain and Abel experiment didn’t go so well for God then? Cain & Abel marry their (apparent) sisters, with Cain murdering Abel over the right to marry a third sister. Given that your God is the almighty and powerful Creator of all, I would have expected better – even if it was His first attempt.

          • And now for the first unrelated comment to the topic – inevitable really.

          • Lion_ess

            No, the comment relates to your post regarding human beings being made in the image of God and the family is an image of the Trinity. Further you go on to say, that the love between a husband and wife create a third, a child, if God wills, that is.

            So am I to presume you are saying that God willed the Adam and Eve incestuous/murderous debacle, (which bears no resemblance to the definition of marriage and family), that you purport to know through your religion, and which is from the Bible, the word of God?

          • Should have just said the above in the first place. I have to deal with a lot of stupid comments directed at me, and unless they appear to have some relevance, I tend to just ignore them.

            What you are misunderstanding is the decision that Cain made by himself to murder his brother, is different from God creating a whole new human soul during the marital act. Not every act of intimacy in marriage results in a child, even when conditions are perfect.

            Incest as you call it, back in the days of initial creation, was not that much of a big deal given that Cain and Abel and any sisters they had were descended from perfect human beings ie Adam and Eve who were made directly by God.

            God knew exactly what he was doing when He made Adam and Eve, and Cain and Abel. What you call a debacle is really just free-will in action. Some people, despite all their advantages, just want to choose to do evil. And God won’t stop them.

        • Gayguy

          Given the history of your posts, your brain and fingers never connect properly.

          • Lion_ess

            First time I’ve given you an upvote – (just thought you’d like to know).

          • Gayguy

            Oh my, I am all a flutter. ;0) An up vote! Don’t do it too often, I might get a big head.

  • Gulag

    Bigot, anybody that disagrees with some crusader.

    • Anti-Liberal


  • Anti-Liberal

    You’re the idiot, Slater. Andrei and Lucia, and Jimmie in these comments, know something you don’t. Mock them if you like, but you’ll be paying the price one day.

    • Rodger T

      Get that off chest did you A-L?
      Make you feel good to issue that empty threat?

      • Anti-Liberal

        My comment was poorly worded and shouldn’t’ve had that tone. However, Slater can mock and disbelieve all he likes, but if he doesn’t end up changing his views he really will regret it. That’s not a threat, in the sense that I don’t have anything to do with the consequences. I’d call it a warning.