Is Club Physical promoting homophobia?

115 comments on “Is Club Physical promoting homophobia? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Brett Dale 1

   24 January 2010 at 1:37 pm

   It was from the world nut daily, what do you expect?
   • Lew 1.1

     24 January 2010 at 1:41 pm

     I think GP expects that businesses which want to retain a good reputation should be more discerning about what they publish, and the sources they cite and endorse. How about you, Brett? Do you expect that businesses should be able to cite and endorse whatever crankery they like without fear of customers judging them for it?

     L
     • felix 1.1.1

       24 January 2010 at 3:08 pm

       Brett doesn’t see color or sexuality.
       • BLiP 1.1.1.1

         24 January 2010 at 5:30 pm

         Yep. He’s our very own blind hermaphrodite.
2. John Kingi 2

   24 January 2010 at 1:43 pm

   I expected it NOT to be the Club Physical E-Newsletter to all their members.
   • BLiP 2.1

     24 January 2010 at 3:58 pm

     Cease your expectations.

     The owners of the club, Paul and Tina Richards, are evangelical members of the fundamental Christian Life Church. The Club Physical newsletter is regularly peppered with references to wacko individuals spouting nonsense.
     • Rex Widerstrom 2.1.1

       24 January 2010 at 5:16 pm

       What is it with evangelicals?! They seem to have this tendency to try and convert you through the back door (no pun intended) as well as being up front about it.

       Has it ever worked?! Has anyone ever said “OMG there’s a Satanic plot to turn our babies into teh gayz!!! I’m off to accept Jesus as my personal saviour quick smart!!”???

       It’s like Amway, except more pernicious.
       • BLiP 2.1.1.1

         24 January 2010 at 5:27 pm

         Heh! Yeah, they really are the worst advertisement for Christ’s example. Whenever I see them or observe their activities I often think of this Country and Western classic:

         ♪ ♫ . . . I heard the preacher say:
         “you know, yo’always have the Lord by yo’ side.”
         And I was so pleased to be informed of this
         that I ran twenny red lights in His honour
         Thank ya Jeezus, thank ya Lord . . . ♫ ♪
       • Pascal's bookie 2.1.1.2

         24 January 2010 at 5:36 pm

         “It’s like Amway, except more pernicious”

         Ha! You give Amway much undeserved credit there Rex…

         http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/business/a/procter_gamble.htm

         In 1997, Procter & Gamble filed the most recent in a series of lawsuits against Amway Corporation and several of its distributors for allegedly spreading rumors to the effect that P&G, maker of familiar household products such as Mr. Clean and Tide laundry detergent, is affiliated with the Church of Satan.

         In evidence, P&G lawyers submitted the transcript of a voicemail message in which an Amway distributor could be heard relaying what they characterized as false and malicious statements about Procter & Gamble to associates, including the allegation that the president of the company had avowed his personal allegiance to Satan on a nationally-televised TV talk show.
         • Rex Widerstrom 2.1.1.2.1

           24 January 2010 at 11:56 pm

           The scene: A dark and cobwebbed dungeon. Outside, lightening crashes.

           P & G CEO: Arise, Satan! For I have summoned thee!

           Satan: *appears* Oh, sorry *snaps his fingers and a small puff of smoke surrounds him*

           P & G CEO: You have my soul oh Mighty One, and in return I call upon your powers to help me in my evil quest!!

           Satan: (under his breath) Jesus…

           Jesus: *appears* Yes?

           Satan: Sorry, not you.

           Jesus: I really wish you wouldn’t do that, it’s annoying. *disappears*

           Satan: So yes, what is it this time? I created a wave of infant incontinence and the Pampers are selling well. What now?

           P & G CEO: Could you possiby send a plague of dandruff? It’s just that Head and Shoulders sales figures are down…

           Satan: Ah, yeah… I forgot to mention… we’re really running out of space downstairs and, uh, I have so many souls already. I mean a guy can hardly swing a cat… or a lash… or a red hot poker…

           P & G CEO: I don’t follow, Master.

           Satan: Well I had a garage sale last Saturday and, ahhh… Dick Cheney bought yours. Something about a plan for world domination through commerce?

           P & G CEO: *pales* Can’t I just burn in the eternal fires of damnation?

           Satan: Sorry… rationalisation and all that… you know how it is… *vanishes* oh, sorry *a puff of smoke appears*

           P & G CEO: Noooooooooooo….!
           • BLiP 2.1.1.2.1.1

             25 January 2010 at 1:53 am

             Ahhhh – its all beginning to make sense now. I take it you’ve seen the latest SCOTUS decision. Looks like Cheney’s plan is coming to fruition.
   • John Cox 2.2

     25 January 2010 at 10:27 pm

     Club Physical is not “peddling homophobic rubbish”!

     The Club’s magazine referred to an article which suggests that soy milk may cause homosexuality, since it contains the plant estrogen isoflavone. That is not as far-fetched as you make it out to be.

     There is scientific evidence that isoflavones cause infertility. So there are grounds for concern about the consumption of soymilk. It may not turn little boys into “fairies”, but it might make them infertile men.

     Club physical should be congratulated for drawing attention to the health effects of soymilk, and not be condemned.
3. roger nome 3

   24 January 2010 at 2:20 pm

   A friend of mine and i are busy writing a book on repressed homo-sexuality in New Zealand, and its resultant social pathologies. It’s our view that RHS is responsible for many of New Zealand’s social problems – particularly those that involve violence.

   As this is quite anew are, we would appreciate any informed input. You fan post any interesteing views, anecdotes, or quantitative analysis on my most recent bolg entry over at:

   http://rogernome.blogspot.com
   • PT 3.1

     24 January 2010 at 9:11 pm

     haha what a waste of time, nothing at your blog nome
4. Lindsey 4

   24 January 2010 at 4:38 pm

   American christofascism is everywhere. As Obama is discovering in the USA, there is no depths they will not plumb, no junk science too ridiculous to peddle, and no lie big too big to tell.
5. Michael 5

   24 January 2010 at 4:40 pm

   I as almost going to demand that you delete the post, but then I found the offending article:

   http://www.clubphysical.co.nz/images/documents/enews/club-physical-enewsletter20-01-10.pdf
   • felix 5.1

     24 January 2010 at 5:40 pm

     Exqueeze me?

     What the fuck are you on about?
   • Bill 5.2

     24 January 2010 at 5:57 pm

     Oh fuck.

     All that’s missing is the claim of a personal endorsement by Jesus…or did I simply miss that?
6. burt 6

   24 January 2010 at 5:51 pm

   “So I was intrigued by this article by Jim Rutz and would be
   interested in your thoughts.”

   How the hell is providing a link to a study making Club Physical homophobic ?

   Get a life, if you don’t agree with the article that the author of the newsletter asked for opinions about then tell the author your opinion.

   Hell if a people are so bloody insecure about their sexuality that a challenge to their own world views in an article that was linked to in a gym newsletter tips them out then they should seek counseling.
   • Lew 6.1

     24 January 2010 at 7:09 pm

     Or they could just withdraw their custom from a company whose pronouncements offend them … and encourage others to do likewise, if they agree.

     People making their own free choices as to the goods and services they consume. Capitalism at its finest.

     L
   • Zetetic 6.2

     24 January 2010 at 8:07 pm

     “if you don’t agree with the article that the author of the newsletter asked for opinions about then tell the author your opinion.”

     John was doing so by writing this post. And I was by publishing it.

     It’s called free speech, burt. When some says something bigoted, we have the right to tell everyone what they said and condmen them for it.

     See burt, efficient market hyothesis depends on all actors having complete information. Now, more people will be aware that by taking their business to Club Physical, they are paying the profits of bigots.

     I’d say switch to Les Mills. Don’t agree with everything Mills did as mayor but could say that about any of them.
   • burt 6.3

     24 January 2010 at 9:44 pm

     I have no issues with the concept that an individual didn’t like it and wished to withdraw their support for Club Physical, good on them.

     But this; It’s totally disgusting for a business like Club Physical to be peddling homophobic rubbish like this.

     They did not pedal it, they linked to it and asked for opinions….

     Must be hard being gay and being so insecure about it that when somebody links to an article that frames it in a way you are upset about it makes you loose all perspective – hell the internet must be a really frightening place for such an insecure person.
     • felix 6.3.1

       25 January 2010 at 12:06 am

       Pedal? Promote? Link to? Advertise? – I don’t see much distinction between those words applied to this particular instance – do you? If so, what and of what significance?

       Either way, John found it disgusting – do you think he should just keep that to himself?

       What are you really trying to say?

       How would it be different to say he was disgusted that they would “link to” such an article?
       • BLiP 6.3.1.1

         25 January 2010 at 1:31 am

         A pedant would use “Peddle”.
         • felix 6.3.1.1.1

           25 January 2010 at 2:41 am

           Ah so.
     • burt 6.3.2

       25 January 2010 at 12:24 am

       John found it offensive, did he take it up with Club Physical?

       I have no issue that John found it offensive, I think he has way over reacted.

       Disclaimer: I’m not involved with Club Physical in any way and I have no issues with peoples sexuality, I do understand the use of the word ‘deviant’ can be found offensive because I think the only true deviants are total abstainers.
       • felix 6.3.2.1

         25 January 2010 at 1:09 am

         “John found it offensive, did he take it up with Club Physical?”

         What if he did? What if he didn’t?

         Do you have a problem with either scenario?

         Are you saying that John should abstain from voicing his opinion in public if he didn’t confront Club Physical directly?

         If so, why?

         What is your objection to John’s act of writing an email to a blog?
       • burt 6.3.2.2

         25 January 2010 at 11:04 am

         felix

         You are trolling now, I have said I don’t have an issue that John was upset about it. I don’t have an objection to him taking offense. However I’m absolutely stunned that he is so feeble in his assertion that homosexuality isn’t deviant that his reaction to a link that has that sentiment makes he think Club Physical is attacking him directly.

         He can do what the hell he likes and I can say what I think about it – I do not need to justify it to you.

         That said; reading down thread rocky say that she thinks Club Physical management are members of destiny church – now we might be getting somewhere – but if there is a culture of homophobia in the Club then John has picked a pretty pathetic example to make his point.

         If John wants to leave the Club because the owners don’t share his own views of his sexuality then IMHO there is no need for this kind of dummy spit over a link.
         • Eddie 6.3.2.2.1

           25 January 2010 at 11:15 am

           the difference is, burt, that you are opposing people voicing their unhappiness at all.
           • burt 6.3.2.2.1.1

             25 January 2010 at 11:19 am

             Oh really, how so ?
         • felix 6.3.2.2.2

           25 January 2010 at 11:36 am

           “If John wants to leave the Club because the owners don’t share his own views of his sexuality then IMHO there is no need for this kind of dummy spit over a link.”

           As long as he keeps it to himself, eh burt?

           Also, why do you keep implying that this has something to do with John’s sexuality? As far as I can see he didn’t indicate whether he was gay or straight.
           • burt 6.3.2.2.2.1

             25 January 2010 at 11:46 am

             Gay or straight, getting all tipped out because a link had reference to homosexuality being deviant is pretty lame – that is my point.
             • felix …

               25 January 2010 at 1:39 pm

               Then why do you refer to “his sexuality” as being the source of his discontent?

               Also I find it quite amusing that throughout this thread you’ve given rather bent answers to some very straight questions.
             • burt …

               25 January 2010 at 6:15 pm

               felix

               You might be making some assumptions about my sexuality, and you might be wrong as well.
             • felix …

               25 January 2010 at 6:47 pm

               Might I? Where? I was referring to things you wrote, not things you imagined I might be thinking.

               Of course I “might” in the same sense that I “might” be wearing a big purple hat with a pineapple on top but I don’t think you can realistically infer that from what I’ve written either.

               Not that that’s ever been a barrier to you though.
7. Ministry of Justice 7

   24 January 2010 at 6:50 pm

   So, what is the politically correct view on the cause of gayness?
   • gitmo 7.1

     24 January 2010 at 7:03 pm

     It’s the previous Labour govt’s fault ?
     • Ministry of Justice 7.1.1

       24 January 2010 at 7:09 pm

       LOL
       • Zetetic 7.1.1.1

         24 January 2010 at 8:08 pm

         Careful. No homophobia on this site. You’re skating bloody close.
         • gitmo 7.1.1.1.1

           24 January 2010 at 8:39 pm

           Get a sense of humour [deleted. don’t use that language to address your hosts. Weren’t you taught any manners? Also, we’re the judges of acceptable behaviour around here and MoJ’s comments are rooted in homophobia – eddie]
           • illuminatedtiger 7.1.1.1.1.1

             24 January 2010 at 9:41 pm

             Eddie, can you ban gitmo? It seems everyday I come here there’s a handful of offensive and/or trolling comments from him.
             • Lew …

               24 January 2010 at 11:31 pm

               Isn’t gitmo just the artist formerly known as higherstandard?

               L
             • felix …

               24 January 2010 at 11:56 pm

               Lew, yep – among others.
   • felix 7.2

     24 January 2010 at 7:44 pm

     I don’t know. What’s the neanderthal view on the cause of stupidity?

     Speaking of stupidity, your blog was “just about ready to launch” about a month ago. Where is it?
   • pollywog 7.3

     25 January 2010 at 1:33 am

     freedom of choice ?
8. John Kingi 8

   24 January 2010 at 6:54 pm

   No reason is required. You are who you are. It’s simple.
9. infused 9

   24 January 2010 at 7:09 pm

   So they link to an article and ask for their thoughts? Wow… Slow news day huh?
   • Zetetic 9.1

     24 January 2010 at 8:11 pm

     Don’t be a dork infused. It’s not like they were like ‘hmmm, a homophobic article on an extreme right website I wonder what our members think about it?’. You don’t include a homophobic article in your newsletter unless you’re a homophob yourself.

     I really can’t believe you righties are trying to excuse this.

     Says a lot about you. What did one of the others used to say? ‘Scratch a rightie, get a bigot?’
10. vto 10

    24 January 2010 at 7:29 pm

    Yes well the poor old soy bean is probably none too happy either.
11. The Voice of Reason 11

    24 January 2010 at 8:48 pm

    I reckon we shouldn’t let one minor blemish in a newsletter colour our view of Club Physical. Not while their website contains gems like this:

    Sunday sight

    FishandChips

    Stopped briefly in TeAtatu at 11am last Sunday morning I noticed the number of patrons of a busy fish and chip shop. One couple, who looked less than 30 years of age were so fat they could barely walk. But while waiting, they left the shop to lean on their car parked outside. That’s where they lit up and smoked until their grease laden order was ready.

    While some people invest time in the practices of staying well, others seem to be intent on self destruction.

    The question to you today is, when they eventually turn up in hospital costing tens of thousands to patch them up, should we all have to pay? Or should the government at least develop a tax-system to reward those who exercise? YOUR opinion is welcome
    
    • Dann 11.1

      24 January 2010 at 10:41 pm

      You know what.. a tax break for exercise might be a good idea. Would promote jobs, but you can’t have it at just gyms ’cause not all of us want to go to “The Gym”. I prefer to rock climb, so how do you measure that?

      Ah, we could have a health day like the Army’s RFL (required fitness level). Twice a year!
      Don’t pass, no tax break!
      People exempt from this would be, for example:
      – farmers, ’cause they walk more than most people do anyway and live out there somewhere usually.
      – elderly (could do zimmer frame races though)
      – children could do it for fun (get them addicted to fitness you know, free cigarettes or sugar for the winners)

      The majority of the disabled should still have to do it, although this will be based on individual assesment.

      I’m in France now, and I must say that NZ people are much fatter in general than over here. It’s changing here, but there are a few years to go before the lines meet.
      • QoT 11.1.1

        24 January 2010 at 10:56 pm

        Oh good, some fat-hate. It’s a brilliant plan, too, because fit people never cost the health system money – why I simply can’t remember *ever* hearing about injuries caused or exacerbated by exercise. Except on every single Athlete’s Foot ad.
      • joshl 11.1.2

        25 January 2010 at 1:03 pm

        Aha! “Fataxation RFL” testing. I like it Dann!

        We totally agree, the gym is not for everyone. And we even encourage our own members to get out and do different varieties of physical activity. Even Paul Richards (CP CEO) swims lengths at a local non-CP aquatic centre.

        How about this; all sport and recreation focused facilities and organisations can apply to be a registered “Fataxation” operator, and paying members can then apply for the tax break offered. This could include your rock climbing facilities, dance studios, social sports clubs, and of course gyms.
        • felix 11.1.2.1

          25 January 2010 at 3:50 pm

          Brilliant josh. Because sport costs the health system nothing.

          /facepalm
      • joshl 11.1.3

        25 January 2010 at 1:23 pm

        Coincidently, there is a contrasting ‘health’ funding proposal being discussed on NewstalkZB at the moment; subsidised stomach stapling.
12. henry olongo 12

    24 January 2010 at 9:24 pm

    I’d like to invite paul 2 go on a physical macho trip with me & some of my hunky soy drinkin mates. Nothin gay of course!
13. rocky 13

    25 January 2010 at 9:31 am

    Last I heard (a few years ago now), the owners of Club Physical were members of the destiny church. Perhaps that explains their mentality!
14. burt 14

    25 January 2010 at 11:25 am

    The mere idea that eating something “makes you gay’ is complete nonsense.

    So a male consuming his female partners contraceptive pills isn’t going to have an effect on his body chemistry and therefore open the door for hormonal changes in the brain to influence his behaviour….

    I’m not saying soy makes you gay, but to deny outright that the body is a chemical factory and food contains chemicals that effect the chemistry of the body is head in the sand stuff. John can call it nonsense, but perhaps John could back up his assertion that sexuality is totally fixed and is not in any way malleable in the presence of strong hormonal incluences which some foods do have. (soy being one of them)
    • BLiP 14.1

      25 January 2010 at 12:37 pm

      So, using your logic, all one has to do is find the right combination of chemicals and – hey presto – a cure?
    • burt 14.2

      25 January 2010 at 12:44 pm

      BLiP

      No, not at all. Cure is completely the wrong word. There is no need to start that line of discussion to undermine the reality that physical traits are determined by genes and preference is an entirely different matter.

      Do you think sexuality is entirely fixed ? If so how ? How can it be fixed because if it were then the only thing that could makes it “fixed” would be genes or chemistry. Genes we cannot change, chemistry we change every single time we eat, drink, exercise etc.
    • burt 14.3

      25 January 2010 at 1:05 pm

      BLiP

      If sexuality is controlled by genes then in the anthropological sense homosexuality would be a ‘fault’ in that it works against reproduction of the species.

      I have no issue with homosexuality and I don’t think it is a ‘fault’ at all, but if it were a result of genetic wiring then there must be a cause for such a ‘fault’ in the anthropological sense. Perhaps the presence of certain food chemicals in the mothers body at the time of conception…. Perhaps she was drinking too much soy with contains high levels of estrogen like hormones….

      See the problem is BLiP, if homosexuality is fixed we have a problem because it goes against the fundermental design of having separate gender that combine genetic material for reproduction. If it is not fixed then what can effect it?

      I’m not saying there is anything wrong with homosexuality, I don’t think there is – but to say chemical effects on sexual orientation is nonsense is a big call considering the “cause of” homosexuality is something scientists cannot pin down.
      • BLiP 14.3.1

        25 January 2010 at 3:05 pm

        Explain and wriggle all you like, Burt. Your concept of a “fundamental design” makes it abundantly apparent where you get your notions from.
      • Eddie 14.3.2

        25 January 2010 at 3:08 pm

        for the love of crumbcake, burt. Stop digging.
      • burt 14.3.3

        25 January 2010 at 6:14 pm

        fundermental design – boys have dicks, chicks have vagina’s. Sperm fertalises egg. Boy gets bone when girl in heat comes near – noting christian about that – but I guess if you think it is OK for a baby to ball his eyes out when a link pops up that frightens his insecure world view then you would try and read that into ‘fundermental design’.

        A christian would say intelligent design – but I guess given the genetic or chemical reasons for behaviour is a topic you didn’t want to engage in – what else would I expect but playing the man not the ball.
        • felix 14.3.3.1

          25 January 2010 at 6:39 pm

          Boy gets bone when girl in heat comes near

          Generally doesn’t apply to gay people, burt.

          /facepalm
        • burt 14.3.3.2

          25 January 2010 at 6:57 pm

          Sorry felix, that is very lame, I was talking about the fundermental gender thing, perhaps it was over your head.

          Do you know anything about gender and sexuality – other than what you experience in your own world ?
          • felix 14.3.3.2.1

            25 January 2010 at 7:03 pm

            No, I get it burt. Homosexuality goes against the “fundamental design” which is really just a twisted way of saying “there are more straight people than gay people”.

            Carry on digging.
          • burt 14.3.3.2.2

            25 January 2010 at 7:09 pm

            No you don’t get it felix, it has nothing to do with numbers. Muppet.
            • felix 14.3.3.2.2.1

              25 January 2010 at 7:24 pm

              burt if “goes against the fundermental design” is not a reference to numbers then you’re heading into treacherous waters.

              Surely you’re not suggesting that there is no evolutionary basis for homosexuality?
            • burt 14.3.3.2.2.2

              25 January 2010 at 7:30 pm

              felix

              Boys only attracted to boys has zero chance of ensuring the survival of the species. Girls only attracted to girls has zero chance of ensuring the survival of the species.

              Fundamental reason for sex in the anthropological sense – reproduction.

              Was that simple enough for you or will I need to make it clearer for you ?

              I’ll happily explain how at the chromosome level this stuff occurs as a background for the more interesting social/behavioural aspects of sexuality – but I fear you won’t understand that I have used the word ‘anthropological’ to define more basic stuff than what turns us on rather than what perpetuates the species.
              • felix …

                25 January 2010 at 7:46 pm

                Boys only attracted to boys has zero chance of ensuring the survival of the species. Girls only attracted to girls has zero chance of ensuring the survival of the species.

                Yes burt. Then it’s fortunate that we’re not all gay. However the simple fact that some people are rather undermines your “fundamental design” theory, from an evolutionary point of view.

                (unless you think homosexuality is a devaition from the fundamental design)

                Come on burt, you’re smarter than this, surely.

                BTW I hope you know that I don’t believe you’re a homophobe.
              • burt …

                25 January 2010 at 8:15 pm

                felix

                It is not possible to pass on homosexual genes. The number of people who are homosexual is not a genetic issue. This is why i cautiously used the word ‘fault’ before.

                That’s the whole big thing point – if it is not genes, what is it?
                [honestly, I wouldn’t bother debating with this idiot. He thinks that genetic traits that result in an individual not reproducing can’t themselves be passed on in a species. The guy’s obviously an idiot, has never heard of Down’s Syndrome or the dozens of other genetic conditions that result in infertility or lowered fertility. Obviously, homosexaulity is not a negative condition like those ones but if these genes can be passed on in their regressive states causing infertility when they are dominant in an individual, the same can happen with genes increasing the likelihood that someone will be homosexual and the studies suggest that sexuality is about 50% genetic. Marty]
              • burt …

                25 January 2010 at 8:31 pm

                Marty G.

                You are classifying homosexuality with what are normally termed genetic disorders. Be careful with that.
                [I’m doing no such thing. I’m trying to get it through your head that genes that result in an individual not reproducing can themselves be passed on in a species.]
              • felix …

                25 January 2010 at 8:40 pm

                No he really isn’t, burt. This goes a bit beyond “gay genes”.

                I think I’ll take Marty’s advice and bid you goodnight.
              • burt …

                25 January 2010 at 8:42 pm

                Marty G

                I suspect you have never read something like this before;

                burt (3794) Says:
                January 11th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
                Has that guy who use to be PM ever been a Nelson MP?
                I heard his voice on the radio many times and saw pictures of his younger sister on billboards during elections what was his name, it was a girls name if I recall correctly but one look at his gay husband quickly made you aware he just liked to dress a tiny bit feminine . Henry Clark or something like that ?????
              • burt …

                25 January 2010 at 8:59 pm

                Marty G

                (I posted this before but random stuff got posted over it)

                I suspect you have never read something like this before;

                Is Homosexuality Genetic?

                You have a lot of balls though,
              • burt …

                25 January 2010 at 9:01 pm

                Marty G

                Before you start removing stuff that I posted, you should do some homework on what causes Downs syndrome.

                It is not a recessive genetic trait, I’ll let you read more and find out what it really is. Let me know if you would like some links to help you out.
              • Armchair Critic …

                25 January 2010 at 9:12 pm

                “It is not possible to pass on homosexual genes”
                FFS burt, you seem to be assuming that no homosexual has ever had children (i.e passed on their genes), and that’s just not true.
              • burt …

                25 January 2010 at 9:19 pm

                Armchair Critic

                So following on from Marty then, if it is a recessive gene then a gay man getting a gay woman pregnant will always produce gay off spring?

                Do you actually believe this to be true ?
              • felix …

                25 January 2010 at 9:22 pm

                “Do you actually believe this to be true ?”

                No-one is suggesting any such thing, burt.

                Oh fuck I came back.

                edit: Your cartoon-ish misunderstanding of genetics and evolution is cute enough but I’m really not going into this with you. Goodnight again.
              • burt …

                25 January 2010 at 9:27 pm

                felix

                There is no gay gene. Well to the best of current science knowledge as at today there is no gay gene. There are genetic factors, like there is for almost everything. But there is no gay gene.

                Why do you need to classify something nobody fully understands into terms you understand then argue you are right?
              • Armchair Critic …

                25 January 2010 at 10:04 pm

                “Do you actually believe this to be true?”
                1. It doesn’t matter what I believe on this subject.
                2. I very much doubt that the children of gay parents would always be gay. Sometimes, but not always.
                3. My point was that you said it is not possible to pass on homosexual genes, yet clearly it is possible.
                4. Keep digging.
              • felix …

                25 January 2010 at 10:23 pm

                burt,

                You are correct, there is no “gay gene”.

                The trouble with this discussion is that you don’t understand that no-one has suggested anything of the sort.

                The genetic and evolutionary issues around homosexuality do not revolve around the existence of a “gay gene”.

                And it appears you are the only one here who doesn’t understand that.

                Goodnight for serial.
              • uroskin …

                26 January 2010 at 2:24 pm

                Since when does one have to be straight to reproduce?

                Captcha: emergencys
              • burt …

                26 January 2010 at 8:33 pm

                uroskin

                Since when does one have to be straight to reproduce?

                They don’t. But if homosexuality is a recessive gene in the same way that we normally refer to recessive genes (not Down’s which has noting to do with recessive or dominant genes ) then two gay people would always produce gay off-spring.

                Like two blue eye people cannot produce a brown eye off-spring – ever. (blue eye’s being a recessive trait, brown dominant) Likewise it is possible for brown eyed people to have blue eyed children but only when they both carry a recessive blue gene. Shit this stuff is NCEA level 1, Marty should know better than to make stuff up that most kids in high school know is wrong. [yeah, it’s a level 1 understanding of genetics alright, burt. no-one’s talking about a single gay gene except you]
              • burt …

                26 January 2010 at 9:10 pm

                Just to clarify, when I said They don’t – I mean people don’t need to be straight to reproduce.

                I meant that you cannot pass on homosexual genes because there is no such thing. If there were there would be a test for homosexuality like there is a test for Down’s, like it is possible to determine from genes a whole pile of shit about a person – gayness is not able to be determined by study of the genes in an individual.
              • BLiP …

                26 January 2010 at 9:37 pm

                Still wriggling, burt?
        • BLiP 14.3.3.3

          25 January 2010 at 7:16 pm

          Do you think sexuality is entirely fixed ? If so how ? How can it be fixed because if it were then the only thing that could makes it “fixed’ would be genes or chemistry. Genes we cannot change, chemistry we change every single time we eat, drink, exercise etc.

          So, tell me, in Burtsville are the people who are only a little bit gay treated with some sort of chemical concoction which allows them to function within your fundamental design paradigm?
          • burt 14.3.3.3.1

            25 January 2010 at 7:22 pm

            No concoctions BLiP, clearly are you so unable to understand what I’m saying that you need to dodge the most simple question;

            Do you think sexuality is entirely fixed ? If so how ?
            • felix 14.3.3.3.1.1

              25 January 2010 at 7:28 pm

              Including the word “entirely” is probably creating a false dichotomy which is going to stifle any serious discussion.
            • BLiP 14.3.3.3.1.2

              25 January 2010 at 7:30 pm

              Its a continuum, burt.
15. joshl 15

    25 January 2010 at 12:42 pm

    Hi all, intriguing feedback and discussions.
    I have spoken with Paul Richards (Club Physical CEO and writer of the PHYSICAL eNewsletter) this morning, and here is what he has to say:

    I’m passionate about exercise and health and decided to feature ‘soy milk’ in last week’s newsletter. The drink is one of my favourites. Working to a tight deadline I whisked onto the internet and typed in ‘soy milk’ and this was one of the first articles I found. I thought “Boy, that’s intriguing’. And I thought it would be a challenging subject to ask for opinions on. So I asked for feedback. That’s all.

    Probably similar to yourselves as bloggers and commentators, if you spend all your time writing about things that people care nothing about, no one will read or listen to it.

    Interestingly, we raised $35,000 for Women’s Refuge, World Vision and getting child prostitutes off the streets of Cambodia last year and there was no-one calling or writing to me asking how we did it.
    Similarly, this is the fourth year we have run our FREE supervised back-to-back ten week programmes for people with cancer, and this gets very little media interest.
    Or the fact that just before Christmas we completed significantly lowering the blood pressure of two hundred people extending their lives and removing medication in many. No media called me about that either.

    So my opinion is that this attention is not warranted and disproportionate to the greater concerns society should have.
    • burt 15.1

      25 January 2010 at 12:46 pm

      So my opinion is that this attention is not warranted and disproportionate to the greater concerns society should have.

      Here here.
    • The Voice of Reason 15.2

      25 January 2010 at 2:10 pm

      Alternatively, Josh, here’s Paul Richard apologising a few minutes ago:

      “I have written this newsletter every week for over five years,” Richards says, “and there is hardly ever any feedback. I was on a tight deadline and in the back of my mind I realised it might provoke comment. I’m afraid I didn’t put enough thought into it.”

      “I’ve been in business for 29 years and I’ve made lots of mistakes along the way, this is one more, but I do try to learn from my mistakes,” says Richards.

      So, Josh, did you make up that quote in your comment or has Richards seen the light in the last two hours?
      • joshl 15.2.1

        25 January 2010 at 4:05 pm

        It is not in my job description to dream up and post quotations from my boss.

        Yes of course Mr. Richards is apologetic. When people are offended at the actions of others, then a wrong has occured, regardless of any subjectivity of the information/occurance. So accordingly, as it is clearly evident that the posting of this article has caused upset and even talk of estrangement, by rule of offence, Mr Richards has apologised specifically to those who have expressed their hurt.

        My apologies also that this was not clear from the first post, as it has been dealt with case-by-case in direct communication.

        I’d like to extend an invitation to anyone who has found alternative Soy milk/product articles of any nature and conclusions to forward them to me to be published in this weeks PHYSICAL eNewsletter. Our objective is to encourage readers to create their individual health consciousness and lifestyle, and your help and feedback is the best means of supporting that.
        • BLiP 15.2.1.1

          25 January 2010 at 7:35 pm

          Meanwhile, as “Josh” manages the public at the front desk, the “in” crowd at the back of the gym exchange winks and chuckle amongst themselves about having riled up the “pc brigade”. Sure, there’s been an apology but no one is actually sorry.
    • Eddie 15.3

      25 January 2010 at 3:12 pm

      It’s great if Club Physical does some charity work but that’s not a license to peddle homophobia.

      And I don’t see how our response has been disproportionate we’ve just said ‘look at this business, they’re peddling homophobia’ maybe people would like to bear that in mind when thinking of giving them their business,

      And, we can walk and chew gum. Posting this little post hasn’t stopped us covering the issues of the day.
      • joshl 15.3.1

        25 January 2010 at 4:20 pm

        Thanks for your comments Eddie.

        What the difference here comes down to is the interpretation of whether asking people for their thoughts on an article could be classed as;
        – “peddling” an agenda,
        – stimulating discussion

        While the interpretation is in this context subjective, the intention was objective, and was to simply stiumlate discussion.

        I hope this clears up for you the desired intent of posting the article Eddie.
        • felix 15.3.1.1

          25 January 2010 at 4:35 pm

          Give it up josh, you look ridiculous digging this hole.

          It was a dogwhistle, plain and simple. Your boss has apologised for his error of judgment. You’ve missed your chance to win any brownie points over this.

          Run along now. Don’t you have a mirror to flex yourself in front of?
    • Pascal's bookie 15.4

      25 January 2010 at 7:04 pm

      “Working to a tight deadline I whisked onto the internet and typed in ‘soy milk’ and this was one of the first articles I found.”

      By one of the first I guess you mean, “on the second page”. That’s cool though.
      There was an article on the first page headed “Is soy healthy?” It was about 3 down from the top.

      That might have been a good one to use, given your passion for exercise and health, but I guess that “Soy is making kids ‘gay’” header on the second page somehow got your juices flowing a tad more vigorously.

      Why did you choose that article rather than the earlier one?
16. Fuzzy Dunlop 16

    25 January 2010 at 2:00 pm

    It’s ‘hear hear’, you imbecile.
17. quenchino 17

    25 January 2010 at 2:11 pm

    This really is the kind of pc pettiness the liberal hand-wringing left needs to grow out of.

    It’s a small matter, of minor personal interest.. how the frack it got to be a national news leading item beggars belief.
    • BLiP 17.1

      25 January 2010 at 3:09 pm

      That someone feels its okay to propagate homophobic pseudo science is what beggars belief.
      • quenchino 17.1.1

        25 January 2010 at 3:30 pm

        True BLiP.. but heck. It’s a newsletter for a gym for heavens sake. People screw up all the time… setting the thought police dogs on muppets like this is the kind of thing that’s counterproductive.
        • BLiP 17.1.1.1

          25 January 2010 at 7:48 pm

          No. Slipping pernicious nonsense into private audience communications, however “innocently”, fosters a dangerous “group think” dynamic which, like an underground weed, pops up in other places. How many of the homophobic gym members at Club Physical have seized on this “proof” and forwarded the link? Where did the owner even get it from and why did he consider it worthy of further discussion? He may well have a healthy body but his mind needs some work.

          If the gym wants to be known as anti-gay that’s one thing but, it would appear, its stated aims are the development of “health consciousness and individual lifestyle”. If that is true then ultimately this experience will be good for the business. They should thank us.
    • Eddie 17.2

      25 January 2010 at 3:15 pm

      “how the frack it got to be a national news leading item beggars belief.”

      huh?

      The media haven’t covered this have they?

      Actually, I wouldn’t mind if they do, considering some of the minor bullsh#t they do cover. The fact that a major gym chain with, presumably, tens of thousands of members is run by bigots might well qualify as national news.
      • quenchino 17.2.1

        25 January 2010 at 3:26 pm

        The media haven’t covered this have they?

        Yes they have. NatRad have made it the 2nd item in their news all day and IIRC I spotted it on one of the big media sites yesterday.

        NatRad has just bumped it in favour of pimping Lord Monkeytunes upcoming tour of Downunder. /bad case of headinhands symdrome/.
        • Eddie 17.2.1.1

          25 January 2010 at 4:28 pm

          sweet
        • pollywog 17.2.1.2

          26 January 2010 at 10:11 am

          The fact that a major gym chain with, presumably, tens of thousands of members is run by bigots

          that’s a big call in itself Eddie. one post in a newsletter asking for thoughts on an article hardly constitutes a fact.
18. lazlo woodbine 18

    26 January 2010 at 11:44 am

    How many of you haters have actually looked at the newsletter?
    Is it painfully obvious that the maker of the newsletter had put this in as ‘food for thought’ .. even noting that he drinks soy as well.
    It appears that most people who have made comments on this page are merely here to stir up trouble, when there is no cause and there is no reason.
    All it has proven is that the gay community are as closed-minded as those they (the gay community) claim are closed-minded; ie the heterosexuals.
    Homosexuals proving stereotypes once again.
    Now what if I was to claim religious beliefs? How many of you (gays) will abuse me for ‘not being open minded’, or for believing in ‘ancient old mens tales that are not relevant today’ .. when this is my choice, just as being gay is your choice, even if I weren’t to believe it to be the right thing?
    You’re all dicks.
    • BLiP 18.1

      26 January 2010 at 12:02 pm

      I’ve looked at the newsletter and its certainly painful. What’s not obvious is why the author would send clients to wingnut.daily.com for “food for thought” when there are a heap of other websites which provide more accurate, less hate-filled information.
    • felix 18.2

      26 January 2010 at 3:17 pm

      What makes you think that anyone objecting to homophobia is gay?

      Very revealing comment, lazlo.
      • BLiP 18.2.1

        26 January 2010 at 9:33 pm

        Very revealing also is the comment that gays have “chosen” to be gay.

Links to post

1. Club Physical: posted on 25 January 2010 at 2:30 am
2. Josh Luxmoore: posted on 25 January 2010 at 2:49 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS