Standing up for freedom for the sexually adventurous Right

Written By: - Date published: 12:38 pm, August 5th, 2012 - 109 comments
Categories: human rights - Tags:

For a guy whose god had two dads, Colin Craig seems pretty worked up about gays. He’s raised the spectre of marriage equality leading to polygamous marriage. I’m not sure what’s meant to be so scary about that. Polygamous relationships are legal. But Craig seems fascinated by it. It’s often those things we like least in ourselves that we criticise in others.

Maybe Craig’s outbursts and his obsession with adult relationships beyond his own with his wife are a secret cry for help. Maybe Craig should be allowed to marry as many people as he needs to.

Then, there’s Professor Frink impersonator and failed candidate for the leadership of ACT, Stephen Franks. He says ‘I love my dog but that doesn’t mean I should be able to marry it.”

I say, why not, Stephen? I won’t get in your way.

Oh, wait. I know one reason. Marriage is a form of contract. Contracts can only be agreed by parties that have the power to consent to them. Animals don’t have the legal ability to consent to contracts. If they did, I would be seeking damages from my cat for the mess she left when she brought that dead rat into the house the other week, not proposing to the dog.

Finally, Colin King. He reckons “what my wife and I have enjoyed over 42 years, I don’t think anyone of the same sex could enjoy”. Well, in a strictly physical sense, Colin, you’re right, different combinations of equipment and all that – but what things are they enjoying that you can only wonder at as you lie awake in the early hours?

Or maybe King is saying that his marriage is so beyond compare to any possible same-sex relationship that for them to marry would be like appointing a badger as admiral – they simply couldn’t make use of the role the way that King and Mrs King do. That implies that King, who remains a complete unknown after three elections and has been demoted on National’s list each time, must have some serious hidden talents if his marriage beats all the same-sex relationships in all the world to the extent that allowing same-sex couples to marry would be a waste of time. I don’t know what’s in the crayfish down at Kaikoura but, if King’s uber-marriage puts all others into the shade, they ought to be bottling it.

The Right seems to be a collection of polygamy-curious, animal-loving, uber-lovers. And good on them (apart from the bestiality). But I’m still not sure why any of the Right’s secret fetishes leads to them thinking that two consenting adults who want to marry oughtn’t be allowed to do so.

109 comments on “Standing up for freedom for the sexually adventurous Right ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mike e 1
    5 August 2012 at 12:41 pm

    Maybe he’s wanting to convert to being islamic

  2. CnrJoe 2
    5 August 2012 at 1:12 pm

    a guy whose god has two dads – heh
    Theres a letter writer who suggested barriage and garriage as variations on marriage for a man and a woman lol

  3. TheContrarian 3
    5 August 2012 at 1:19 pm

    Craig got fucking schooled by Wall on The Nation this morning. Was damned entertaining.

    edit: by this morning I meant yesterday morning. But, fuck it, he got fucked either way.

  4. Pete George 4
    5 August 2012 at 2:38 pm

    But I’m still not sure why any of the Right’s secret fetishes leads to them thinking that two consenting adults who want to marry oughtn’t be allowed to do so.

    You must be talking about the fundie right rather than “The Right” which isn’t a single entity, especially on this issue. On KB and Whale Oil there are probably more numbers supporting marriage equality than against. It’s just that those against are often the most vocal and repetitive.

    The more Colin “he’s not Christian” Craig argues against marriage equality the more he helps the pro arguments.

    Same with the handful of devout antis that swarm to the centre right blogs every time there’s a hint of homosexual. They will never change their minds but don’t seem to change other minds either, unless it’s against their extreme sermons.

    Here’s a classic:

    Sodomite marriage is not a minor change – it is a radical change, one far more radical then polygamy would ever be.

    And as for “polls suggesting support” that is the oldest trick in the social engineers playbook trying to convince people with common sense that they are out of step with the majority- when they are not.

    That and silencing critics.

    In truth this is an agenda spawned in Hell by the prince of deceit and deceit is what is being used to foist this abomination on this country.

    Accusations of ‘silencing critics’ keep coming up oddly, the critics are just frustrated that they repel rather than attract support as they get louder.

    • Te Reo Putake 4.1
      5 August 2012 at 3:56 pm

      🙄

    • Pascal's bookie 4.2
      5 August 2012 at 4:18 pm

      I guess we’ll find out where the right stands when their representaives vote on the second reading.

      • Pete George 4.2.1
        5 August 2012 at 5:54 pm

        Who is “the right” and who are “their representatives”?

        • Colonial Viper 4.2.1.1
          5 August 2012 at 6:02 pm

          *facepalm*

        • Pascal's bookie 4.2.1.2
          5 August 2012 at 6:33 pm

          Jeez Pete, I’d have thought you would have been aware that the right in NZ is represented by the National and ACT parties.

          Most NZers are well aware of that. Head out into the street tommorrow and ask some random poeple if the National and ACT parties are right wing or left wing.

          Then ask them that if someone wanted to get marriage equality through the house, should they vote for a right wing, or for a left wing, party.

          • Pete George 4.2.1.2.1
            5 August 2012 at 7:01 pm

            Jeez PB, I’d thought you would have been more aware of the myth of the left/right divide. Most people are more centre than left or right. I doubt that people think in terms of ‘left’ and ‘right’.

            The hard right don’t feel represented, they claim National are left. Just like the hard left claim Labour are right. They both can’t be correct.

            National represent quite a bit of the centre and a bit rightish – and also some a bit leftish prefer them. Labour cover much of the same ground but aren’t so popular at the moment.

            • Pascal's bookie 4.2.1.2.1.1
              5 August 2012 at 7:12 pm

              What’s the centre Pete? What political parties calim to represent it.

              not the centre-left, or the centre-right; but the centre?

              You really are quite breath-takingly stupid.

              • felix …
                5 August 2012 at 7:22 pm

                Breath-wastingly more like

              • Pete George …
                5 August 2012 at 7:38 pm

                Take a deep breath and read this:

                Centre left and centre right politics both involve a general association with centrism combined with leaning slightly to one side of the spectrum.

                You presumably are aware that National is generally regarded as centre-right, and Labour as centre-left.

                What parties claim to represent ‘the right’?

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  5 August 2012 at 8:06 pm

                  From the same page:

                  In New Zealand, United Future is the centrist party with currently one seat in parliament.

                  It’s also pretty hilarious, and telling, that you had to toddle off to wikipedia to try and find out what the centre is.

                  Your agument that most people are centrist would be supported if it turned out that there were massive swings between National and Labour. In reality, there isn’t. There is a small pool of wing voters, and a pool of people that sometimes don’t vote. Both these pools are dwarfed by the voters that pretty much always vote for either the left or the right.

                  And in the context of this discussion, which you seem desperate to move away from, the National party is happy to get the votes of people who are opposed to marriage equality.

                  If yu want evidence of this, look at who is hiding from this debate, and explain the pattern. Why are the Labour party mps far more likely to have stated a position, and far more likely for that position to be in favour?

                  I can easily explain that in terms of Labour not being afraid of their supporters on this issue, and National MPs being afraid of the bigots in their support base. Bigots that they actively sort the support of.

                  So what’s your explanation?

                  Quick! Off to wikipedia with you! (HINT: The answer isn’t there, you’ll have to think)

                  And Pete, if something is contains elements of the centre, but leans to the left, then it’s, tadaa, on the left of the centre. That’s just fucking physics.

                • felix …
                  5 August 2012 at 8:16 pm

                  Is Johnny Winter a blues guitarist or a flamenco guitarist?

                  Well as he’s generally known for playing “blues-rock”, I’d have to say “neither”.

                  If I were being a cock, that is.

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  6 August 2012 at 6:39 pm

                  There is no centre-right party.

