Franks: “grumpy Christians and whining gays”

58 comments on “Franks: “grumpy Christians and whining gays” ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tara 1

   29 August 2008 at 3:37 pm

   “It might just be best to let Stephen Franks speak for himself ”

   Very wise ..
2. Scribe 2

   29 August 2008 at 3:53 pm

   a_y_b,

   If you happen to know, what was this gathering?

   It seems like an audience hostile to Franks, yet he said things that were going to be grossly unpopular. If nothing else, Franks has got cajones.

   If it was a Labour gathering or a GLBT meeting, he’s a gutsy character. Looking from the other side of the coin, would an outspoken gay rights activist go into a Destiny church and call them all intolerant bigots?

   I also think it’s disingenuous to show John Key with the quote superimposed over him. Would you think it OK for National to do the same to Helen Clark for quotes from people way down their party list?

   captcha: Govern unfit
3. Dom 3

   29 August 2008 at 3:58 pm

   With all that diversity talk National made recently note that they didn’t trumpet their gay candidate Chris Findlayson…who would have made a far better candidate in Wellington Central than Franks.
4. Dom 4

   29 August 2008 at 4:04 pm

   No Scribe, most gay rights activists would choose their battles a bit more sensibly. So while Franks might have cajones (and yes, let’s cheer the bravery it takes to be intolerant!) he doesn’t have common sense.
5. deemac 5

   29 August 2008 at 4:13 pm

   for the record, it’s spelled cojones but in any case, I don’t think they’re what NZ politics is lacking at present. There’s no shortage of opinionated bigots, either; I’d say that as a group they are over-represented in parliament.
6. Scribe 6

   29 August 2008 at 4:15 pm

   Well, at least he’s equal opportunity intolerant. He dislikes the Christians and the gays.
7. all_your_base 7

   29 August 2008 at 4:18 pm

   I’m just guessing – think it may have been the “meet the Wellington Central candidates meeting” hosted at someone’s flat:

   http://3news.co.nz/Political/Story/tabid/419/articleID/66365/Default.aspx
8. monkey-boy 8

   29 August 2008 at 4:40 pm

   Is he not allowed to have a view on civil unions then?
9. Scribe 9

   29 August 2008 at 4:45 pm

   He is allowed to have a view, but only if it’s compatible with that of a_y_b and his/her mates in a Wellington central flat…
10. Rocket Boy 10

    29 August 2008 at 4:53 pm

    Monkey-Boy ‘Is he not allowed to have a view on civil unions then?’

    Sure he is, and people are also allowed not to vote for him.

    He’s a great ad for the National Party, old fashioned, narrow minded and best of all not scared to say what he thinks, unless that is he was getting ‘too excited’ or ‘mis-spoke’.
11. Scribe 11

    29 August 2008 at 5:00 pm

    Rocket,

    He’s #60 on the party list. Maybe we can peruse the Internet for interesting quotes from #60 on Labour’s list when it’s announced (assuming they even bother listing that many)
12. Monty 12

    29 August 2008 at 5:03 pm

    An excellent guy – he is extremely well regarded and will make an excellent MP when he wins Wellington Central on 18 October 2008. Of course we don’t know the context (but that never matters to you guys – I go to church with a few grumpy Catholics – I am pround to be one myself – and of course we are grumpy we have had to put up with Labour and their corrupt poodle for niin long years. (only a few more weeks to go.

    On the other hand – well gays may whine – but i suggest that it is because their dear leader is about to be evicted from office – so when broken down (no doubt right out of context- I think Stephen Franks is right on the money
13. Dom 13

    29 August 2008 at 5:06 pm

    Of course he can have opinions! We all can. My opinion is that Stephen Franks should be banned from procreating in the interests of not raising intolerant children. And because he’s creepy looking.
14. Felix 14

    29 August 2008 at 5:54 pm

    Scribe why don’t you do that for all of Labour’s #60 list candidates ever and get back to us. Sounds like a fascinating research project and I’m quite sure you’ll make an excellent job of it.
15. ropata 15

    29 August 2008 at 6:29 pm

    A victory for straight atheists everywhere! Maybe Franks should insult MORE groups of people and thus grow his constituency??!
16. Oliver 16

    29 August 2008 at 6:30 pm

    just a quick translation for those using Spanish words:

    cojones – balls
    cajones – draws
17. Anita 17

    30 August 2008 at 7:41 am

    Scribe,

    Are you aware that Key voted against the Civil Unions Bill?

    Why shouldn’t he be associated with National Party anti Civil Union rhetoric?
18. higherstandard 18

    30 August 2008 at 7:46 am

    Anita

    From the Sydney Herald ….

    “Clark appointed Peters foreign minister in 2005 in return for support of her Labour Party minority government.

    The pressure to suspend him comes at a bad time for Clark’s government, which needs the support of New Zealand First for legislation it wants to pass before voters go to the polls.

    Peters has been a controversial figure in the government for his outspoken attacks on Asian immigration before becoming foreign minister and for his confrontational style with the media.”

    Are you aware the Helen Clark supports Winston Peters ?

    Why shouldn’t she be associated with his outspoken attacks on Asian immigration ?
19. Felix 19

    30 August 2008 at 8:12 am

    hs it’s time you came up with a new handle. higherstandard is just not appropriate when you’re commenting at the level of burt and scribe.
20. Anita 20

    30 August 2008 at 9:42 am

    hs,

    huh?

    I pointed out that, like Franks, Key voted against the Civil Unions Bill. Key leads the party for which Franks is a candidate and has not criticised Franks attitude toward homosexuality and civil unions.

    Any chance of an example which bears some similarities to my point?

    But, to be clear, if Clark and a Labour MP voted the same way on a conscience vote – yes I think it is reasonable to associate her with what that MP says unless she has overtly distanced herself from it.
21. highrerstandard 21

    30 August 2008 at 11:20 am

    Sorry Anita my point may have been lost on you.

    I was suggesting that you were drawing along bow to suggest that Key shares Franks attitudes towards homosexuality and civil unions.

    I wouldn’t expect he even knows what Franks attitudes are nor really do we from this video – it would be analagous to taking video of Cullen’s Rich Prick outburst in the house and concluding that he detests anyone with money.
22. Anita 22

    30 August 2008 at 11:24 am

    hs,

    We know that Key voted against Civil Unions, his attitude seems pretty clear.

    I’m not saying we should attribute Franks’ comments to Key. I am saying that Key is associated with those comments.
23. highrerstandard 23

    30 August 2008 at 11:33 am

    Fair enough Anita I’ll accept that, I was taking a more strict version of association.

    ….. like the Prime Minster being associated with WP lying to the public and parliament. 🙂
24. highrerstandard 24

    30 August 2008 at 11:35 am

    highrestandard – my typing is getting worse 🙁

    Doh
25. Anita 25

    30 August 2008 at 11:43 am

    hs,

    It’s a bad day when you can’t type your own name 🙂

    Atina
26. lprent 26

    30 August 2008 at 12:38 pm

    hs:

    Are you aware the Helen Clark supports Winston Peters ?
    Why shouldn’t she be associated with his outspoken attacks on Asian immigration ?

    No – as a minority party, NZF supports NZLP rather than the other way around. She does support him in the matters associated with his portfolio.

    No – if you look at the details of the coalition agreement from 2005 (I’m short of time so haven’t looked up the link). NZF and Peters have freedom to speak on matters outside of his portfolio area(s) without being constrained by cabinet collective responsibility. That was put in to allow Winston to talk about matters like immigration without having Labour associated with them (or vice versa).

    Boy some people (like JK) are desperate to try to associate HC with WP – such a pity that these inconvenient facts get in the way.
27. higherstandard 27

    30 August 2008 at 12:55 pm

    Lynn

    Perhaps you should read back through my discussion with Anita.
28. Pascal's bookie 28

    30 August 2008 at 1:38 pm

    So this would be an example of Franks’ alleged top notch thinking skillz then?

    From what he says in the clip, one of his objections to the CUB was that it was somehow analogous to allowing him to marry his dog. Or that if the bill passed then there could be no objection to his doing so. ok.

    Perhaps Scribe or Monty or HS could save the conservative side of the debate from epic embarrassment and point out what is missing from Fwanksie’s widdle analysis.
29. higherstandard 29

    30 August 2008 at 1:42 pm

    Perhaps a direct question of why he opposes the Civil Union legislation and what are his views on homosexuality ?

    Why don’t you ask him at his blog ?
30. Anita 30

    30 August 2008 at 1:46 pm

    hs,

    Oooh – if you’re going to do that you could also ask him why he tried to change the Human Rights Act to explicitly make discrimination against homosexuals legal!
31. Pascal's bookie 31

    30 August 2008 at 1:55 pm

    Why don’t you ask him at his blog ?

    Because I was asking you HS. Do you know what the great big problem is with his argument?

    I don’t really give a shit what Franks would say. He made that argument, either as a pander to fundies or because he thinks it is a good argument. In either case, that tells me all I need to know about Mr Franks. No further information from him is required as far as I’m concerned.

    I am interested in how widespread his misunderstandings are, so that’s why I asked some conservatives that hang around here.

    Can you help me out, or would you just like me to to tell you what is so obviously retarded about Mr Franks stupid argument? But surely you know why bestiality is not comparable to homosexuality?
32. burt 32

    30 August 2008 at 2:48 pm

    I think the whole debate about sexuality is a subject that has no place in politics. Dividing society on “they are not tolerant to my views on sexuality” or “I’m not tolerant to their views on sexuality” on highly emotive issues is the lowest form of political manipulation.

    If you really want to root out the true sexual weirdos then remember (in the context of consenting adults) the only true deviancy is abstinence.
33. Anita 33

    30 August 2008 at 3:02 pm

    burt,

    The problem is that parliament passes legislation which controls how we express out sexuality. When politicians are looking to legislate our private lives their attitudes become really significant.
34. Kevyn miller 34

    30 August 2008 at 3:39 pm

    Burt, Did you mean “If you really want to root out the true sexual weirdos then remember (in the context of consenting adults) the only true deviancy is enforced abstinence.”?

    ie priests, prisons, children of christians/moslems doing it because it is expected of them rather than a commitment they have have made on their own volition?
35. Matthew Pilott 35

    30 August 2008 at 4:05 pm

    Hey monty – I would almost consider betting a grand on Franks not winning in central. I reckon TAB would put at higher odds than Samoa 13+ NZ this wednesday.

    And thank god for that.
36. burt 36

    30 August 2008 at 4:32 pm

    Anita

    The problem is that parliament passes legislation which controls how we express out sexuality.

    Well they shouldn’t. It’s as simple as that. The likes of the civil union bill is a start and adding in rights for Polyamory although contentious is something that should never have been excluded in the first place. When the state seeks to control how we form intimate/loving/parenting relationships with other adults it has gone to far.

    When politicians are looking to legislate our private lives their attitudes become really significant.

    Indeed, we do need to know that these people have a social engineering or control agenda beyond law and order.

    Kevyn Miller

    ie priests, prisons, children of christians/moslems doing it because it is expected of them rather than a commitment they have have made on their own volition?

    Well yes and no… I agree that doing it because it’s required is a bit weird, what sort of religion would seek to suppress one of human natures most basic desires? A bit like govts I suppose the answer to that is one that wants to control how people live their lives for their own agenda.

    However I personally think that the concept of voluntary abstinence is pretty weird. I can easily understand how people don’t want the complications of relationships and the expectations such as monogamy that may come with them – but total abstention is something I can’t understand. That’s not to say it’s wrong – but imagine if I were a control freak politician and I legislated that people must have sex at least once every 6 months because I don’t understand abstinence. As weird as that sounds it is actually no more over the top than people saying a civil union must only be between two adults.
37. toad 37

    30 August 2008 at 8:42 pm

    burt said: I can easily understand how people don’t want the complications of relationships and the expectations such as monogamy that may come with them – but total abstention is something I can’t understand.

    Ever heard of masturbation burt? Many people choose to masturbate for their sexual satisfaction rather than have a sequence of emotionally meaningless sexual liaisons (or one long-term emotionally meaningless one for that matter).
38. dad4justice 38

    30 August 2008 at 8:48 pm

    Bugger me peter how appropriate a Toad is the master of wanking. Talk about lickspittles.
39. burt 39

    30 August 2008 at 9:08 pm

    toad

    I wouldn’t count a person who isn’t actively in meaningless relationships but masturbates as being a person who is abstaining from sex. They are clearly abstaining from relationships but not from sex.

    Various religions might seek to make a person in this situation feel guilty of being ‘immoral’ or ‘wrong’ but I wouldn’t pass such judgment. If you are describing yourself or a friend of yours then good on you – knock yourself out. 🙂
40. burt 40

    30 August 2008 at 9:10 pm

    D4J

    I’ll issue you a challenge. Only post again in this thread if you have never masturbated.
41. toad 41

    30 August 2008 at 9:37 pm

    Good points burt.

    d4j, the challenge is open on frogblog too, for that matter.
42. lprent 42

    30 August 2008 at 9:51 pm

    People, I know that the topic leads to it a bit. But I’ll start using a sock (with a brick in it) here shortly if the abuse level rises further.

    I might add that this is the sock I’ve had on while traipsing around a hill farm today. It is also the sock that made my girlfriend start talking about deal-breakers when she accidentally leaned over it after I’d pulled the disgustingly muddy and smelling thing off.

    Hell I’m afraid of this sock – where are the tweezers and the washing machine. Let me tell you that it was a bit wet and cold on the hills north of Auckland today. Damn the forecasters – they promised scattered showers.

    Oh well the sock is less dirty than the original topic of this thread.
43. dad4justice 43

    30 August 2008 at 9:55 pm

    Yes Lynn socks can get rather high when they’re in jackboots all day 🙂
44. lprent 44

    30 August 2008 at 10:03 pm

    Running shoes – was not the right choice today.

    I’d have taken the tramping boots if the forecast had been for “bloody freezing rain coming down continuously and sideways due to a stiff wind”. But it was for scattered showers, which means to me that most of the time it will not be what I accurately described it as.

    BTW: The current fashion for women appears to be for high boots. But personally I wouldn’t suggest wearing those out of slippery wet paddocks either. However using them on other slippery things, preferably with extremely sharp toes to pin down a straight policy answer…

    An image to consider.
45. appleboy 45

    31 August 2008 at 10:52 am

    what an advert for National – let me see…jumped ship from ACT and now trying to reinvent himself ..drives around Wellington in a mustard 60’s retro VW!!! How very national…still, he can’t hide (get it) the narrow minded intolerent right wing ideology no matter the change in wheels.
46. Scribe 46

    31 August 2008 at 12:51 pm

    Anita,

    Are you aware that Key voted against the Civil Unions Bill?

    Why shouldn’t he be associated with National Party anti Civil Union rhetoric?

    Voting against the Civil Unions bill doesn’t mean you think homosexuals are “whining gays”. To tie those comments to Key seems to be a long stretch.
47. Anita 47

    31 August 2008 at 1:04 pm

    Scribe,

    Has Key done anything to dissociate himself from Franks comments?
48. Scribe 48

    1 September 2008 at 9:43 pm

    Anita,

    He probably has no idea the comments were even made.
49. Pascal's bookie 49

    1 September 2008 at 10:10 pm

    Scribe, Franks was making those same arguments back when the bill was passed.

    How about you, what do you think of Franks argument that allowing Civil Unions means we should let him marry his dog in order to be consistent?

    Personally I think it’s a retarded argument that completely misses the point.

    I also think that Franks knows this and is just cynically pandering to Christian conservatives. If I was a Christian conservative that would piss me right off, because it would mean he thinks I am the type to be convinced by retarded arguments.

    How about you, do you find the argument to be retarded or do you think it makes sense, relationship wise?
50. toad 50

    2 September 2008 at 8:01 am

    I think this post of mine on g.blog just about sums up where he’s coming from.

    I posted it as a bit of a dig at the Family Party, but it probably also applies to a few Nats.
51. Scribe 51

    2 September 2008 at 8:43 am

    Pb,

    Franks’ argument is silly, in fact so silly it’s strange that intelligent people like you are taking it seriously and asking questions like this.

    I think Franks genuinely believes, as I did, that allowing civil unions had the potential to open up a can of worms on the recognition of relationships in the future. Hence the concern some people had when Dyson talked — or didn’t talk — about singles, couples and triples.

    I would consider myself a Christian conservative — most here would call me a ragin’ fundamentalist — and the comments don’t “piss me right off”. Again, most people realise his comments were taking legitimate concerns to an intentionally ridiculous conclusion.
52. Pascal's bookie 52

    2 September 2008 at 9:56 am

    But I don’t take his slippery slope argument seriously scribe. That’s why I called it retarded a few times, and suggested that Franks wasn’t being serious himself in making it.

    What legitimate concerns? Box turtles? Kitchen chairs perhaps? The point is about consent scribe. A dog can’t get married. Nor can a child or a box turtle or a kitchen chair. None of these can give informed consent to the relationship, and that’s why such fears are under no threat from Civil Unions. That is what makes Franks argument retarded, and it is why his reductio misses the point.

    I think I understand that you are a big fan of social engineering, (that you think the govt should restrict how adults should are able to arrange their affairs for the betterment of society), but Franks’ argument isn’t just silly, it misses the point entirely.
53. Scribe 53

    2 September 2008 at 10:11 am

    Pb,

    I think I understand that you are a big fan of personal freedom. So three or five or 13 consenting adults should be allowed to engage in polygamy?
54. Steve Pierson 54

    2 September 2008 at 10:18 am

    scribe. when you say ‘engage in polgamy’ do you mean have a multi-member relationship or have that relationship legally rrecognised? by using ‘engage in’ I assume you mean the former, and that is already legal. There is no legal restriction on the arrangement of relationships or the number of people participating in one – however, legal recognition is limited to couples.
55. Pascal's bookie 55

    2 September 2008 at 10:18 am

    They already do scribe. Especially if you take a ‘traditional’ view of marriage. Serial monogamy is just another form of adultery in your view, no?

    Do you think we should use the law to actively try to stop them, pretend they don’t exist but make life difficult for them, or recognise them?
56. Scribe 56

    2 September 2008 at 10:27 am

    I was expressing the concerns some people had that passing the CUB might one day lead to legal recognition of polygamous relationships.

    Dyson’s speech/non-speech reignited those fears.
57. Dom 57

    2 September 2008 at 11:45 am

    Polygamy tends to be the domain of heterosexual religious types – sort of ironic that now we gays are getting lumped in with them as well! Want to blame us for overpopulation as well?

Links to post

1. The Standard 2.01: Franks and teh gays: posted on 22 September 2008 at 5:48 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS