Written By: - Date published: 5:47 pm, September 22nd, 2008 - 80 comments
Categories: Social issues -
Tags: bigotry, civil unions, gay rights, grant robertson, stephen franks, wellington central
National’s candidate 
for Wellington Central, Stephen Franks, is having a wee cry on his blog today over Agenda’s decision to air that embarrassing Youtube clip where he complains about “grumpy Christians and whining gays” and compares civil unions to marrying your dog.
Apparently he’s been “cited out of context” by “the militant gay media” and his Labour opponent Grant Robertson, a man who “makes a feature of being a gay activist” and “mentions it at every opportunity.”
Franks’ only crime, he’d have you believe, is that he tells it like it is. “In a PC world”, he laments, “PC opponents gain weapons from such plain speaking.”
Now Franksie’s been playing this shtick for a while and it’s starting to wear thin. ‘I’m a classical liberal,’ the excuse goes, ‘I just happen to vote against gay rights for highly principled reasons that nobody else understands, and I’m constantly getting misquoted saying bad things about gays because I’m a plain speaker.’
Problem is, you can only run that line for so long before people start to recognise a pattern of bigoted behaviour as the behaviour of a bigot.
See Stephen, Liberals don’t compare civil unions to marrying your dog, even in jest. They don’t describe the gay community as “riddled with pathologies“. And they certainly don’t try to amend the Human Rights Act to make it legal for landlords, employers and taxi drivers to discriminate against homosexuals.
There’s no “militant gay” agenda out to get you Stephen. They’re just responding to your attacks on their community, and your going on like this does make you look rather silly. Is it really so hard to admit that you’re just not that fond of the gays?
[Hat tip: Russell Brown]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Those two responses seem incompatible to me.
Why?
I don’t know either, so won’t hazard a guess.
You don’t have to. The question was whether where such an outcome was considered likely, should the parents be informed.
Pb,
Beating a teenage girl yet wanting her to choose to have the child rather than abort it seems incompatible to me. Violence begets violence.
And don’t try the “anti-abortion folks want to be allowed to beat their children” line. First of all, smacking a three-year-old is different from beating a 14-year-old girl. Not to mention the fact the people who opposed the repeal of section 59 don’t beat their children.
Parents who truly beat their children usually can’t even count to 59.
Scribe,
Best line so far this week IMHO
Don’t put words in my mouth Scribe. It’s got nothing to do with s59. Stop avoiding the question.
I don’t care if it seems incompatible to you. People do things all the time that are incompatible with their asserted convictions. Pro lifers sometimes get abortions, and people who believe that God is merciful and just fly planes into buildings.
I know you don’t understand why they do these things, but they do. They are people Scribe, and that’s people for you.
But never mind that, really never mind it, just address this:
“And “Mum will be mad’ is not adequate reason.’
How about, “Mum and dad will be real mad, girl might well get a beating, be removed from school and forced to carry the pregnancy against her will’
I’ll even drop the beating bit seeing it’s confusing you so much. Would that be adequate reason to not inform / seek parental consent?
And cut the ‘wanting her to choose’ framing. The question is about not allowing her to choose. This may be done via beatings, sending her away to an ‘aunties’ place for a while, threatening her with hell and damnation, disowning her etc and so on. All the while pileing on the guilt and blame and throwing around muderer talk.
Don’t try and pretend that this sort of thing would never happen when strict prolifers are trying to prevent a ‘murder’ in their family Scribe.
Pb,
I’m not trying to avoid the question — honest.
I think parents are entitled to make decisions for daughters aged 15 or younger, especially decisions with major implications like abortion. This isn’t like picking an outfit for school.
Sorry, I just don’t believe 11-, 12-, 13-, 14- and 15-year-old girls are able to make a decision like this by themselves. Maybe there can be provisions for trusted adults (family friends etc) to be consulted rather than the parents, but as more and more studies point to the ongoing implication of abortion, to allow someone so young to make the decision themselves seems irresponsible.
Anita,
Glad you liked it
Not sure if it’s an original line. I don’t recall ever hearing it and I’d never thought of it before. Just came to me.
Thanks Scribe.
I apologise if it seems like I’m trying to play gotcha, I’m just trying to work out where you stand, policy wise.
I think parents are entitled to make decisions for daughters aged 15 or younger, especially decisions with major implications like abortion.
Crystal clear.
Pb,
Now that I’ve “finished my homework”, do you think there are any decisions a 13-year-old girl should have to run past her parents?
At what age do children free themselves from the shackles of their parents and become free to do whatever they like?
“Sorry, I just don’t believe 11-, 12-, 13-, 14- and 15-year-old girls are able to make a decision like this by themselves.”
Personally I think your underestimating them.
And yes beating your pregnant daughter then forcing her to keep the baby go hand in hand. They are both ways for an unstable parent to release anger and punish their daughter. Any harm or defect caused to the baby is a punishment from god for the mothers sinning.
Of course there are Scribe. But I’m not an absolutist about things. I think the present system is about right.
I think abrtion has it’s own problems. It’s a special case. Many parents will be bringing all sorts of crazy baggage to the situation. Like you say, it’s not like getting a tooth filled. The consequences, no matter the decision, are large, and at the end of the day are the result of the young womans choices. (assuming consensual sex)
I don’t think that parents should be allowed to force a girl to carry a pregnancy she does not want, or to abort one against her will.
This is a totally dishonest portrayal of an equally dishonest YouTube clip.
The real story is here: Fisking Grant Robertson.