Big Gay Nowt

75 comments on “Big Gay Nowt ”

• Comments are now closed

1. kriswgtn 1

   4 February 2011 at 10:46 am

   Totally agree
   I remember not long ago re Blinglishes Son and his anti gay blog and Blinglish defending his sons right to do so

   Nact hates gay people and basically are a disgrace to the human race
2. Lanthanide 2

   4 February 2011 at 10:48 am

   I think Key is just exploiting the gay vote, as gay households will tend to have much more discretionary money to spend, and generally higher incomes, than heterosexual ones. So much like the vaunted gay advertising market that has ramped up in the last decade, Key’s spotted a small section of the population to which his right-wing economic policies might appeal and is marketing to them. It doesn’t matter that his might ultimately not be in their best interests in terms of social policy.

   But having said that, there really doesn’t seem like there is much discrimination left on the law books. Whether or not Key voted for civil unions is water under the bridge at this point, so he might as well exploit the social platform that Labour has set up to further his right-wing ambitions: all he has to do is stay the line on current social policy, not promising any changes but also not repealing any previous changes.
   • Xanadu 2.1

     6 February 2011 at 6:47 am

     “as gay households will tend to have much more discretionary money to spend, and generally higher incomes, than heterosexual ones.”

     M’kay. Proof of this?

     Are you taking into account the school drop out rate of gay kids, family/sometimes financial rejection, the “finding ourselves” much later on in life, expensive fertility treatments, legal fees making sure we’re covered, I could go on.. = lots of “fun” stuff comes with being gay.

     I hear this comment often, and I wonder who or what it’s based upon? .. a handful of gay/lesbian celebrities or politicians? The (false) core belief many straight people have, that LGBT live this “carefree”, single, childless, with apparently no birth family responsibilities, winebar lifestyle? … or is this the opinion of a minority of gay or straight people, who live in an ivory tower & don’t mix with all the gays who have “everyman” jobs?

     I can’t speak for gay men and their situation/s, but (politicians aside) every lesbian I know is broke. BROKE.. Even the most highly educated, qualified, artistic, practical & ambitious Dykes are living pay-day to pay-day. This is not due to living the high life or beyond our means (bar spoiling the cat/s). The reasons are complicated, maddening and require their own blog post.
3. Bill 3

   4 February 2011 at 11:06 am

   Both Labour and National exploit the gay vote. Labour goes one better and exploits the union vote too. Meaning that important facets of the left have been neutered. The union movement and the gay movement have been co-opted, reduced to the status of parliamentary pressure groups that are courted for votes they can deliver, but given as little as possible in return.
   • mickysavage 3.1

     4 February 2011 at 11:36 am

     Bii, where do I start?

     For decades Labour was the supporter of gay rights and National bitterly opposed any advancement. Do you remember homosexual law reform in the 1980s. All the major improvements for gays and lesbians happened under Labour.

     As part of its strategy for the last election National decided to be “all inclusive”. They stuffed up in 2005 when Brash announced that National stood for “normal New Zealand” which excluded gays, maori, immigrants, most women …

     They learned in 2008 and chose Smile and Wave because he would do things like go to the big gay out and do a bit of a dance. They also put ethnic candidates in winnable positions. They did this to look as much like Labour as they could and it worked. Much of the electorate is still confused and think that Key is a benign leader.

     And don’t get me started on the unions.

     History goes like this, Labour is elected and continuously takes steps to strengthen protection of workers rights and to improve wages and conditions. National is elected and continuously takes steps to weaken protection of workers rights and to lower wages and conditions.

     There is no exploitation. Exploitation suggests that nothing gets better or worse and history shows that this is definately incorrect.
     • Bill 3.1.1

       4 February 2011 at 1:01 pm

       I think you’re missing my point. It’s not argued that advances haven’t been made. My point is simply that advances have occurred…and will increasingly occur…. as a result of lobbying rather than as the result of meaningful and inclusive political action.

       What chance then for the formation of a left movement if gains are brokered by a select few in dialogue with government? Can you not see that this disempowers the left even as some (perfectly ‘managed’ and ‘safe’) gains are made?

       What happens when government reverses concessions previously ‘gifted’ by government? Where is the resistance from within the general populace going to come from? Know what I mean? eg. Reversing Annual Leave entitlements that had been fought for, or that workers had been mobilised around, would be a far more difficult proposition for a government,than is the case when the entitlements have resulted from lobbying.

       It’s fairly easy to keep a lid on demands emanating from a lobby group. Tacit understandings of what is and what is not going to be within the parameters of acceptability, should the lobby group (or the individuals constituting the bargaining component of the lobby group) wish to preserve its/their preferred status, soon mark out permissable parameters of contestability.

       There’s an old cartoon that offers a nice example of the reality of co-opted organisations. It pictures a group of workers standing outside two doors. One door is marked ‘union’ and the other ‘boss’. And the workers are wondering who they should negotiate with first.

       So union and gay lobby groups etc can wrest more concessions from a Labour led government than a National led government. But the whole process relegates the people who make up those constituences to the role of spectator, and so ultimately weakens the left.
   • kriswgtn 3.2

     4 February 2011 at 1:21 pm

     Both Labour and National exploit the gay vote.

     Actually No they dont
     If it wasnt for Labour and Fran Wilde,we would still be classed as criminals for who we choose to have sex with

     As a young gay teenager in the 80’s I remember the homophobic National party and their horrible crusade against us

     Guess you had to be there and experience the hatred

     Labour also have Rainbow Labour who work endlessly on behalf of Gay people in NZ
     Where is Nationals?
     • Bill 3.2.1

       4 February 2011 at 5:01 pm

       Wasn’t there a highly politicised gay movement during the 80’s here in NZ? Which is where exactly, these days?

       Your appeal that Labour also have Rainbow Labour who work endlessly on behalf of Gay people in NZ. merely reinforces the point that lobby groups have replaced or supplanted political activism; that large elements of the left have been co-opted and the political activism of the left correspondingly weakened.
4. rjs131 4

   4 February 2011 at 11:07 am

   If John key voted against the civil unions he may have also been voting to represent the wishes of his electorate, you know the group of people that elected him into Parliament or are you suggesting he should ignore them. Of course you dont refer to those Labour MPs that also opposed that bill.

   [lprent: Use OpenMike if you want to raise a different topic. ]
   • Lanthanide 4.1

     4 February 2011 at 11:26 am

     “Of course you dont refer to those Labour MPs that also opposed that bill.”
     Because the post is about Jonkey gaying it up at the Big Gay Out, not about Labour MPs that voted against the bill doing so.
     • Tigger 4.1.1

       4 February 2011 at 11:36 am

       Read it again rjs, or at least read the whole thing this time – I don’t think he should ignore them at all but I’m saying if you’re going to vote against what is apparently some deeply held belief in order to reprsent your voters you’d better know what your voters think. Key admitted he only had a cursory idea of what the Helensville electorate though.

       Might be a good time for someone to post on conscience voting though…it’s an interesting issue.
       • Rosy 4.1.1.1

         4 February 2011 at 8:06 pm

         Saying he voted the way his electorate thought about civil unions is just an excuse IMO. If he really thought it was an important principle to do what the electorate thought he wouldn’t have got national on board on the repeal of S59.
     • grumpy 4.1.2

       4 February 2011 at 11:36 am

       However, he seems pretty gender and orientation neutral to me when you look at his Front Bench.
       • Carol 4.1.2.1

         4 February 2011 at 11:57 am

         key and dominant front bench positions to men. Women get the more controversial ones related to social welfare, education, police etc and will probably mostly be replaced next term. And how come Wilkinson didn’t go to the Hobbit meetting with Warners’ execs, when it turned out to be related to employment law?

         I remember Key voting against civil unions and supporting an unrepentant partner-basher. Fair-weather friend. He is NOT welcome at my Big Gay Out!
         • Lanthanide 4.1.2.1.1

           4 February 2011 at 12:33 pm

           Giving the key roles to men probably has a large part with the women being featherweights (except Paula – I am making a pun, but she is the most competent and intelligent woman they’ve got in cabinet).
         • higherstandard 4.1.2.1.2

           4 February 2011 at 2:11 pm

           When’s the big straight out ?
           • Tigger 4.1.2.1.2.1

             4 February 2011 at 2:25 pm

             No one’s stopping you hs…
           • QoT 4.1.2.1.2.2

             4 February 2011 at 5:49 pm

             Every other day of the year, when hetero couples get to walk down the street hand-in-hand and not have “f#ggot!” screamed out the windows of passing cars.
   • Draco T Bastard 4.2

     4 February 2011 at 12:15 pm

     Actually, on issues such as this he should be voting on what’s right and not on what his electorate wants. Voting to ensure that everyone has the same rights would be the correct thing for him to do, anything else is BS. If his electorate didn’t want it then he should have got out there and told them why it was right for him to vote in favour.
     • TightyRighty 4.2.1

       4 February 2011 at 1:18 pm

       yes, your right for once DTB. bugger the will of the people he represents. what do they matter. he should just do what is “right”. your orwellian language and overbearing arrogance are symptomatic of why the opposition can’t even come close to challenging the most inclusive leader we have ever had.
       • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.1

         4 February 2011 at 2:02 pm

         So, you think the government should do everything that the people want even if it’s wrong and can be proven wrong rather than educate the people?
         • TightyRighty 4.2.1.1.1

           4 February 2011 at 3:07 pm

           Rather fallacious argument there. What government has ever done everything the people want? and is it education if there is no consultation and it’s force fed to you?
         • Rex Widerstrom 4.2.1.1.2

           4 February 2011 at 4:01 pm

           Sheesh I hate these debates because the progressive part of me says “do what’s right” and the democratic part of me says “follow the wishes of the people who elected you” (albeit with more foundation than “not extensive” polling) and I reckon both parts are right.

           I think DTB has arrived at the right answer to the dichotomy though – educate the people, then vote. Hopefully you’ll sway the majority, or at least take the heat out of the issue so there’s a large “don’t care either way” component, and you can vote knowing you’re not telling the majority of people who elected you to stick their opinions.

           If those efforts fail, and the majority still oppose what it is you want to do, then our system allows you to stick your neck out and vote against that majority. But if an MP has truly polled their electorate and votes according to their wishes, then I find it very hard to condemn them.
           • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.1.2.1

             4 February 2011 at 4:50 pm

             But if an MP has truly polled their electorate and votes according to their wishes, then I find it very hard to condemn them.

             So do I which is why I said to educate them. Hell, that’s why we have government ministries – so that decisions can be based upon fact and what is morally right rather than opinion. Opinion is not a viable base upon which to base decisions.

             And, yes, I’m going to get flamed for putting morals in there as well but I’ll just point you to Plato.

             The first horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is right is commanded by God because it is right)
       • The Baron 4.2.1.2

         4 February 2011 at 2:39 pm

         “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

         Though Draco, you are an arrogant and overly simplistic jerk – and your attitude shows exactly why noone will ever vote you and your frankly bizarre ideas anywhere near any sort of representative position.
         • Rex Widerstrom 4.2.1.2.1

           4 February 2011 at 4:07 pm

           Baron, what do you hope to “prove” with a quote from the 1700’s, when those elected to Parliament were likely to be the only people who had any sort of education and the peasants they represented wouldn’t have known much beyond pig husbandry. And if they wanted to know more, they’d have to wait till someone rode through town who’d been to London months earlier.

           A time when women, amongst others, couldn’t vote so the views of 51% of the populace were held to be worthless before they were even uttered. A time when the people had no effective means to communicate their wishes to their representatives and had to rely on their judgment.

           In those days it was true in a practical sense if not a philosophical one; today education and technology make it a quaint look at an outdated view of Parliamentary democracy; nothing more.
           • The Baron 4.2.1.2.1.1

             4 February 2011 at 5:15 pm

             I disagree, Rex, but I think we are talking about different philosophies about what representative government means. And I wasn’t trying to “prove” anything, apart from that it is quite an elegant quote that was wholly relevant to the debate above – and illustrates that these philosophical differences are as old as representative democracy itself.

             Have these factors changed. Education and technology arguably enable a more informed role to representation, but not one that is perfect. In other words, judgement is still required, with the ballot box as punishment for when you get it wrong.

             alternatively, those factors enable a wholly different style of democracy, yes. But that is a different debate.
       • Tigger 4.2.1.3

         4 February 2011 at 3:12 pm

         So TR, here Key voted against what he thought was ‘right’…he voted how he imagined he should – how was that inclusive? Or decent? Or sensible?

         And he’s not inclusive about gay rights – he just says he likes the gays then votes to exclude us. His ‘everyman’/inclusive stance is utter crap.
         • TightyRighty 4.2.1.3.1

           4 February 2011 at 4:40 pm

           Its not the same as voting in favour of what is wrong.

           How is having an openly gay minister being anti gay? Its more likely he doesn’t care what your sexual preference is, as long as you contribute to society.

           This is just another desperate smear. Basically calling the prime minister a homophobe beecause you don’t like his political creed. Weaker and weaker with every week. By November someone on this site will have another conspiracy about john key being under the whip of evil Aussies Crosby textor from birth as he prefers Vegemite to marmite.
           • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.3.1.1

             4 February 2011 at 4:54 pm

             Its not the same as voting in favour of what is wrong.

             Considering that he voted to exclude a minority of the population access to the same rights that the majority already enjoyed he, effectively, voted for what was wrong.
             • Tigger …

               4 February 2011 at 4:59 pm

               Who has called Key a homophobe (nice try at spin there TR)? Just called him a fraud – pretending to be gay friendly when his actions have been the opposite. I’m of the opinion that it doesn’t matter what Key does so long as his actions match his rhetoric. I’d prefer someone who would honestly and openly say ‘no gay rights’ rather than Key who trades on being inclusive but votes against gay rights.
           • Colonial Viper 4.2.1.3.1.2

             4 February 2011 at 5:19 pm

             How is having an openly gay minister being anti gay? Its more likely he doesn’t care what your sexual preference is, as long as you contribute to society.

             Wut?

             Are you talking about Finlayson? Frak tonnes of his caucus colleagues only realised he was gay very late on.

             And are you saying that being gay is only OK with Key as long as you ‘contribute’ to society? And if you don’t, what then mate? Coz you seem to suggest that if you’re not contributing to society, then Key will consider your sexual preferences a problem.
             • QoT …

               4 February 2011 at 5:50 pm

               Nah, CV, TR’s saying Key can’t be homophobic, some of his best friends are etc etc.
             • Weizguy …

               4 February 2011 at 11:58 pm

               Finlayson’s only OK because he’s a “non-practising gay.” Y’know, because sexuality is a thing you do.
               • Lanthanide …

                 5 February 2011 at 10:26 am

                 Frankly I’d count that as a mark against him – he’s either a saint, or really screwed up in the head, or deeply ashamed of himself.
5. Thomas Beagle 5

   4 February 2011 at 11:36 am

   I look forward to someone asking John Key which male rugby players he’d include on his list of hotties.
   • grumpy 5.1

     4 February 2011 at 11:38 am

     That question may well have been better put to his predecessor as PM.
     • mcflock 5.1.1

       4 February 2011 at 12:38 pm

       Damn, so yet again the MSM failed to do their job and we had a prime minister go by without discussing their turn-ons rather than, oh, actual policy?
   • Lanthanide 5.2

     4 February 2011 at 12:36 pm

     Richie McCaw and Dan Carter, obviously.

     He went for the obvious and well-known Jessica Alba/Liz Hurley/Angelina Jolie triumvirate, so surely his taste in men wouldn’t be any more nuanced or eclectic.

     As Tigger posted above, he said he’d “go gay for Brad Pitt”.

