My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Leave the poor guy alone | Main | Normandy Quagmire »



Good reviews indeed.

Love it or hate it, it's recommended reading.

The majority of people are feed only one side of the discussion, and a lot can be learned by being taken in a new direction.


I had a debate with a friend of mine this morning in wether gays are born that way or if it is by choice.

I found myself quoting from Eve`s bite on this subject and I am sure that many more debates through NZ will be using this book as a source.

Well done Ian,you have raised the level of debate for dinner parties throughout the nation!


very good!

towaka, there is also a very good article HERE about debating on gay issues. It gets right down the the logic of the issue and it also has an example discussion.


ps, also check out the article HERE to see how gay activists influenced the American Psychiatric Association to change the meaning of homosexuality from being an illness to what it is now.

In 1963 the description was -

[H]omosexuality is indeed an illness. The homosexual is an emotionally disturbed individual who has not acquired the normal capacity to develop satisfying heterosexual relations.

Just 10 years later, in 1973, this was altered, not because of any scientific progress, but simply though scheming protest.

Like bullies on the playground, homosexual activists didn't want to play by the rules. You know, the rules that say if you want to influence a body of science, you should conduct properly designed studies and build scientific research that makes your case. No. There weren't any scientific studies like that (still aren't). No problem, just harass and intimidate those scientists who present properly designed studies that you don't like.


Your link goes to an article that is shameful in this age. Complete fundamentalist nutters.

Still debating whether homosexuality is an orientation or an activity, and whether genetic or learned.

The fact is that it exists, it always has existed, and that good citizens have been made to feel second class by religious bigots who have gained the control of governments.


Excuse me, I'm not particularly across gay issues - why is this article shameful exactly?

You say the debate is over on the "cause" of homosexuality. Can you point to the definitive, universally acclaimed study that settles this issue?

Pedophilia and murder has existed, always existed and people engaged in either of those acts have been made to feel second class citizens. Not a strong counter argument.

I'd imagine the better argument would be based around the fairness of decriminalizing acts between consenting adults.


Zen Tiger

You are indulging in some Wishart-ese in your response:

"Pedophilia and murder has existed, always existed and people engaged in either of those acts have been made to feel second class citizens. Not a strong counter argument."

Reach for the dunce's hat will you.. Where is mutual consent in pedophilia or murder?

Just a typical extreme right wing fundamentalist Christian knee-jerk. A terribly bad advertisement for Christianity itself, because society has moved on - it happened in NZ 20 years ago actually.

No electable political party will be repealing the Homosexual Law Reform legislation because thankfully, most New Zealanders are reasonable people that know the value of personal and religious freedom.


The first review was from a Masterton newspaper by one Jo Beresford.

I searched for this name and found Beresford to be also contributor to a Lighthouse Church broadsheet - sample here:

Ian - a case of preaching to the converted as far as I am concerned. If this book did not impress Beresford, who would it impress!


Peter, given I suggested the better argument would be to speak of mutual consent, which was the exact argument you used to "rebut" me, your point is wasted.

You can call the argument whatever you like, but I am not a Christian Right Wing Fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination - well, other than yours.

And historically, there would be evidence of mutual consent with man-boy love. The idea children cannot legally consent has only been around for a few hundred years, I thought. So careful with the call for a dunce cap.

Anyway, I'd be one of those NZ'ers that would resist repealing any laws that made homosexuality a crime. So careful it with those knee-jerk reactions.

And unless fundamentalist Islam takes root here, your fears are unfounded I suspect.

As I said, I'm not across the gay gene issues - can you point to the evidence that explains why this subject can no longer be discussed?

Psycho Milt

Zen, I presume you meant "resist re-instating any laws that made homosexuality a crime," rather than repealing? Otherwise the logic doesn't follow...


Peter - so what if Jo Beresford is a Christian? Her book review is merely her opinion.

Want to try and argue the case that your opinion is neutral and objective?

Also, which writer will promote bad reviews of his/her book?

Seems to me you have a massive chip on your shoulder re: Christianity. Get over it.

Andrew McIntosh

Hi Peter,

I agree that reasonable people value personal and religious freedom, however the rights of consenting adults should only be protected when they are not endangering to themselves.

Anal intercourse damages the rectal sphincter (designed only to stretch minimally); resulting in disproportionate levels of rectal trauma, incontinence, and anal cancer.

Furthermore anal intercourse, penile, or otherwise, traumatises the soft tissues of the rectal lining. These tissues are meant to accomodate the relatively soft fecal mass as it is prepared for expulsion by slow contractions of the bowel. Consequently the lining of the rectum is almost always traumatised by any act of anal intercourse.

In addition minor or microscopic tears in the rectal lining allow for immediate contamination and the entry of germs into the blood stream. The human body's design is such that we have a nearly impenetrable barrier between the bloodstream and the extroadinarily toxic and infectious contents of the bowel. Anal intercourse creates a breach in this barrier for the receptive partner, irrespective of whether a condom is used or not.

Therefore homosexual men in particular are more vulnerable to a host of serious and sometimes fatal infections caused by the entry of feces into the blood stream.

Could this explain why the life expectancy of homosexuals is about thirty years less than heterosexuals?


Homosexuals do anal sex and spread AIDS . Fact .


I can’t help but agree with the notion that in today’s world there has been social conditioning amongst the younger generations. It’s more acceptable now to ‘experiment’ in same sex sexual relationships. In the old days you had a sleepover at your girlfriend’s house and hung out, painted your toe nails, nowadays you can ‘sleep’ with your girlfriend, or just practice pashing. And all the boys like watching it in the nightclubs, they do. I’ve seen it.
Today’s youngsters all want to be ‘special’ and famous, so attention seeking like this is nothing.
So pashing your girlfriend is ‘cool’ ‘open & liberal. Everyone is bisexual. So if everyone is bisexual, then so what?
Well if you’re not bisexual and you just do it for kicks…it’s kind of screwy. But it happens, it’s real. This world is going too fast. It’s sick.

I believe Ian Wishart addressing this point is excellent. Youngsters today have no idea who they are & they need guidance, it’s not so acceptable if you are young & you have no clue & you do stupid things.
I believe this area needs addressing; young people especially need to be looked after, not conditioned into something they have no idea about.

But what about transsexual and transgender issues? What happens if you (from when you can remember as a toddler) have the mind of a male but the body of a female or vis versa. Then what happens? Are you ‘made’ to be like this? Or born like this?
Because being ‘born’ like this is possible.
There are Siamese twins that share the same body but have 2 heads. Now they share the same body (one body). 2 people actually share ‘one’ body.
Now if that’s possible it could be possible through some abnormality that you could be born somehow ‘mixed’ up? Half & half. Half male & half female.

Surely stuff like this can happen (from birth)? There are hermaphrodite human beings born with half male/ half female genitals and even hermaphrodite animals.

Every person is an individual & some have rare problems and true there is more social acceptance these days & that is luring non-bisexual kids into areas that aren’t right (for them) but what about accepting the notion that maybe some people out there could be ‘born’ with a problem.
I have no scientific studies on whether transsexuals are born like this but I have read that there are hermaphrodites born at birth. Abnormalities can happen & these people need to be loved just the same, though I do not agree with parents grooming their 2 year-old Johnny into being a girl at that age……are you for real? That’s insane.

A man is born a man & a woman is born a woman & God made us like this (for a reason). But what happens if there is a stuff up, a genetic/medical stuff up, is this man trapped in a woman’s body allowed to fix this (in God’s eyes)? What happens if it’s not his/hers fault?
Surely God loves everyone the same, surely.

I really don’t believe Gay’s flaunting themselves in lingerie at the Hero parade is going to give them the ‘total’ social acceptance they desire. It’s totally pushing the boundaries. But Gay people have that ‘I want to break free’ attitude & they see it like well ‘Stuff you’ we are Gay & we are proud. A Catch 22 situation I see. Wanting to be accepted/ totally stuffing it up for themselves.

By the way Ian, I really liked your ‘whole’ book but the Born or Made chapter I don’t think it’s that Black & White (as yet).
I do believe social conditioning is grooming our children & it’s wrong, the Labour government is speeding towards a crash & burn, they are moving way too fast……and I don’t believe just ‘any’ Gay person should be able to adopt children are you crazy? It’s about the kids, kids first.
The rate that heterosexuals split up, the heterosexual divorce rate is sky rocketing so do we really want to make it worse by letting our children grow up with two sexuality promiscuous Gay men……..that’s dicey dicey.
Though if there was an option- I definitely believe two lesbian woman most probably are more trusting then two Gay men. Sorry men, a woman is needed 100% with raising children. As Ian said “two men can never provide the intimate nurturing role that a mother provides”

Good job Ian.

BUT we have to ‘understand’ some people do have complex issues.
Born or Made? I don’t believe it is that easy.

People kill themselves over the pressure of being Gay. That’s serious.


Oops, yes Psycho.


As the article says, I don't really know if there is any evidence for being 'homosexual'. No physical evidence, anyway. There's no blood test you can do or anything to check. It's still two people with the physiognomy of men having 'sex'.

In reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual. Homosexuality is thus biologically (and to varying degrees morally) equivalent to pedophilia, sado-masochism, bestiality and many other forms of deviant behavior, or behavior that deviates from the normal design-based function of the human being.
'Normalcy' is functioning according to nature or design. Normalcy is not based on popular opinion


I'm still recovering from how grossed out I was reading about "Blow Buddies" in Eve's Bite.


Zen Tiger

"And historically, there would be evidence of mutual consent with man-boy love. The idea children cannot legally consent has only been around for a few hundred years, I thought."

Again this is dunce-talk, if you think that the concept of a minor has no relevance to the issue of consent!

And further:

"As I said, I'm not across the gay gene issues - can you point to the evidence that explains why this subject can no longer be discussed?"

The point is that it is without relevance. All we need to know is that there is, and there always has been, a proportion of our population with a same sex preference. Whether the orientation arises genetically (which I still believe), or through other means, is irrelevant.

I might add that homosexuality is not predictable, in the sense that it can arise among those with theist or atheist backgrounds.

Fletch's spiel is pure unadulterated homophobia. The last 20 years of homosexual law reform have been completely wasted on him or her.

Annalise - are you really so prudish. I have just read this:

"So pashing your girlfriend is ‘cool’ ‘open & liberal."

So in which year was pashing invented? Did you never go to a school social 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago???!!!!

And Andrew McIntosh - using medical science to prove that homosexuality is horrid. Look it simply does not disprove the one important thing - homosexuality exists. It may seem ridiculous to heterosexuals and homophobics, but for those who have the disposition it is not that way at all.

The feedback I have read above confirms one thing I have felt for a long time - Christianity is dangerous and harmful to our youth. It fails to recognise realities of today by placing too much credence on stuff that was written thousands of years ago. You guys need to be liberated and unshackled. Too limiting by a mile.


Peter, 'homosexuality' exists because those who practise same-sex intercourse wish it to. Have you not read Ian's book? (After The Ball et al)

The last 20 years of so-called homosexual law reform have been nothing but sophistry. It's all about a group who has a certain desire or lust for something to get themselves associated with civil rights, when it has nothing to do with Civil Rights. They have manipulated and twisted the legal system to their own ends (literally!).

The heart of “gay” sophistry is the redefinition of homosexuality as a state-of-being and not a form of sexual behavior. This allows the “gay” movement to define homosexuals as a civil rights minority comparable to African-Americans and other groups whose minority status is based on truly immutable characteristics. In turn, this allows the “gay” movement to inherit and exploit all of the legal, political and social gains of the civil rights movement for its own ends.

Sexual orientation theory is the vehicle for “selling” the idea of homosexuality as normal and immutable. It creates a context in which sexuality can be divorced from physiology. Only by making the design and function of the human body irrelevant can “gay” strategists avoid otherwise self-evident truths about homosexuality.

And Christianity is harmful to our youth?! I've never read such unadulterated BS.
You think our youth are safer being programmed in schools to think that the lifestyle of homosexuality is a valid and healthy lifestyle? It isn't - it's downright dangerous.

From the perspective of pathology and pathophysiology, the varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma. “Four general groups of conditions may be encountered in homosexually active men: classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with hig gel la species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (fecal incontinence, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, foreign bodies, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)” (Owen, 1985).

And I am not 'homophobic' (whatever that means). As was quoted before - define the term and the distinction between homophobia and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality.


ps, that is not to say that I hate gay people or that I do not feel for their predicament. What I DO hate is them pushing the legal system into validating their lifestyle as a right.

What about the paedophiles? What if they started doing the same thing. And those who want to have sex with animals - what about their rights, and how is it any different from homosexuality?
Homosexuality was once seen as abnormal as having sex with an animal but that has changed. Equal rights for the bestiality brigade?

The comments to this entry are closed.