About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

July 8, 2012 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 8 July 2012

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment178

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (178)

Login to comment or vote

freemark

FFS, is that a huge pressing issue for mankind right now, that same sex marriage (a fairly outmoded if not irrelevant institution) somehow gets a stamp of approval.
Someone, here I think it was, suggested some new terminology I liked, to save confusion.
Marriage.. man/woman
Garriage.. man/man
Larriage.. woman/woman

So, if you want to impress all your friends with how progressive you are.. ” I’m off to a Ledding today”
The economic/sociological/legal justification for marriage does not IMHO exist anymore.
I would rather see that leaders of any country/organisation/religion dealing with real peoples lives and issues are parents.
Can we get back to vegetarian baiting instead?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 3:40pm
Michael Mckee

Fletch/LJ
yeah I understand your frustration as it is aberrant as it goes against biology & design and the for/pro homosexual marriage crowd won’t address that either.
If there is no norm then one moves away from a man and a woman then surely nothing should be out of bounds, dogs, kids, cows, sheep, 2 guys, 2 girls, 2 guys and 1 girl and visa versa, why have boundaries surely it is discriminatory to do so?

where was your quote from Fletch?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 3:54pm
freemark

For the life of me I don’t get the whole Scientology thing, especially that cool guys like Travolta (well, in his Pulp Fiction persona anyway) are card carrying adherents.
Religion has traditionally been a tool to suppress the poor, uneducated masses (like Socialism).. Cruise & co don’t seem to fit that mould.. or are they such $whores that they are on the payroll for recruitment purposes.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 3:59pm
freemark

“If there is no norm then one moves away from a man and a woman then surely nothing should be out of bounds, dogs, kids, cows, sheep, 2 guys, 2 girls, 2 guys and 1 girl and visa versa, why have boundaries surely it is discriminatory to do so?”
That’s a pretty sad reflection on your world view or life experience that you compare bestiality and kiddie sex with the latter behaviour.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 4:08pm
cha

Looks like Dad’s turned up.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 4:11pm
Fletch

where was your quote from Fletch?

Sorry, forgot citation..

http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/05/18/what-radical-gays-really-want-and-will-never-ever-have/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 4:19pm
philu

“..But there is one thing you cannot have, and it is the one thing you seek through this radical political agenda, these hysterical protests and complaints about Christians: our approval…”

i hesitate to speak for more than myself..but i am sure there are many who don’t really care about ‘approval’ from rightwing christians..or any other group…

..you ceasing yr constant preaching of prejudice against other human beings..

..human beings equal to..and with the same rights…as you..

..could however be something i (and likely some others) wd ‘seek’…

..if asked..

phillip ure whoar.co.nz
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 4:26pm
Fletch

philu, I think he meant the approval of society as a whole, be they Christian or not.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 4:29pm
cha

Yeah phil, all that fornicating and man sex and stuff is big gummints fault.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 4:34pm
freemark

Philu
“..as in earn enough working 40 hrs per wk to raise support a family/be able to buy a house/health/dental…”
Does the irony of that comment escape you?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 4:40pm
chiz

LJ:Why are you people so keen to give them a label?

If its just a label, then why are you so opposed to it?

Given I have already explained precisely what the consequences are of them having it, which is that it destroys the family unit as a social construct

You’ve asserted that gay-marriage will destroy the family unit but haven’t explained how. The closest you get is:

Now if gays get “married” then marriage becomes not about children, but about sex.

But this is silly. As Ryan and others have pointed out to you, marriage to many people today, especially those who support gay marriage, it is about love, not sex.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 4:49pm
chiz

Fletch:I think even gays consider marriage an outmoded institution

Some do, but some don’t.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 4:50pm
chiz

Michael Mckee:as it goes against biology & design and the for/pro homosexual marriage crowd won’t address that either.

Yes, this has been addressed. There is no design, and it doesn’t go against nature.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 4:52pm
freemark

I vote we offer a $5,000 incentive to people to get sterilised.
Someone else can do the numbers, the sun is over the yardarm and I’m about to pour a drink and fire up the BBQ.
Today from Waiheke I see the Whangarei Heads and all between.. awesome.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 5:04pm
Leaping Jimmy

If its just a label, then why are you so opposed to it?

Because giving it to them will destroy the family unit as a social construct, chiz. What about that, don’t you understand. Please read my 2:48 carefully before you ask me to explain how, because I already have. If there is anything in my 2:48 which you disagree with or don’t understand then happy to explain but don’t ask me to repeat what I said there.

But this is silly. As Ryan and others have pointed out to you, marriage to many people today, especially those who support gay marriage, it is about love, not sex.

I told you in my 2:48 that is a canard. The reason it’s a canard is because we are not talking about an individual marriage we are talking about marriage as a social construct. I have explained in my 2:48 what a social construct is. Please see my 2:48 and read it again, and again, and if necessary, again, before you come back with either of those points, because I have already fucking well explained them, in my 2:48. Sorry to swear, but the points you raise in your 4:49 is the precise reason I worded my 2:48 as I did, and it sort of pisses me off that you clearly didn’t read the fucking thing other than skim it, because it’s all in there. There are in fact several points my 2:48 skimmed over and I’ve been waiting for someone to raise those points, but none of them were raised by you, instead what you raise was the basic dynamics of how it all works which I explained. So please, just read it again, and please take as much time as you need to understand. Hope that helps.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 5:08pm
mikenmild

LJ
I would address your argument except, as chiz has noted, you don’t really make one apart from your assertion that gay marriage will destroy the family, so I simply commented on your feminism things as the most laughable part of your comment.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 5:11pm
Leaping Jimmy

The rate-fixing scandal has exploded into the front ranks of politics, especially in Britain, where politicians say the bankers responsible should end up in jail.

Barclays CEO Bob Diamond was forced to resign this week and told a parliamentary committee that some of his firm’s former staff could face criminal charges.

The Libor rates, compiled from estimates by large banks of how much they believe they have to pay to borrow from each other, are used to determine interest rates on trillions of dollars worth of contracts around the world.

Germany’s BaFin regulator has initiated a “special investigation” into Deutsche Bank, a process which is more severe than a routine investigation initiated by a third party, two sources said on Friday. The sources included a banker and a regulator, both of whom spoke on condition of anonymity.

In Britain, the lack of criminal prosecutions of the rate fixing has been one of the issues infuriating politicians, after e-mails were published showing bankers boasting of fiddling figures and congratulating each other with offers of champagne.

…A source close to the SFO and familiar with its Libor case file said: “A lot of people will be calling around to find lawyers…”

Oh dear.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/06/uk-banking-libor-idUKBRE86510H20120706
&
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/exclusive-barclays-insider-lifts-lid-on-banks-toxic-culture-7920809.html

OK, Mitt. Can you direct me to Kolob?
What about Xenu, Tom?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100169512/where-mormonism-meets-scientology/

apart from your assertion that gay marriage will destroy the family

mm if you don’t see the family unit has changed since the 50’s and 60’s, I can’t help you. Perhaps your problem is, you don’t want to see those changes, or perhaps you’re just too young. But I don’t think there’s a third alternative.

I explain the dynamics in my 2:48, why don’t you pick one of those, and explain why, in your opinion, it doesn’t work the way I say it does? That’s what normally happens mm.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 5:16pm
chiz

Freemark:For the life of me I don’t get the whole Scientology thing, especially that cool guys like Travolta (well, in his Pulp Fiction persona anyway) are card carrying adherents.

Stupid people taken in stupid beliefs. Cruise apparently thinks that scientology helped with a learning diasbility, and Travolta, apparently, thinks it has cured his homosexuality.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 5:22pm
Monique Watson

How are marriage and the family unit, self evident laws? De facto couples raise kids just fine. Without all the silly palaver that goes on around weddings. To me that says that “committed couples”, raise kids just fine. And there are people in Utah that say polygamists can raise children just fine. Maybe I need a wife as well as a husband 😉
As a feminist I am proud to support gay marriage. And you know, I agree open house on marriage will mean a lot of people get to explore their options.
Aint life great #1. If I divorce my husband I can choose or not to shack up with a chick.
Aint life great #2. There’a not a damn thing you dinosaurs can do if the majority of society agrees that the nature of that social construct you speak of has changed- this construct has derived only from women originally being allocated a status as a man’s chattel by a whole bunch of goit headed priests. Oh you can get all dewey eyed about weddings and baabies and the need for biological parents but their are a lot of recently introduced phenomena that suggest that the nature of having children is a lot different than in the olden days. These days we have formula, c-sections – ohhh and gay parents. Move on and find another set of threats in your jungle.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 5:27pm
wat dabney

“Because giving [gay marriage] to them will destroy the family unit as a social construct”

Well this is new information, which sheds a whole new light on the matter.

I didn’t realise that gays not only argued for gay marriage but also proposed to ban straight marriage.

I thank Jimmy for bringing this part of their agenda to my attention.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 5:29pm
chiz

LJ:Because giving it to them will destroy the family unit as a social construct, chiz. What about that, don’t you understand.

Because I don’t see how it destroys the family unit. Simply asserting that it does so isn’t the same as explaining how it does so.

Please read my 2:48 carefully before you ask me to explain how, because I already have.

I’ve read it and reread it and all I see is your usual claim to be good at spotting propoganda – a claim that is demonstrably false given your naive musings on Syria – and bizarre assertions.

If there is anything in my 2:48 which you disagree with or don’t understand then happy to explain

I have asked. All you’ve done is to repeat yourself.

The reason it’s a canard is because we are not talking about an individual marriage we are talking about marriage as a social construct. I

I’m not talking about individual marriages either. Yes there are childless marriages where the couple have married for love but that isn’t what I was talking about. Even heterosexual couples marry for love first with children only a secondary consideration. The fact is that a considerable number of people, both gay and straight, consider marriage to be about people who love each other wanting to formalise that.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 5:32pm
Leaping Jimmy

Stupid people taken in stupid beliefs. Cruise apparently thinks that scientology helped with a learning diasbility, and Travolta, apparently, thinks it has cured his homosexuality.

chiz while I agree with everything you say, you do realise around 100,000 New Zealanders who believe Hollyweird really is the actual home of Superman just found out for the very first time that Cruise is an idiot and Travolta is gay?

This will cause pitchforks and flaming torch parades at your house, I kid you not. If I were you I’d dig a deep burrow in the vege garden and possibly see if you can get an Anderson Shelter from your local Mitre10 Mega store and if it’s closed already, thanks to the govt restricting the free market, well, just kiss your bottom goodbye, because those Hollyweird people don’t let this pass by chiz, just look at Dotcom and his crimes were minor by comparison to what you just did.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 5:40pm
dime

“It’s worth repeating this message from DPF here:

Kiwiblog is a great forum, provided for us by DPF. But it’s his blog, his place, and we should behave in a way that is appropriate for being in someone else’s place. We shouldn’t shit in someone else’s nest.

Kiwiblog is good for robust debate, and challenging of othe people’s ideas. But we should respect DPF and respect the right of other’s to hold differing views and speak openly.

We are privileged to have this forum, we should contribute to making it a successful but respectful blog. It’s up to all of us.”

oh thanks for pointing that out you mr sensible wannabe douche bag.

how about we make kiwiblog a place where pete cant practice his “i want to be an MP” speak.

maybe practice changing your tone pete and stop being so condescending.

i dont know what the better name is “mr sensible wannabe” or Pete “state the obvious while trying to appease everyone” george.

try finding what personality you used to have. you have zero mana and youll never be an MP.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 5:41pm
David Garrett

dime…dime! Unduly harsh sir…was your favourite “busy” last night?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 5:50pm
dime

nah my boy just lost his title fight.

i am over the mr sensible condescending routine though. the dudes becoming unlikeable and generally says bugga all
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 6:03pm
Fletch

There is no design, and it doesn’t go against nature.

chiz, now you’re just being deliberately provocative.
Of course there is a design – just look at nature around you.
That’s how it works. There no such thing as a homosexual family unit in nature.

If you look at the homosexual unit idea logically and scientifically, the idea is laughable.
It is only the progressives who have made it acceptable through the intimidation of anyone who disagrees with them – labelling them and “intolerant”, “bigoted”, or “homophobic”. I believe that away from this liberal influence of thought control, any clear thinking person weighing up the idea on their own can see that the idea of homosexual unions is illogical.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 6:05pm
chiz

Ok, I’ve looked at nature. There is no design. It evolved. Homosexuality occurs in nature and I’ve pointed out Roselli’s research on Gay sheep to you before.

Why is it laughable? The problem I suspect is that nature is capable of being more nuanced and complex than you imagine.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 6:10pm
mikenmild

dime
I’m afraid I see Pete’s contributions as being about as useful as philu’s.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 6:12pm
freemark

Fletch
Haven’t you ever seen steers mounting each other..
Female dogs humping..
MF humans engaging in backdoor urmpy pumpy..
Look at the state of our country and where indiscriminate procreation (married or not) has got us
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 6:14pm
wat dabney

“There no such thing as a homosexual family unit in nature.”

Fletch, you should know that the little animals of the forest don’t get married either.

But really, if you are advocating nature as your model then you must be proposing base animalistic rutting followed by single motherhood.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 6:19pm
Leaping Jimmy

How are marriage and the family unit, self evident laws?

They’re natural, Monique. My whole premise on this is about what is natural (and therefore good, just and righteous) for human beings. What is natural for human beings is not what exists today. Why do you think our societies are dysfunctional? Do you think all this hatred, violence and evil we see 24/7/365 is “natural?” Sure, we see a lot of good as well, yes we do, but it’s almost as if the good we see is in spite of and not because of, our current actions.

De facto couples raise kids just fine. Without all the silly palaver that goes on around weddings. To me that says that “committed couples”, raise kids just fine. And there are people in Utah that say polygamists can raise children just fine. Maybe I need a wife as well as a husband. As a feminist I am proud to support gay marriage.

Yes they do but wedding, marriage, is about boy meets girl, falls in love, has a family and lives happily ever after. Marriage is much more about the young girls image of the handsome prince meeting the pretty princess and living happily ever after than it is about the young man meeting the girl of his dreams and the girl taming and changing him and then, blah blah blah. Because boys don’t dream of that, Monique, but girls do, don’t they. This is the essence of re-production. This is why women are such brilliant communicators. Because women transmit the culture to their children. So many biological functions are involved in the loving act of generating and producing life but just as one example the oxytosin hormone during childbirth forms a chemical bond between a woman and her child, and this requires, not optional, it requires, the woman to love that child to bits and in almost all, not all but almost all cases, the baby to bond to the mother. That’s why the most ugly babies are never seen by the mother for what they are, as a minor example.

This is what is natural. As humans, we can do things which aren’t natural. If we do, we can do them. There is sometimes a price we pay, given it’s not natural. Sometimes that price is obvious, sometimes it’s not. Normally, there is a price however whenever we depart from the natural, regardless of whether we are aware of it.

Aint life great #1. If I divorce my husband I can choose or not to shack up with a chick.

Sure. According to research, 60% of women do not find it abhorrent, to make love with another woman. However, most straight men do. I guarantee you, almost 100% of straight men will run a mile before having “relations” with another guy. I would. Can’t stand the thought. That’s psychological research, which reflects how we are made. Some people on reading on this would no doubt think, oh how tewwible, that’s so discwiminatowy, we must make all men much more amenable toward having sex with other men. And isn’t that twisted, that they can’t accept us the way we are.

Aint life great #2. There’a not a damn thing you dinosaurs can do if the majority of society agrees that the nature of that social construct you speak of has changed-

Monique, I’m not responsible for reality as it exists today, I just point out what I see. The fact the majority of society thinks “x” means nothing. The majority of society thought it was a really good idea to spend up large on personal debt all through the noughties, didn’t it. And look what happened. Wasn’t that mental, of them.

Society is manipulated all the time. Sometimes benignly as in, buy this product and sometimes malevolently as in, let’s invade Iraq because they have WMDs. This phenomena I’m referring to here Monique is precisely the same as the Iraq war, except instead of being wrapped in the flag of patriotism disguised as a totally necessary action, it’s wrapped in the flag of bleeding heart human wights, disguised as a totally necessary action.

OTY quite frankly, if you wish to destroy the family unit, just as others have destroyed Iraq. Personally, I don’t think it’s a good idea, and I’m not even a woman. I can’t understand, why a woman would. But there we are, aren’t we.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 6:19pm
freemark

.. edit fail my 6:14
I would (almost) rather see gay (high achieving, law abiding, taxpaying) couples raise kids than the current welfare dependant drug fucked majority of breeders.
But it all has so little to do with marriage.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 6:25pm
Chthoniid

@Fletch

I’ve been looking at nature a long time, and cannot see any evidence of design. The human body alone has sufficient flaws. The gap between the fallopian tube & ovary suffices to create the risk of fatal abdominal pregnancies. The appendix opening is too narrow, and this generates the risk of fatal peritonitis. We are prone to hundreds of genetic diseases, many of them grim, painful & horrific.

Homosexuality occurs amongst animals. The bonobos (one of our closest genetic relations) are famously promiscuous and use homosexual acts for a variety of purposes (bonding, rewards etc). It is not a unique behaviour to humans.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 6:27pm
Leaping Jimmy

This is where you need branches like on Whale, to make sense of the different strands.

But it all has so little to do with marriage.

It does if you look at marriage = family. The modern concept of “getting hitched” is not that, freemark. Look at what family means, as a concept, in sociology, going back thousands of years, that is what they are trying to change and what is at stake.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 6:30pm
Leaping Jimmy

I’ve been looking at nature a long time, and cannot see any evidence of design.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXIcwm1oqQw
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 6:35pm
wat dabney

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 6:38pm
Andrei

Liberals might be closely related to bonobos Chthoniid, a species confined to Central Africa and on its way to extinction.

The rest of us are something entirely different altogether totally unlike bobobos.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 6:48pm
Leaping Jimmy

Exactly wat. The reason that nerve was designed that way, to loop down and then back, is to control the giraffe’s blood pressure, for when it bends its neck to drink, if it didn’t have that nerve, it’s skull would burst, from the extremely high pressure from its heartbeat, which is under normal operation conditions, required to pump blood right up its neck to its brain.

And look how elegantly that nerve was designed. The breadth of a hair, that’s all it takes, to accomplish that vital function.

wat, you’re a fanatic. Over hundreds of posts you have made in response to me in the past I have assessed you have a point to prove and you’ll continue to try and prove it no matter what facts are thrown in your direction. You’re not interested in changing your mind, you’re interested in putting your own juvenile, superficial analysis forward, no matter what anyone says.

You’re a minor irritation, just like phil. Unless you change your approach, I’ll soon be treating you like I did phil last night, and soon won’t be responding to you, at all, in any way. That’s a warning. I know you probably don’t care, either way, I just wanted to let you know.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 6:57pm
wat dabney

“The reason that nerve was designed that way, to loop down and then back, is to control the giraffe’s blood pressure, for when it bends its neck to drink, if it didn’t have that nerve, it’s skull would burst”

You have completely failed to understand what was being demonstrated.

The nerve need only be a couple of inches long. Its start and end points are only that far apart.

The fact that it has instead ended up several feet long is because it is looped round an artery near the heart. This round-the-houses configuration serves absolutely no purpose and would never be designed that way, it is an evolutionary legacy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 7:10pm
Other_Andy

@wat

You know it is called the theory of evolution for a reason don’t you?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 7:16pm
wat dabney

It’s called a ‘scientific theory’ to distinguish it from, say, fairy tales.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 7:23pm
Pete George

That’s an irrelevant rant dime. When did I last say anything about being an MP? Nine months ago? And I’ve been getting stick here for speaking outside the square since long before the campaign.

If you don’t think there should be any sort of community responsibility here then crap on anyone as much as you can get away with, if that’s what you prefer. You might find your own mana isn’t so shit hot either.

But it’s a bit odd that you dump on me when I was trying to support what your host was doing.

mikenmild – it’s just as well your massive contribution here makes up for my uselessness.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 7:23pm
freemark

@ Leaping Jimmy
“Look at what family means, as a concept, in sociology, going back thousands of years, that is what they are trying to change and what is at stake”
Yeah, but look at family or whanau around this.. doesn’t seem to mean much, or be connected with marriage at all.
No-one commented on my post about offering $5K to people who volunteer for sterilisation, this would sort the breeders from parents.
I was once married, as was the woman with whom I subsequently spent 10 yrs and created 2 beautiful, clever little girls. We didn’t marry, and I don’t think it would have made a difference had we. We remain (despite finally finished property & custody battles) committed to our kids and their welfare & happiness.
My own example for sure, but the bonds of wedlock were no stronger than the bonds of parenthood.
In fact, the bonds of mutual sexual satisfaction and openness (whether straight, bi, group…) trump the others.. however our children’s welfare remains number 1… totally irrelevant to any relationship status.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 7:25pm
Cricklewood

@ DG 5:50, Dime ain’t harsh at all… I read a lot more than I comment. PG is a sanctimonious prick not much better than mr whoar when it comes to link whoring…. He’s the chameleon of the blog world trying to angle a position of moderation and a holier than thou attitude anywhere he’s commenting. He is a man to who will fit his ideas/comments to what he thinks the populace will applaud most loudly towards…. he’s nothing but a populist and in my mind there is nothing worse.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 7:35pm
Steve (North Shore)

Gee it is nice and quiet here today, pleasant reading except for the gay/lesbian/home bullshit.
I just scrolled through, not interested in what they do as long as they don’t make it compulsory.

This has become a catch 22, which is what DPF wanted. However, some are now scared to say anything lest they get told off.
Bit like the Prefects at High School I think. I was never bad but always fought my own battles and got pulled up many times by the crawlers and cowards. This resulted in the ‘cane’ and the sadistic little bastards watched!

So now everyone has to be good, while the prefect gloats.
Sorry DPF, your Blog. Any Dentists in the house?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 7:37pm
cha

Free Syria Army fire power.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 7:45pm
wiseowl

Good on you Cricklewood.You have summed it up well.
You should comment more often.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 7:51pm
Pete George

He is a man to who will fit his ideas/comments to what he thinks the populace will applaud most loudly towards…. he’s nothing but a populist

Cricklewood, can you show any examples of that? I’m getting attacked here today for calling for more responsible and better behaviour. That doesn’t seem to be very popular, cowards with their anonymous abuse don’t like being called on shitting in someone else’s nest.

Odd that it’s when I challenge opinion or behaviour that I get the most criticism. which makes your claim nonsensical. I’ve copped more flak here and on other blogs than most, that’s hardly from being a populist. You’ll have to dream up another attack line, try something original.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 7:51pm
krazykiwi

I’m getting attacked here today for calling for more responsible and better behaviour.

No pete. The boss has called for that. You’re hiding behind him, having carefully laden the desk with apples and well presented homework, while calling ‘bravely’ for everyone to lift their standards
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 7:56pm
Leaping Jimmy

freemark, this is about what the collective subconscious views marriage as. Note two things:
1) it’s the collective: i.e. the sum of the parts
2) it’s subconscious, not conscious.

As it’s what is set by the sum of all influences over time, by ones parents, by ones teachers, by ones peers, by the media. All of those and more. And it’s all subconscious. None of this is chosen, in other words. Sure, perhaps parents, might try to influence and they can do their bit, perhaps teachers do as well. etc. But the sum total which ends up in that childs, now adult’s mind, is the subconscious accumulation of all those influences and more.

Gay marriage is about the boundaries society sets around what’s acceptable or not. This is why gays are pushing so hard. They can’t stand the thought that society has said to them: no, you can’t trespass into family values. That’s why they hate it and that’s why they’re pushing. That’s why Civil Union isn’t enough for them. They have to push themselves into the most intimate aspects of the family, regardless of whether or not such trespass is good for said family.

In other words, they’re the ones that are trespassing, not the people who say no.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 7:58pm
Other_Andy

@PG

I’ll keep it polite Pete but you are the ‘Vicky Pollard’ of Kiwiblog, no two ways about it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 8:05pm
Steve (North Shore)

“In other words, they’re the ones that are trespassing, not the people who say no.” yes

Why do they have to tell the World about themselves and make/want special conditions? Hetrosexuals don’t.
Just do what you want to and don’t fucking push it on to the rest of us ‘normal’ humans
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 8:05pm
Nostradamus

Reid:

I have a question for you.

First, some context. There are two sides to the gay marriage debate. It seems to me that the main difference between the two sides – although each side articulates this difference in various ways – is that one side believes allowing gay marriage is the last straw and will push society over the cliff, while the other believes that it’s all a storm in a teacup. The debate is polarised, and there is no prospect of agreement anytime soon.

So my question to you is this: why bother? Surely you would agree that neither side will yield to the other in this war of words?

And on a completely unrelated point, is there any reason why you won’t call yourself Reid anymore? Leaping Jimmy seems beneath you somehow – too childish for one of Kiwiblog’s more deep-thinking contributors. Just my opinion, of course. You’re free to call yourself whatever you like.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 8:09pm
freemark

LJ, I am not arguing for, or against, gay marriage.
And with all due respect to happily married couples (and remembering that in the last 30 years the social, legal & financial imperative for marriage has all but disappeared) I merely state that as an institution it is pretty irrelevant to it’s stated aims, and the discussion about whether it should be confined to hetero couples is even more irrelevant.
The decisions made and actions taken by responsible parents (however you define that word) are far more important than the legal or gender status.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 8:12pm
dime

good to know im not the only one who has the shits with PG.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 8:12pm
Steve (North Shore)

Nostradamus,

I think the Gays are just lazy:
Put two males together in a relationship, or two females in a relationship. They can not reproduce to make more gays.

So, they want those who can reproduce to be donars, so they can be psuedo parents. What a crock of shit.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 8:17pm
Pete George

Krazy kiwi – I’m not hiding behind anyone here. I’ve spoken out about what I see as crap behaviour since I’ve been on Kiwiblog. I know it’s an unpopular stance to take – but I’ve been very open about who I am and am prepared to stand up and by what I say. What was your name again?

I’m aware that some come here because they like to have shitfights. I also know that that behaviour puts a lot of people off participating here, or speaking up about it because they would get dumped on. I saw someone telling DPF about it on Twitter a couple of days ago – a friend of his won’t participate on his blog because of those who think it’s their’s for shitting on anyone they feel like taking out their frustrations on.

I’ve often been a lone voice speaking up for some sort of respect for DPF’s blog and for reasonable standards here. Populist?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 8:27pm
Other_Andy

@Nostradamus

“You’re free to call yourself whatever you like.”

Absolutely. If they want to call themselves ‘married’ its up to them. That however doesn’t seem to be enough. They somehow want to force everbody else to call them ‘married’. This is what gets up peoples’ nose.
And something else. For years they have been shouting from the roof tops that not all people are the same, that we should ‘celebrate’ diversity. They have their own clubs, restaurants magazines, websites and even bookshops and radio stations. So on one hand they want to be different and seperate themselves and want to be treated differently while on the other hand they want to be treated the same.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 8:28pm
Monique Watson

Historical societal injustices are quite often not seen as injustices by those who would seek to continue the societal “norms”. They are quite often viewed as necessary to continue the “natural order of thing”s.
Once upon a time, slavery and the denial of the right of women to vote fell into this basket.
Is it not inconceivable that the rights of two people in any committed relationship to form a bond recognized by society might fall into this category.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 8:33pm
Viking2

mikenmild (4,883) Says:
July 8th, 2012 at 6:12 pm

dime
I’m afraid I see Pete’s contributions as being about as useful as philu’s.

Oh dear.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 8:33pm
Leaping Jimmy

So my question to you is this: why bother? Surely you would agree that neither side will yield to the other in this war of words?

Because to me, it really does matter. I’m not deluded like King Canute. It will happen. All I can do is raise consciousness. Once it happens, the whole issue disappears into the subconsciousness and is then left to the social engineers and the propagandists to manipulate as they wilt, and they will. Without check. Until our grandchildren wake up to a family unit that no longer is something they visit at Christmas because it means nothing to them, a “family” that they get on with partially, that is perhaps, the mother, one or two sisters, but no brothers and definitely, no fathers, of the multiple that are available to chose from, out of their experience of the “unit.”

Personally to me, I think this will deeply and detrimentally affect individuals in our society and naturally, they will cast around for other anchors which they see could support them since they can’t rely on mum (who’s she?) and dad (which one?) anymore.

Obviously this won’t happen for a few decades and it will take perhaps two full generations, forty years, to start deeply affecting. It will happen, since this is based on human nature, and the planners of this move, know our nature, of that you can be certain.

And on a completely unrelated point, is there any reason why you won’t call yourself Reid anymore? Leaping Jimmy seems beneath you somehow – too childish for one of Kiwiblog’s more deep-thinking contributors. Just my opinion, of course. You’re free to call yourself whatever you like.

Oddly enough I was thinking this weekend LJ is a bit passe. It had its moments but yes Nostradamus, thanks for prompting me into that change, appreciate that, very much.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 8:34pm
freemark

PG, you need to harden up if voters are ever going to trust your ability to slaughter the evil left in the house.
Or will you be spending your taxpayer salary on raising points of order to defend the speaker?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 8:35pm
Pete George

freemark, I’m not waiting until the unlikelihood of being in the house. Standing in the election was a very useful means of making contacts.

I stand up to the left now – and get co-operation from some, there’s a growing mood to improve the quality of our political discourse and to do democracy better. I’m doing, now, while a handful here try to defend their bully boy pulpit, the same old, just as they did when I first came here three years ago.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 8:44pm
Cricklewood

Pete, I.m not going to the trouble of providing links, if I wan’ted to do that I.d be at the standard. Either way your opening gambit this am was all I know best, look at me Im so resposible and fair, always trying to keep the high ground, you can be seen here moaning about the standard and vice versa. Had it occured that you are universally unpopular becuse you are a lousy at judging popular opinion. You dont need to remind peop,e to follow the rules on someones elses blog, whilst the phill dg saga was extremely tiresome dpf dealt wit it and no one needed your two cents worth. I would say thats where you are attempting to be populist, you realise most are over it what you dont realise is that people dislike you telling people how to behave on somone elses blog, save that for your own…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 8:52pm
Other_Andy

@monique

“Once upon a time, slavery and the denial of the right of women to vote fell into this basket.”

I have heard that argument ad nauseum.
But does saying it again and again make it true?
Is gay Is the New Black?

Don’t agree with all of it but he makes some good point.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/05/22/why_gay_is_not_the_new_black
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 8:55pm
Cricklewood

Apologies for the shitty grammer, postin on mobile with a shitty touch screen and it wont let me edit
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 8:56pm
Reid

Historical societal injustices are quite often not seen as injustices by those who would seek to continue the societal “norms”. They are quite often viewed as necessary to continue the “natural order of thing”s.

Once upon a time, slavery and the denial of the right of women to vote fell into this basket.

Is it not inconceivable that the rights of two people in any committed relationship to form a bond recognized by society might fall into this category.

Monique I have no doubt whatsoever that every single gay couple wishing to get married would allege that.

This doesn’t make it so.

You and others who advocate this change do so without ever acknowledging it has a cost. Do you acknowledge there is a cost, or do you think, as some do, that to deny them this “right” is the height of churlishness for which the only justification for denial is: complete and outright racism, homophobia, name your “…ism”

If you want to know what I consider to be the cost, read every post I’ve made here since 2:48 and make sure you read at least that one. Then come back and tell me why you think there is no cost, and we should just do it, because they have a right.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 8:59pm
Scott Chris

Oh I think you’re all being a little hard on old Pete. He does have his good points even if he is loyal to a fault.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 9:00pm
Pauleastbay

reid
You’re back, that LJ chap could be very strange, I believe conspiracy theorist was one of his claims to fame
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 9:01pm
Steve (North Shore)

While PEB proves the obvious at 9.01, there is no ‘princetippytoes’ commenting today.
Just trying to sort out who is who, and who is bullshiting
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 9:14pm
Nostalgia-NZ

reid,
Are you relieving yourself of personality conflicts? Good luck with that.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 9:23pm
Reid

reid: You’re back, that LJ chap could be very strange, I believe conspiracy theorist was one of his claims to fame

He was an idiot Paul. I asked him to look after things while I helped out Mitt Romney at the Planet Kolob which as everyone in Washington knows is definitely not at all like the stupid fantasy planet Xenu that those Hollywierd Scientologists believe in – duh, and it appears from reviewing the datum and applying the usual simple hatting technique which everyone knows about, that LJ went all mental. Luckily however I might be serving in Mitt’s Administration when he gets elected because I saved his life a few times, (the Kolobians really seem to hate his guts for some reason), so watch this space. But whatever happens, expect to be exposed to genuine Rhyolite 38 material with absolutely no conspiracy crap whatsoever. That would just be completely insane.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 9:26pm
Steve (North Shore)

Back to normal now Reid? that’s a good thing.
Rhyolite polishes up well in cabachons.Pink colour
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 9:30pm
calendar girl

David Garrett (2,221) at 2:10 pm.

Have just caught up with the rest of the day’s GD thread. Thanks for your comment, David. I’m pleased that I haven’t given you a mauling from which you need special protection. I enjoy the often unusual insights that you can bring to many debates.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 9:48pm
slijmbal

@PG

The irony of being attacked for being wet, moderate, middle of the road etc should not really be a worry. That type of message is irritating to some. Look on the bright side – you aren’t an apologist for Catholicism, you’re not a nut job conspiracy theorist, you’re not a real link whore with other issues and you’re not a permanent protester who would be better off in jail
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 8, 2012 11:09pm
Manolo

R.I.P. Wim Verhoeven, a good man, defender of liberty.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 6:35am
Manolo

Same old from peaceful natives: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10818306
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 6:54am
Pete George

slijmbal – I’m not worried about it, but yes, I understand that some people seem to hate moderate – usually because they’re on the extremes.

I’m a bit bemused though – there had been increasing complaints about the nature of ‘debate’ here, DPF put his foot down on ‘making unprovoked attacks’, I repeated what he said the following day as many may not have seen what had been said the night before, I suggested it was an opportunity to improve the discourse here, and some hissy fitted against that.

It seems that some want Kiwiblog to be an alley fight environment where they can be unrestricted selfish arseholes, and they don’t like getting a kick up the bum for it. I don’t apologise for speaking up against some of the crap that goes on here.

I’d guess that more recognise that things can get out of hand here and accept the worst needs to be moderated.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:06am

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Clayton Cosgrove and the Independent Fisheries Donation

Hide on MOM »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Javier Milei’s Chainsaw on Bureaucracy
Not PC
Woman of the day
Hompaddock
#climateemergency
Utopia
Do The Health Authorities Require Too Much From a GP?
No Minister
The h?koi was M?ori Party’s crowning glory – and provided plenty for Labour to think about
Point of Order
It’s National ACT NZF who are Dishonouring the Treaty + the day Moana Jackson knocked Gerry Brownlee on his bum
The Daily Blog
Open mike 22/11/2024
The Standard
Drawn
No Right Turn
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d