                  There is a centre party (Labour) and a right party. (National)

              • Socialist Paddy …
                5 August 2012 at 7:42 pm

                The centre is made up of people that are not only too stupid to make their minds up but also too stupid to realise that they are not as bright as those who actually hold political views.

                • Stuart Mathieson …
                  6 August 2012 at 12:53 am

                  People like you I suspect.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    6 August 2012 at 1:57 am

                    Did you even read (or understand) what S.P. wrote? :mrgreen:

                    • Pete George …
                      6 August 2012 at 7:02 am

                      Yeah, those in the centre are so stupid they decide the elections, they hold the power, and their policies get put forward, debated, enacted with popular and parliamentary support. Dumb, eh.

                      And the ever so extremists foam futilely from the sidelines abusing anyone they disagree with, wondering why their brilliance is continually overlooked, baffled why being an arrogant arsehole doesn’t attract any support.

                      Centrists actually make up their mind they want to be in a position to make all the decisions.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      6 August 2012 at 7:08 am

                      That’s just how Pete 🙄 s

                    • felix …
                      6 August 2012 at 7:26 am

                      I’m constantly in awe of the awesome amount of awesome policy Peter Dunne has had “put forward, debated, enacted with popular and parliamentary support” in his 73 years as a minister.

                      Just awesome. Making all the decisions.

                      🙄

                    • Pete George …
                      6 August 2012 at 9:14 am

                      Ah felix, the bitterness of opposition.

                      Peter Dunne has “put forward, debated, enacted with popular and parliamentary support” compared to:

                      Hone Harawira and Mana nil, compared to much more.

                      All eight NZF MPS – nil, compared to much more.

                      All fourteen Green MPs – at least they are putting a bit of pressure on Government, compared to much more influence and actuall doing things.

                      All thirty three Labour MPs – they’re making some progress with a few members bills, most due to the decisions and support of Peter Dunne.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      6 August 2012 at 3:27 pm

                      Peter Dunne has a Ministerial warrant and has cut a deal with John key, so he better be doing the business of Government, Pete.

                    • felix …
                      6 August 2012 at 6:40 pm

                      And yet for some mysterious reason, no-one is ever able to list Old Man Dunne’s great achievements when questioned about them.

                      By which I mean of course they could list them and it wouldn’t take long – chaired a meeting to set up a group to form a committee to think about a report on something no-one gave a shit about, ran an errand or two for whoever was in power at the time etc – but they won’t list them because it’d be a fucking disgraceful list for someone with 156 years as a government minister.

                • TheContrarian …
                  6 August 2012 at 9:20 am

                  “The centre is made up of people that are not only too stupid to make their minds up but also too stupid to realise that they are not as bright as those who actually hold political views.”

                  What a pile of shit. Complete garbage. 

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    6 August 2012 at 3:29 pm

                    That explanation was convincing, you won me over 🙄

                    • TheContrarian …
                      6 August 2012 at 6:53 pm

                      Because it is up to me to disprove every piece of gibberish someone vomits out?
                      Jesus man, what can be assumed without evidence (Paddy’s wild assertion about centrists) can be dismissed without evidence (my comment).

                      This lesson in logic is free.

          • David H 4.2.1.2.2
            6 August 2012 at 9:58 am

            You forgot the UF. The flip flopper of the Parliamentary system, Dunny’s like a light flashing Red then Blue and getting stuck on one or the other for years. Hmm 2014 they’ll need a black light for 0 seats.

        • RedBlooded 4.2.1.3
          5 August 2012 at 7:03 pm

          🙄

  5. Tiger Mountain 5
    5 August 2012 at 2:42 pm

    Local tory MP in Northland, ex copper and former Methcon CEO Mike Sabin has announced that he will be voting against the Wall bill. He might be more favourably disposed to inter species marriage given his farmer support base.

  6. bad12 6
    5 August 2012 at 4:23 pm

    I beg for the inclusion of some ‘compulsion’ in the Louisa Wall legislation, call it the ‘Franks clause’,

    Stephne Franks should HAVE to marry His dog…

  7. mac1 7
    5 August 2012 at 4:28 pm

    Around our way we all : roll : where Colin King is concerned. Even the local Nats think he’s a dead weight and will replace him if he doesn’t retire which the local Nat rumour mill says is going to happen. He will have done his nine years and will get his pension.

    The local paper ran an opinion piece from some of the local clergy who oppose gay marriage. Colin is no doubt influenced by that as well as the fundy vote which is quite strong hereabouts.

    But, for all that, the local paper also ran a very good editorial which ran the same day as Colin King apprised the world of his wisdom. http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/opinion/7374457/Editorial-Right-to-be-recognised

    Colin King has a page on the National Party web-site which named his electorate of Kaikoura as “Kia Koura” which would translate as “be crayfish-like.” Pretty descriptive really of the conservative opposition to gay marrrage- have a thick skin, and move backwards into cover when threatened.

  8. Tigger 8
    5 August 2012 at 4:35 pm

    Superb post, Z. I’m surprised Franks is so candid about his penchant for bestiality. It’s a crime, effectively rape of an animal, since an animal cannot consent to sex.

    As for King’s remark, shouldn’t I at least get to try to have a marriage as good as his super-marriage? I mean, maybe I’m doomed to failure, but I’d like a shot at it. Or is that ladder to be pulled up after you Nats too?

  9. chris73 9
    5 August 2012 at 4:47 pm

    “The Right seems to be a collection of polygamy-curious, animal-loving, uber-lovers.” Gee way to tar everyone with the same brush…

  10. muzza 10
    5 August 2012 at 6:25 pm

    This topic is simply a way of keeping people divided/distracted, just like the mythical left right slight of hand…

    Anyone really know why Colin Craig is being used the way he is currently, why all the air time all of a sudden! The quick answer could be to take some heat on behalf of the NACT, because they won’t front up over this issue, and or to try get him some face time for his party.

    I would not go with either of those two options myself, because both are a little too obvious and unnecessary imo.

    • Frank Macskasy 10.1
      6 August 2012 at 9:50 am

      Colin Craig seems to be having “issues” with his own sexuality?

      ” He was so sure that homosexuality was a choice, he bet his own sexuality on it.

      “Do you think you could choose to be gay if that is the case?,” he was asked.

      “Sure. Sure I could,” he responded.

      “You could choose to be gay?,” he was asked again.

      “Yea, if I wanted to,’ he replied. “

      Source: http://www.3news.co.nz/Colin-Craig-Gay-parents-not-good-role-models/tabid/1607/articleID/262919/Default.aspx

      What is it they say about fundamentalists who carp on about gays? Oh yes, “Methinks you doth protest too much, Mr Craig.”

      • David H 10.1.1
        6 August 2012 at 10:17 am

        “Colin Craig seems to be having “issues” with his own sexuality?”

        Why is it that when I see him he looks like he is dressed for school? It must be the ‘old’ school tie that he wears. But he comes across as a head prefect type, that used to roam the hallowed halls of education with a cane, and an unhealthy interest in younger boys.

        However with the amount of noise he is making over this, it also begs me to ponder if he is a closet queen. Just a thought, as you never hear anything from him unless its about this, or god. 2 of what could be unhealthy obsessions when put together. Ahh the good old days of catholic school.

    • Vicky32 10.2
      6 August 2012 at 7:22 pm

      This topic is simply a way of keeping people divided/distracted, just like the mythical left right slight of hand…
       

      Absolutely, and it looks as if it’s working very well! To hell with identity politics, I say, when there are things that really matter, and people are suffering real oppression in other places.

  11. MrSmith 11
    5 August 2012 at 6:53 pm

    42 years good for him.

    Personally I like steak and chips but I don’t want to have to eat them every night for 42 years, off the top of my head the NZ average for marriage is about 7 years, about the same as people moving house.

    Colin (the invisible man) King is a high achiever in-fact 6, or sex times the average at 42 years and hats off to him, but in 42 years of marriage something it would seem he hasn’t learned is tolerance, the tolerance to accept that his way may not be the only way.

  12. infused 12
    5 August 2012 at 8:48 pm

    Waiting for the bill where I can have 10 wives. Oh yeah *rubs hands*

  13. RedLogix 13
    5 August 2012 at 9:41 pm

    Personally I’d prefer that we stopped pretending that marriage had anything to do with ‘choosing the one you love’, and owned up to it’s reality … that marriage is about children and the dynastic accumulation of property. In this light most people will understand marriage to be a contract between one man and one woman. And it’s the only context in which such an arrangement makes much sense.

    In reality most people are not monogamous. The East traditionally did polygamy similtaneously; while in the West we do it sequentially. And both forms of course are highly paternalistic. Most people have somewhere between several and a dozen or so ‘significant’ sexual partners in their lifetime.

    Which is not to necessarily diminish them; often these pair-bonds do last a lifetime in one form or another, which given the length of the human lifespan and the enormous changes which occur over it is a remarkable thing. Nor is there any intrinsic reason why we might only love one person at a time; indeed if you set aside sex from the picture; we all love many, many people in our lives.

    But nonetheless the maps of our sexual lives are deeply complex and variable and the word marriage is far too narrow and rigid a thing to be a sole and reliable guide. Personally I’d prefer we left it alone as Colin Craig would have it. If we truly want to be ‘with the ones we love’ … then I’d say we should own that … and that we need a new word that is not so fundamentally tangled up with ownership, property and patriarchy as well.

    • bad12 13.1
      5 August 2012 at 9:57 pm

      I believe that a lot of the Christian Fundamentalists still see marriage as a property right…

      • Roy 13.1.1
        6 August 2012 at 9:16 am

        That would explain a lot that I have never understood! So they can’t imagine two men getting married because who owns whom, and they can’t imagine two women getting married because dammit, women can’t own women. Makes a ghastly kind of sense if you are sick enough to believe that marriage is about owning a woman.

      • Frank Macskasy 13.1.2
        6 August 2012 at 9:52 am

        Funny how Christian Fundamentalists have this ‘urge’ to be concerned with other peoples’ sexuality and relationships… Quite unhealthy, really.

        Almost voyeuristic…

        • Roy 13.1.2.1
          6 August 2012 at 3:11 pm

          They probably read the Old Testament too much. There is a lot of really sick stuff in there.

          • Colonial Viper 13.1.2.1.1
            6 August 2012 at 3:31 pm

            Yeah OK, that’s revealing.

            • Roy 13.1.2.1.1.1
              8 August 2012 at 9:11 am

              Yeah I admit I’ve read the entire Bible, as have many of us atheists, because it gives us ammo for arguing with the religious.

      • Vicky32 13.1.3
        6 August 2012 at 7:31 pm

        I believe that a lot of the Christian Fundamentalists still see marriage as a property right…

        Then I assume that you don’t actually know any Christians, fundamentalists or not. I spent decades in fundamentalist churches before deciding that I belonged elsewhere, and I’ve yet to meet a ‘fundamentalist’ as barking mad, foaming at the mouth evil as you claim. Neither, it goes without saying have I ever met one who “sees marriage as a property right”…

  14. Cactus Kate 14
    6 August 2012 at 2:36 am

    Colin Craig is a right winger when he supports asset sales. He doesn’t.
    He seems to conduct dodgy polls to find policy.
    But no doubt he’s a fundy. I don’t subscribe to such as a right winger
    As for John Banks he’s about as ACT as Zetetic is.

    • RedBlooded 14.1
      6 August 2012 at 3:21 am

      What’s this, implosion in the ACT camp? Camp in the loosest sense of the word of course. Wonder what values they’ll be teaching at the Destiny Charter School Kate?

      • Pascal's bookie 14.1.1
        6 August 2012 at 7:29 am

        I wonder what Mr Crimp of Southland thinks about marriage equality.

        Or John Banks for that matter. Cactus can prtend that Zet is the leader of the ACT party if she wants to of course. But it’s kind of weird.

        I recall that Dr Brash said he regretted voting against civil unions, and blathering on about how ‘protecting the institution of marriage’; but seeing he needed the support of right wingers the politics of it forced him to take the stance he did.

        Funny that.

      • David H 14.1.2
        6 August 2012 at 10:24 am

        But how can you have a complete education if Religion rears it’s head, all over the Evolution thing as being Ungodly and therefore not to be taught?.

        • Vicky32 14.1.2.1
          6 August 2012 at 7:32 pm

          if Religion rears it’s head, all over the Evolution thing as being Ungodly and therefore not to be taught?.

          Except that is doesn’t, fantasist.

    • felix 14.2
      6 August 2012 at 7:40 am

      Kate these social issues, issues of fairness, power, justice and human rights are to a large degree the issues that define the right wing. Craig, in his ignorance and bigotry, is the very essence of an old fashioned backwards inbred shit-for-brains unevolved right wing conservative.

      The term you’re looking for OTOH is “money-grubbing neo-lib fuckjob”.

      ps Did you vote ACT, Kate? I ask because quite a few of your lot seem to understand that Banks isn’t really ACT but just a run-o-the-mill right-wing National party dickhead, but voted ACT anyway. Which (I think) makes them, despite all protestations, National supporters.

      • chris 14.2.1
        6 August 2012 at 9:29 am

        Kate made a post a while ago saying she was now “apolitical” because ACT under Banks is such a farce/clusterfuck.

        • felix 14.2.1.1
          6 August 2012 at 6:42 pm

          Apolitical my arse. She falls snugly into the money-grubbing neo-lib fuckjob camp.

    • mike e 14.3
      7 August 2012 at 3:07 pm

      Prickly subject for the borring one seems as colin craig is right up your ally.
      he would make a good trojan horse for the less than 1% party that was ACT.
      No doubt with your squilioons you can buy him off.

  15. Roy 15
    6 August 2012 at 9:17 am

    So when is Colin King’s “Guide to Sensational Sex” being published?

  16. King Kong 16
    6 August 2012 at 9:18 am

    By the way, someone should let Stephen Franks know that you can marry dogs. Just ask Peter Davis

  17. aerobubble 17
    6 August 2012 at 9:53 am

    I have no problem with gay marriage, the Churches and moral conservatives, by denying even civil unions pretty much dealt themselves out of the debate and look hypocritical now.

    The only misgiving I have is around adoption, where a child has both a male and a female parent. That children should be place as close to their own religious up bringing, their family arrangement, as is practicable.

    Well okay, two misgivings, but the second isn’t necessarily marriage related. The idea that some
    citizens should get access to both male and female support because of their sexual orientation.
    i.e. a women being able to access sperm banks without a active male presence in their kids life,
    until men can have children, human ova incubated, then there is no equality.

    These two issue should however not prevent gay marriage going ahead. If Churches and other
    groups wanted to keep marriage sacred they should be stopping government collect their
    marriage certifications, until they do its just more intolerance from the faithful in their faithless
    denial of their own supposed tolerance.

    • Tracey 17.1
      8 August 2012 at 1:02 pm

      aerobubble do you support artificial means for those God has deemed biologically unsuitable to have children?

      I am guessing you accept that most child abuse goes on with a significant adult of each sex within a child’s life?

      • aerobubble 17.1.1
        11 August 2012 at 10:52 am

        should we genetically shape future generation to the hilt? Depends. If we want to spread our
        seed to the universe, hell yes. However creating children who are infertile like their parents,
        on the off chance that society collapses and they cannot breed, is rather stupid.

        I’m of the belief that blind people, autistic people, etc, are all credible niches that persist
        because they either directly help societies find compassion, or provide direct alternative
        viewpoints, or are necessary part of the genetic balancing act to keep our species trim and
        fit. i.e. if we were to destroy all autistics would we be a much dumber species genetically?
        Hell yes.

        Look at Africa, Africans are the most genetically diverse, and it shows, they need a much
        more effective societal paradigm to stabilize enough to defend their collective interests.
        Whereas you find authoritarianism find easy prey in their dealings with mum and dad investors.

        As for child abuse, its not genetic, its societal mostly, where males mostly are dismissed
        and unable to find dignity that a very few outliers blame their kids and smash them against the wall
        in frustration. Similarly a very few women, cannot use physical violence to expel their rage, they have however an armory of psychological weapons to destroy people with. Of course it would
        be irrational to actively consider outliers in any constructive, moral, or ethical discussion, as the
        central part of the debate.

        Men have rights too, men have the right to withdraw sperm from a sperm bank, this
        should never be a right for a women to withdraw sperm from a sperm bank, while
        this basic disenfranchisement exists any real debate with radical feminism is a waste of time.
        As its not an equal partnership.

  18. kiwi_prometheus 18
    6 August 2012 at 10:42 am

    Marriage is between a man and a woman. Only a heterosexual couple can procreate, gays have to buy a Rusisan or African gayby off the internet, or use artificial methods.

    That only a man and a woman can produce children needs recognition for the central role it plays in civilisation. That is what marriage does.

    That is why the self righteous squeal “I have the right to marry whoever I love!” misses the point.

    • chris73 18.1
      6 August 2012 at 12:15 pm

      You’re a complete dick smack

    • Draco T Bastard 18.2
      6 August 2012 at 1:28 pm

      We’ve had this discussion before. You were proved wrong then and yet you keep to the same beliefs? Yep, that proves that you’re delusional, close-minded, bigoted fuckwit.

    • prism 18.3
      6 August 2012 at 1:41 pm

      kiwi-p
      The central role that having children has for civilisation – can be to break it down. Too many children and there is no time for parents or the village to instil culture or take an interest in them, if poor the necessity of finding food and water means little joy and parental time, the older children are babycarers while mother and father work to provide the family’s existence. Great civilisation!

      But by all means carry on touting your slogans, presumably you don’t want to know the reality. And the world is swelling with children and adults. It may be deciding it wants to abort some of us.

    • Vicky32 18.4
      6 August 2012 at 7:34 pm

      That is why the self righteous squeal “I have the right to marry whoever I love!” misses the point.

      Seconded!

      • felix 18.4.1
        7 August 2012 at 6:01 am

        Really Vicky? So as a straight man I can’t get married unless I want to have children?

        Get the fuck out of my bedroom and don’t let the door smack your stupid bigoted arse on the way.

        • Tracey 18.4.1.1
          7 August 2012 at 10:02 am

          OR, don’t get married but still have children… oh wait…you can’t cos you are not married…

      • rosy 18.4.2
        7 August 2012 at 6:52 am

        So marriage for women over 50-ish is out of bounds? Good-oh.

    • aerobubble 18.5
      11 August 2012 at 10:56 am

      Lesbians have been having babies for millennium, and one partner dresses as a man. Only a dick would think it was unheard of.

  19. tracey 19
    7 August 2012 at 5:35 am

    Its scary to see what emerges when you scratch the surface of some folks. Franks comments are deeply offensive. He is entitled to his opinion but not to media time. If maori were compared to dogs we would hear from the race relations conciliator, and rightly so. My partner and I ARE IN OUR 22nd year. We are hard working, why should our worth be determineby words written by some folks invisible friend. When people hear voices they are medicated unless it is “god” they hear in which case my taxes will be used to help them to run a school! I deal with the fact that our society acknowldges and funds peoples right to have imaginary friends without insulting them until someone compares me to a dog. By all means believe in this imaginary friend but get funding for it?y isnt that the real travesty here?

    • mac1 20.1
      7 August 2012 at 3:05 pm

      So, about three in ten marriages don’t make it to the silver 25th year anniversary. That’s interesting. I’d have thought more.

  21. Tracey 21
    8 August 2012 at 1:00 pm

    Colin’s God would be quite disappointed with a 30% failure rate though.