     Actually someone should ask him at the Big Gay Out if this means he does want a threesome. I’d like to see him squirm his way out of that question as being ‘inappropriate’ given that he’s the one who effectively brought the subject up.
     • Blondie 5.2.1

       4 February 2011 at 1:41 pm

       “He even joked that he’d ‘go gay’ for Brad Pitt (coupled with his recent remark about wanting to bang Angelina Jolie I’m foreseeing a steamy threesome in our PM’s future!)”

       I foresee nothing of the sort; if Brad and Angelina felt inclined towards menage a trois they’d probably find someone far hotter than John Key. Fairly certain it’d be a female too (Angie likes the ladies, doesn’t she?). Actually I’d volunteer for that spot…..
       • Deadly_NZ 5.2.1.1

         4 February 2011 at 2:54 pm

         Yeah right, compared to Brad and Angelina Key is a PAUPER and that must hurt.
6. the sprout 6

   4 February 2011 at 12:43 pm

   nice work Tigger, well put
   • Tigger 6.1

     4 February 2011 at 2:26 pm

     Thanks sprout – been around here for years and thought it was time I contributed…
7. gingercrush 7

   4 February 2011 at 12:49 pm

   The Civil Union legislation was a disgusting piece of legislation. For it maintains the status and ideal that two people in a relationship must make that relationship formal. Instead of providing legislation that gave more legal rights to de facto couples. It instead prescribes a 20th Century mentality to relationships.

   Also as a gay person I am quite comfortable with any politician that decided to vote against the Civil Union Bill whatever their reasoning was. Also I’d be quite interested to see stats that show who gay people vote for. Because I think while the left would enjoy the majority of those votes I’m not convinced it’ll be an overriding majority.
   • Lanthanide 7.1

     4 February 2011 at 12:58 pm

     There really is very little difference between De Facto couples and Married/Civil Union couples, so I’m not sure what you’re specifically objecting to here.

     I also think that while they would tend to vote left, it’s probably only a slim majority, and I’d expect it would be eroding with time – the new young gay set take all of their freedoms for granted and so vote for whoever promises them the most (with National supporting higher net-worth individuals as gay couples tend to be, that helps National), while the older generation remember the struggle and know who it was they should thank for the freedoms they now enjoy.
     • Blondie 7.1.1

       4 February 2011 at 1:45 pm

       Um, I think the difference is the formality involved in becoming a married/civil union couple, as opposed to the fluidity or flexibility of a de facto relationship.

       Love, trust, respect, and compatibility should be what keeps a couple together – not a piece of paper. Paper burns.
       • Lanthanide 7.1.1.1

         4 February 2011 at 4:10 pm

         From a legal perspective, there is little difference, is what I was saying.

         captcha: misunderstand
8. Carol 8

   4 February 2011 at 2:01 pm

   I have always thought that JK has foregrounded his heterosexual married/fatehrhood status, reinforcing the kind of “communist, barren, lesbian” helengrad discourse that the right used to undermine Clark’s government. As soon as he was made leader of the Nats, JK appeared on CloseUp with his wife in a way that foregrounded his heterosexuality. He hardly ever has included her since,a s she’s mostly kept in the background. Also indicative of the way he uses his wife as a support when it suits. JJ’s het, married, father status was also foregrounded in TV political broadcast vids during the las election.

   I don’t like the way Goff joined in the preferred hotties gossip. But at least he put his wife top of the list, and tends to talk about her as an equal partner.
   • The Baron 8.1

     4 February 2011 at 2:41 pm

     I’m sure she has her own objectives in life, Carol – rather than being paraded around like our first lady. Being in the background probably suits her quite nicely.

     Doesn’t suit your fresh consipracy theory though huh.
     • Tigger 8.1.1

       4 February 2011 at 3:02 pm

       Key is well known as being very ‘American right wing’ in his family values. He decries misbehaviour amongst his group, especially sexual antics (want a reason why Worth was dumped – there it is). So I have no doubt that the father/husband image projected is real. The ‘I want to pork Angie’ line however is bull. And the ‘going gay’ (could write a piece about that stupid line) for Brad line was equally crap. They’re just spin to sex up his image.
9. BLiP 9

   4 February 2011 at 4:08 pm

   Polling was certainly in his mind with the civil union legislation on which he voted no. He explained that it was a conscience issue and that’s how the people of his electorate would have wanted him to vote. “Personally I have no problems with Civil Unions” he said but explained “I had done some polling, I wouldn’t say it was extensive, but I did some polling in my electorate and on the basis of that polling I voted against civil unions.”

   This angle really annoys me, and I’ve seen it from Labour as well as National Ltd™ in terms of the civil union and other legislation. Not everything my MP has voted for/against has been to my approval yet when I put my tick against their name on the ballot paper, I was extending my trust in their judgement. Quite often when I express my disapproval I’m told of other factors I wasn’t aware of, or behind-the-scenes machinations and concessions, which, sorta, kinda temper my annoyance. In this instance, and in relation to some of prostitution by-laws, I’m still furious. I understand all about representing the wishes of the people and being a voice for the many – but when it comes to social justice issues if that concern had been prevalent at the time, we’d still be employing a hangman. Further, John Key, inter alia, are not just MPs, they are supposedly our leaders laying down the pathway for a better society – as such, the owe their allegiance to the future all of New Zealanders. I can understand some marginal back-bench CV-groomer pandering to the religious bigotry of his Local Electorate Committee, but those who should be leading us still using that excuse are, in my mind, cowards.
10. johnm 10

    4 February 2011 at 7:05 pm

    I like John Key!!! It’d be great to be playboying in Gay Paris with him enjoying the can can at the Moulin Rouge! Come on John give up that miserable PM Chore and let’s visit Paris together! Oh and break out the Champagne!
11. NX 11

    5 February 2011 at 2:52 am

    As the Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson probably holds the highest office ever attained by an openly gay man.

    New Zealand is fortunate the leader of the main conservative party is socially liberal. It’s former leader was a social liberal too – Don Brash expressed regret in his valedictory speech that he voted against the civil union bill. I also believe Rodney Hide is socially liberal.

    Winston Peters is a known social Conservative & I suspect so is Peter Dunne. It’s ironic they were Labour’s collation partners in the last government.

    Gay people, like all New Zealanders, who believe in small government, lower tax & more personal freedom don’t have to vote left-wing.

    And that is the real vicTory.
    • QoT 11.1

      5 February 2011 at 10:00 am

      Of course queer people don’t have to vote left-wing. They just have to be aware that John Key will simply use them like he uses every other demographic: nice to them when he wants their votes, dumped as soon as a bigger subgroup doesn’t like it.

      (And of course the mainstream left’s position on this is pretty fucked anyway what with selling the “identity politics” groups down the river because We Need To Reconnect With Real People.)
      • Tigger 11.1.1

        5 February 2011 at 10:08 am

        Exactly QoT. Log Cabin Republicans anyone?
      • NX 11.1.2

        5 February 2011 at 4:01 pm

        Sub-group? Oh, you mean New Zealanders.
        • QoT 11.1.2.1

          5 February 2011 at 4:07 pm

          Jesus, NX, next time just say “I hate gay people” up front and don’t waste everyone’s time pretending to be constructive.
          • NX 11.1.2.1.1

            5 February 2011 at 4:30 pm

            Your comment says more about you than it does me.
            • QoT 11.1.2.1.1.1

              5 February 2011 at 4:58 pm

              It’s been a while since I played this game, is my line “I know you are but what am I?”?
              • NX …

                5 February 2011 at 8:54 pm

                QoT – Your comment above was so unbelievably unfair & a personal attack of the highest order.

                lprent – I suggest you remove the comment, I don’t think it’s helpful to anyone.

                [lprent: Outside my guidelines – see the policy about robust discussion. I terminate comments that are judged to be pointless abuse. I usually don’t intervene when people are just feeling insulted because I’d be here all day*.

                Her point had a point whether you agree or not. Up to you or others to refute it.

                * and anyway I would have to moderate myself because I’m not above putting the boot in when I’m not moderating for instance this morning. ]
                • QoT …

                  5 February 2011 at 9:06 pm

                  Oh, I’m sorry, NX. Was I meant to give you the benefit of the doubt after you literally said “Sub-group? Oh, you mean New Zealanders.” and thus explicitly ruled “gay people” out of the category “New Zealander”?

                  ‘Cause that seems pretty darn homophobic to me.
                  • Tigger …

                    5 February 2011 at 10:05 pm

                    NX – bottom line is your comments are nothing than a scattershot selection that totally miss the point. No good in voting for small government if that government continues to deny you basic human rights. Personally I wouldn’t call you a homophobe but it’s clear you’ve drunk the Kool Aid.
                  • NX …

                    6 February 2011 at 5:44 pm

                    and thus explicitly ruled “gay people” out of the category “New Zealander”?

                    ^ you are right, that would be pretty darn homophobic.

                    At first I couldn’t work out how you extracted that from my comment.

                    You thought I was referring to ‘New Zealanders’ as the “bigger subgroup” that J Key would favour over Gay people.

                    Your interpretation is way off the mark. I was confused by your use of the term ‘subgroup’ to begin with. By saying “a bigger subgroup”, you implied that gay people were also a subgroup.

                    So to reword my comment:

                    Subgroup WTF is that??? We are all New Zealanders.

                    We all eat, sleep, and pay taxes. Pigeonholing people into subgroups is bad practice in my opinion & results in bad policy.

                    And also, even if you were to use the term, New Zealanders aren’t a ‘subgroup’. We are the group!!

                    lprent – grudgingly I agree. Sorry for dragging you in.
                    • QoT …

                      6 February 2011 at 5:46 pm

                      Pigeonholing people into subgroups is bad practice in my opinion & results in bad policy.

                      That’s all well and good but on a post discussing specifically how John Key targets specific demographics when it’s convenient for his image it’s pretty irrelevant.
                    • QoT …

                      6 February 2011 at 5:48 pm

                      Also, in terms of my mention of “another subgroup”, have you never witnessed the hypocrisy of a politician going to the Big Gay Out or similar event one year and then decrying the breakdown of “traditional family values” as soon as a fundamentalist Christian group throw a conference? Because that shit happens a lot
                    • NX …

                      6 February 2011 at 6:39 pm

                      I think it’s good Key is willing to go to the Big Gay Out. Brash went as well. I don’t think English has been – not really his cup of tea I suspect.

                      With regards to your second comment – that’s politicians for you.
                      I’m interested to see what line Goff takes on family values. The Pacific community tends to vote Labour & ‘family values’ is their thing.

                      I don’t even know what ‘family values’ actually means.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      6 February 2011 at 8:00 pm

                      ‘Family values’ is what US politicians harp on about as a distraction from anything meaningful when the economic and social conditions faced by the working poor continue to deteriorate.
                • Tigger …

                  6 February 2011 at 7:52 pm

                  NX, ‘willing’ to go to the BGO? See comment in main post about how grateful I\’m expected to be that he would lower himself to be seen with me.

                  ‘Cup of tea\? It\’s not a damn sex orgy – it’s a family picnic! Full of couples, parents, kids – so Blinglish isn\’t into that kind of stuff?

                  I know I’m just firing off side shots during this little squirmish you’re having with QoT but hell mate, you clearly know nothing about gay politics.
                  • NX …

                    6 February 2011 at 8:21 pm

                    Is gay politics different from regular politics?

                    And yes, Blinglish should go.

                    I don’t think John Key thinks he is lowering himself by attending the BGO – not what he’s about. That’s your interpretation.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 3 February 2011 at 9:26 pm
2. mjwkiwi: posted on 3 February 2011 at 10:36 pm
3. Queer News Aotearoa: posted on 4 February 2011 at 12:04 am
4. Askmeanything.biz: posted on 4 February 2011 at 2:12 am
5. Realmenwork: posted on 4 February 2011 at 2:12 am
6. Big Gay Nowt « The Standard | MyGaySpot: posted on 4 February 2011 at 2:38 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS