Protect Marriage has no intention of engaging in debate, instead they block dissent

A reader emails:


Protect Marriage’s comment policy, one they are breaking themselves.

Hello Whaleoil,

My name is Gabriel Rodrigues and I am an avid reader and huge fan of your blog and am wanting to voice my concerns to you about an issue relating to Marriage Equality.

As a supporter of Marriage Equality I was on Protect Marriage ‘Facebook page’ engaging respectfully with other commenters on the issue of Marriage Equality only to be blocked, and my comments in support in of Marriage Equality deleted. The comments were made in a respectful and considered manner. 

This is an issue important to all New Zealanders on both sides of this debate; it is personal to all of us. Having healthy debate allows all New Zealanders a deeper understanding of this issue. Resorting to totalitarian tactics by censoring people with different opinions to your own, especially when your own side is losing this debate, especially when around 80% of New Zealanders support Marriage Equality is desperate, dishonest and wrong. I am one of those many young New Zealanders that proudly support Marriage Equality and I will not be censored by totalitarian extremists who want it to remain illegal for me to get married if I choose to.

This group has been censoring people since July 2012, many people have been censored, many people feel the same. There’s nothing like sunlight to expose darkness, I hope your blog will shed light on this issue and that others come forward.

Kind Regards,

Gabriel Rodrigues

It seems Protect Marriage don’t actually want a debate. They prefer to have an echo-chamber.


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.

  • unsol

    Cameron you can clearly take Gabriel’s email as kudos to you being able to host all sides of all opinions on all issue. But if she is after a debate, robust discussion based on the exchange of facts rather than perception, myths & prejudices then sadly she won’t get it on here.

    No one has yet to offer any arguments against marriage equality or even define what traditional marriage really means, yet plenty throw their gauntlets around in so-called defence of it. In that sense while you seem pro this Bill, most commentators (not necessarily readers) on here are creating their own echo-chamber.

    Perhaps opponents should write their comments on the Marriage Equality page – without the use of any derogatory terms & something that actually attempts to quantify their point of view.

    I would be interested to know if Gabriel has commented on here…

    • cows4me

      And nor have you offered arguments for marriage “equality”. Perhaps Gabreil would be shown more respect if she didn’t try the same old the science is settled argument. 80% support gay marriage, geesss with “facts” like that no wonder she is shown the door. Her facts are as hollow as her argument but hay what’s new. Gabreil can call her union as she wishes, marriage, one man one woman.

      • unsol

        Yes the 80% is bit of a stretch. It has been up as high as 70% in MSM polls but seems to vary depending on who logs on. I think it would be 50/50.

        As for facts – OK I will bite. I have a few minutes before I have to serve dinner. First, how about you name 5 FACTS you have stated or read on here (or anywhere) to support your view.

        In terms of me, I have given plenty….such as Marriage is a civil, not heterosexual or white man’s right. The 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia confirmed that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man,” [60] and same-sex marriages should receive the same protections given to interracial marriages by that ruling. The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), on May 19, 2012, named same-sex marriage as “one of the key civil rights struggles of our time.”

        Defending the current law on the basis that it preserves traditional marriage means you are in fact defending men marrying underaged girls (legalised pedophilia), men marrying men, wife-swapping in Rome, political polygamy (6th century England) or men marrying off their daughters so as to forge alliances , acquire land & produce heirs etc (around 4000 years ago). Traditional marriage also excluded divorce (except where the woman could not conceive) & in the US, those with african descent getting married.

        If you want tradition then why not protest so all these things can be reinstated. Especially with say things like contraception & divorce. You are either for redefinition (which includes modern marriage since we have done away with all the others) or against (so you want to go back to times of oppression).

        The only argument, as the article WO posted the other day rightly stated, that may have had some validity, was procreation. But if the ability to conceive naturally was the standard then fertility tests should be compulsory before any marriage license is granted; marriage is about natural procreation or it is not.

        And this is without going into the adoption side of things (LGBT can already adopt as individuals – the law does not discriminate based on sexual orientation) & all the other side issues (church vs state, bible interpretations etc).

        What say you in response?

        • cows4me

          I say and will continue to say why does society have to continually bend over backwards for vocal minorities. I see the push for gay marriage as simply part of a greater agenda to break up the family unit. Giving the state the right to redefining marriage is wrong. So the state redefines marriage till the next screaming crowd wants the state to redefine it again. Does tradition mean nothing now, why the hell do you think gays want to claim marriage. Marriage doesn’t need redefining both you and I know what it means why should someone come and shove their redefinment down our throats . Having said that the vast proportion of those pushing for gay marriage are genuine in that they believe they fight against bigotry and equal rights. This of course is total horseshit and they are but pawns in a much larger game. Of course the argument is that society must change and progress. From where I’m sitting this doesn’t seem to be working out to well, why dig ourselves further into the shit.

          • unsol

            Thanks cows but unfortunately what you have offered is opinion not fact/s

            With divorce – remember that banning it again would not prove that the marriage is in fact a marriage. Without love, trust, commitment, communication & fidelity you have merely a platonic relationship much like that of flatmate a but one which is incased in misery.

            Divorce hasn’t cheapened marriage, it has just merely given society a chance to expose the ones that are a sham; the good happy marriages remain good & happy irrespective of this law.

            And children only benefit from a marriage if that marriage personifies the attributes I stated above.

  • BJ

    Boo Hoo Gabs – life ain’t fair. Was it a government organisation page, no it was like other group pages of particular discussions of like minded people, where you have to get invited to join and they clearly uninvited you as you didn’t share their interest. Come on here by all means – but don’t start by stating 80% of NZ support’s your cause because only a referendum would evidence that.

  • Like socialists, women, maoris and others – they cannot stand on their own merits (and come out on top) so have to censor anyone in opposition to them.

  • Ronnie Chow

    I would not have wanted to be around when Lake Taupo erupted .
    But look at it now .
    Go in in piece , all of you who want marriage equality . Tranquility awaits .

  • The Conservative Party are pretty much acting the same way. I got blocked form the party facebook page for questioning a claim that hundreds of parents were being criminalised by the anti-smacking law, then from Colin Craig’s personal page by linking to Farrar’s debunking of the claim that gay marriage was being rushed.

    The message traffic from one of their mods was quite funny, she was rather unequipped to argue the Party’s positions.

    But then again; their page, their rules.

  • LesleyNZ

    So what if Gabs isn’t welcome on Protect Marriage Facebook page – she just wants to stir – she doesn’t want to debate. She doesn’t agree so why would she want to go on that page and espouse her opinion? Much better to go this blog – she has a few supporters here who will clap her loudly. Selective censorship happens quite often. She wants to engage “respectfully”? really? This paragraph says all about Gabs. “I am one of those many young New Zealanders that proudly support Marriage Equality and I will not be censored by totalitarian extremists who want it to remain illegal for me to get married if I choose to.”