- Date published:
3:16 pm, August 29th, 2008 - 58 comments
Categories: national, youtube - Tags: grant robertson, national, stephen franks, wellington central
Here’s National’s Wellington Central candidate Stephen Franks giving his view on Civil Unions.
I’m not even really sure what to say about it. It might just be best to let Stephen Franks speak for himself…
“It might just be best to let Stephen Franks speak for himself ”
Very wise ..
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
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.
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.
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.
Well, at least he’s equal opportunity intolerant. He dislikes the Christians and the gays.
I’m just guessing – think it may have been the “meet the Wellington Central candidates meeting” hosted at someone’s flat:
Is he not allowed to have a view on civil unions then?
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…
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’.
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)
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
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.
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.
A victory for straight atheists everywhere! Maybe Franks should insult MORE groups of people and thus grow his constituency??!
just a quick translation for those using Spanish words:
cojones – balls
cajones – draws
Are you aware that Key voted against the Civil Unions Bill?
Why shouldn’t he be associated with National Party anti Civil Union rhetoric?
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 🙂
highrestandard – my typing is getting worse 🙁
It’s a bad day when you can’t type your own name 🙂
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.
Perhaps you should read back through my discussion with Anita.
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.
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 ?
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!
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Indeed, we do need to know that these people have a social engineering or control agenda beyond law and order.
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.
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).
Bugger me peter how appropriate a Toad is the master of wanking. Talk about lickspittles.
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. 🙂
I’ll issue you a challenge. Only post again in this thread if you have never masturbated.
Good points burt.
d4j, the challenge is open on frogblog too, for that matter.
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.
Yes Lynn socks can get rather high when they’re in jackboots all day 🙂
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.
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.
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.
Has Key done anything to dissociate himself from Franks comments?
He probably has no idea the comments were even made.
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?
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.
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 â€” or didn’t talk â€” about singles, couples and triples.
I would consider myself a Christian conservative â€” most here would call me a ragin’ fundamentalist â€” and the comments don’t “piss me right off”. Again, most people realise his comments were taking legitimate concerns to an intentionally ridiculous conclusion.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?