Last week I blogged on claims by advocates of redefining marriage, that there was a link between gay suicide and ‘not being accepted,’ so same-sex marriage was necessary. I said that was “reprehensible.” Me ol’ mate long-distance runner and blogger David Farrar at Kiwiblog said that was “callous.” The People spoke, a lot (128 commentaries) mainly agreeing with me. Here are some of their comments as a constructive continuance of this debate.
For background see:
- ‘Conservative MP’ David Farrar not gay over Suicide Claims.
- CoNZv. 1 Feb. Using Suicide to Push Gay Cause Reprehensible!
- Kiwiblog. 2 Feb. A Callous Post by DPF.
BR (64) Says: February 2nd, 2013 at 11:44 am
Same-sex “marriage” and adoption must always be strongly opposed.
The promotion of homosexuality as a way of life comes from the left of politics. When the fourth Labour government repealed the laws that outlawed buggery in the mid 1980s, many people at the time were opposed to such a law change. Sodomy is no less a dirty and unhealthy practice now than it was then, despite the propaganda efforts by the left-driven homosexual lobby to promote it as part of as a healthy lifestyle choice.
There is some behaviour that should be kept illegal in order that it is not overtly encouraged. Buggery is an example of such behaviour.
One of the arguments being promoted in favour of homosexual “marriage” is that traditional marriage is already a crumbling institution, so it is futile to try to save it from further demise.
The institution of marriage has been in decline for some time, with the introduction of the DPB, no-fault divorce and the uncertainty in the property laws associated with de-facto relationships. Politicians, particularly those on the left, have contributed in no small way to the decline by meddling with the laws and conditions related to traditional marriage.
The campaign to legitimize homosexual “marriage” by left wing politicians is an example of further meddling. If people wish to indulge in aberrant behaviour, there is not much that can be done to stop them, but must such behaviour be state sanctioned?
It is not clear to what extent any of this benefits homosexuals. Not all homosexuals believe that same-sex “marriage” is a good idea. Homosexual MP Chris Findlayson voted against it. Clearly this same-sex “marriage” campaign is being driven by more than just homosexuals.
Homosexuals appear to make up less than 2 percent of the general population. However, aided and abetted by the left, they have now become a political force to be reckoned with.
If the homosexual lobby get their way with their version of “marriage”, where to next? Will they go off and live happily ever after and shut up about their so-called “rights”?
That seems unlikely. The homosexual lobby are perpetual complainers.
Most churches have said that they will refuse to officiate in any “marriage” ceremony involving two people of the same sex. For now, the politicians are saying quite loudly that churches will be exempt from endorsing such unions under the proposed law. However, nobody can give an assurance that this will not change in the future. The left never sleeps. Their record of attacking time tested traditional institutions is well documented. The left-wing homosexual lobby will continue to grumble about discrimination, and will campaign for the kind of law that will make any and all discrimination against homosexuals illegal. Watch this space.
Some years ago there was a cult commune set up in NZ called Centrepoint. The leader, Bert Potter, was eventually jailed for child sexual abuse along with some of his followers.
Most child sex abusers hang their heads in shame in at least a token gesture of remorse when they are up before the beak on charges of child sex offending, but not Bert Potter. He was defiant. He claimed that sexually interfering with children was beneficial to them and in their best interests. Many of Potter’s followers agreed with this. Some parents on his commune even permitted their children to be sexually molested by Potter and some of the other adults there.
It is not clear what percentage of the population have an unhealthy fondness for children. There would be very few who would openly admit to such a proclivity. This means that other than perhaps a few rare exceptions, the only ones that who been identified are those that have been arrested and charged. The majority of men who cannot get sex are not rapists, so it is reasonable to assume that most of those who are sexually attracted to children have not offended either.
The left would waste no time in encouraging child abuse perverts to “come out” if they believed that it would be to their political advantage. The left have no morals or conscience. Leftist agenda comes first, last and everything in between. The silence and cavalier attitude from the left-dominated educational establishment as a response to warnings from the police about the serial child sex abuse offender James Parker was very telling. This should not surprise anyone who has looked further than the mainstream media at what really motivates the left, of course.
The kiddy-fiddlers will be watching the progress of this homosexual “marriage” legislation with great interest. There would not be many of these perverts who are anti same-sex “marriage”. It certainly does nothing to harm their own agenda. It should not be forgotten that the homosexual lobby are owe a debt of gratitude to those pedophiles who stood beside them in their campaign for legitimacy. If homosexual “marriage” legislation is passed, two pedophiles could get “married” and therefore be eligible to adopt children.
It is also not inconceivable that some time in the future, some pedophile who is young, charming, charismatic (perhaps someone like James Parker), and who holds a degree in psychology or sociology (degrees that are mostly run and attended by leftists), could promote Bert Potter’s ideals to a more widespread audience. Such a person could quite possibly gain respect as an authority on the subject by parading his university credentials before an increasingly dumbed down public. If such a campaign ever gains any traction, one can only hope that closet pedophiles are far fewer in number than homosexuals.
The media scrum surrounding the release from prison of Stewart Murray Wilson is also worthy of comment in that it was arguably more newsworthy than the event itself. Wilson is not the only pedophile to have been released from jail after serving a lengthy sentence. However none have inspired the sort of lurid voyeurism displayed by the media the way Wilson has. What is it about this pathetic, dirty old man that inspires such fear and media fascination? Could it be because his charge sheet includes a conviction for bestiality? Perhaps that will be next.
Why stop at homosexual “marriage”? What goes on between a man and his hamster in the privacy of their own home is none of anyone else’s business. That is the test, isn’t it?
Bill.
Urban Redneck (60) Says: February 2nd, 2013 at 12:10 pm
The notion of high rates of homosexual teen suicide was born out of a study conducted by a San Francisco social worker by the name of Paul Gibson. His study “Gay Male & Lesbian Youth Suicide” was incorporated into a 1989 report published by the US Dept Of Health & Human Services. The study has been routinely criticized for it’s methodological weakness – it was never subjected to rigorous peer reviews which is a requirement for any publication in a scientific journal. For example, he didn’t properly distinguish between suicide attempts and actual suicides. He also took statistics from homosexual sources then applied them to the general population by using long discredited Kinsey figures. (The 10% are gay myth).
A 1994 panel convened by t CDC (Centre For Disease Control), the APA (American Psychological Association) and the American Association of Suicidology made the following findings:
There is no population based evidence that sexual orientation and suicidality are linked in some direct or indirect manner
One study published in in the medical journal “Pediatrics” in 1991 examined 137 youths who self-described as gay. The study concluded that bisexuality or homosexuality per se was not associated with suicidal acts. They found that fewer than one in ten homosexual youths who had attempted suicide did so because of their homosexuality.
These myths of high homosexual suicide rates keep getting repeated because they serve the overall cause of the militant homosexual lobby: to get mainstream acceptance of homosexuality. Indeed, by using skewed statistics, homosexual activists are seeking to win over societal approval. This strategy was outlined in the influential homosexual publication After The Ball, by Marshall Kirk & Hunter Madsen. In the book the authors urge homosexuals to cast themselves as victims and “invite straights to be their protectors” This strategy is obviously working.
Homosexuality won’t cease being glorified until our culture ceases to glorify sex in general. When heterosexual sex is thrown around so casually, it begins to mean nothing, and homosexuality (which also means nothing) is the next logical step.
Interesting, but I note that BR constantly refers to ‘leftists’, when in fact, the gay marriage agenda is being pushed by liberals, not leftists. There are plenty of socially conservative left wingers; just look at the Pacific support base of Labour – Mangere MP Sua William Sio has spoken against gay marriage, and hundreds of Labour supporters rallied in Mangere to oppose it.
And the only reason Louisa Wall’s gay marriage Bill is getting anywhere is because socially liberal National MPs like John Key have endorsed gay marriage and Louisa’s Bill. Heck, even conservative john Banks was arm twisted by his ultra-liberal ACT party into voting for gay marriage, despite him having opposed it up ’til now.
So let’s focus on the liberal agenda of promoting gay marriage, hmmm? The same liberals have already indicated they don’t care if polygamous or incestous groups marry…