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.
Harriet (959) Says: February 2nd, 2013 at 12:38 pm
Suicide rates of gays in Sydney, Melbourne, London and NZ are the same as in San Francisco – the most ‘gay friendly’ place on earth.
Health studies by US Gay Health have reported that!
In other words -gays kill themselves- not society!
The assualt and/or murder rates of gays[for being gay] in NZ are non-existant – unless the media is not allowed to report on them – and the courts don’t act on them!
Gay teenagers -just like older gays- are nothing more than confused hetrosexuals!
LabourDoesntWork (234) Says: February 2nd, 2013 at 12:50 pm
It’s unthinkable for some but the evidence suggests a link between *homosexuality* and suicide. Insisting the problem is one of lack of acceptance and bullying alone doesn’t change the underlying reality at work. Hoping for universal acceptance was always deluded thinking, just as is hoping bullying based on physical appearance will end.
One could be a bit cynical and say that ‘gays’ demanding acceptance is evidence on their own self-loathing. As unthinkable and offensive as that is to some, I think it’s closer to the truth, in some cases at least.
beautox (295) Says: February 2nd, 2013 at 1:22 pm
Physically healthy people who commit suicide are mentally sick. No two ways about it. To pretend that teenage gays are somehow forced into this is bullshit, just as it’s bullshit to suggest that changing the marriage laws will alter this.
A healthy person’s response to being bullied is not suicide.
Now if gays teens are over-represented in the suicide statistics then it might be the case that whatever is “wrong” with the teen that causes then to top themselves is also causing them to believe that they are gay. I find it preposterous to have young teens “outing themselves” and declaring themselves gay. How on earth can young teens know anything much at all about their sexuality. It’s common knowledge that many boys have crushes on other boys in early teenage years, but they turn out to be normal heterosexuals when they are 18.
Redbaiter (1,956) Says: February 2nd, 2013 at 1:24 pm
After the way homosexuals behaved in the so called “Hero” parades I have found it very hard to muster any sympathy for their cause. If they are mentally (or physically) inhibited by their homosexuality, it sure as hell did not show up then.
Harriet (959) Says: February 2nd, 2013 at 4:08 pm
The New Mental Disorder: Supporting the Government’s Celebration of Dying Gays!
The law historically has done one of three things: it has prohibited something, permitted something, or promoted something. And we often see a certain behaviour or activity go through these three stages. Sometimes they can go from being promoted or permitted to being prohibited, as with cigarette smoking.
With smoking, governments intervened heavily and were quite happy to step on individual liberties in the name of protecting the health and safety of its citizens. Given that smoking not only harms the smoker but can harm others, as in passive smoking, the state took often draconian steps to reduce the risk and save lives.
Homosexuality is of course an equally destructive lifestyle, which results in very real harm, and even in premature death. But instead of seeking to deter this dangerous and high-risk lifestyle, along with it’s associated health care costs, governments now are actively promoting it and celebrating it.
The double standards here are mind boggling. The power of the law to change opinions and behaviour is well known. We rightly speak about the normative effect of the law. When an action is given legally acceptable status, the state is sending out strong social signals that such activities are good and to be embraced.
So when governments promote and encourage homosexual behaviour, they are urging their citizens to accept and celebrate this unhealthy lifestyle. Soon almost everyone is getting in on the act, pushing the radical homosexual agenda, and mercilessly seeking to crush any remaining opposition to it.
Some NZ MP’s believe that being gay is better for your health than eating a couple of Big Macs each week or drinking 4 beers a day!
By your logic, anytime ANYONE wants something or feels offended, we should redefine legal institutions? In this case, the age old tradition of a legal acknowledgement of union between a man and a woman, i.e marriage. Marriage was not made to discriminate, as you brazenly suggest. Homosexuals should and do have all the same rights, I contend however that our legal acknowledgement of such is merely defined as something else.
If, like you say, marriage descriminates, then why do we not allow polygamous or incestuous marriages? This is also descrimination.
This is not the issue we are discussing here. Definition of the legal institution of marriage is not a link to gay suicide. Show me a case in which a teenage homosexual committed sucide over the definition of suicide. Just one, not your opinion, an example. If you actually objectively read John’s posts, the studies show their is no such link. I also think it is offensive to suggest homosexuals are that insecure.
I am proud how far we have come in the social sector in terms of our acceptance and indiscrimination. I am pleased that our gay memebers of society no longer must hide away.
I am a liberal, I just do not wish to see marriage redefined. Rather, we should work on how we define unions of different persuasions.
Thanks for nicely demonstrating the hideous and outright vicious views of your conservative chums. What makes them all so nasty do you think? You get the feeling they’re actually kind of cool with bullying but too gutless to say so.
Dude, your snarky attitude is as nasty as you would accuse others. Add something meaningful, perhaps?
I did, duder. I thanked John for demonstrating the viciousness of bullying conservatives. He’s done us all a favour.
Sadly, syicide is a social issue in communities of people from all walks of life. Redefining social and legal institutions will not change that.
Where’s your evidence for that bold assertion? Having social and legal institutions which discriminate and exclude people needlessly has detrimental effects on those people. You say yourself suicide is a social issue, so having supportive social and legal institutions is vital in its prevention.