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

« Arise, Sir NoMinister | Main | Which comes first, the atheist or the egghead? »




I don't suppose you would know the feeling of being marginalised.

And you continue down the track of lifestyle choice. It is not a lifestyle choice because people do not choose to be marginalised!

There are signs that these attitudes are improving among society in general - although like racism, I think it lies just below our apparent "tolerant" surface. Sometimes friends I think I know well surprise me.


Yes, the indoctrination programme is progressing nicely.


Whilst generally supportive of the pro family-values slant of this blog, what seems to be Andrei's 'War Against Homsexuality" does not help matters.
Perhaps I'm just a bit too tolerant and New Testament for him.
Indeed, it is right to report that many gays do smoke and drink.
Furthermore, I agree that much does come down to the responsibility of individuals.
But thanks to the Andreis of this world, gay people will face extra pressures in dealing with disapproval of their sexuality, the agony of being 'in the closet' etc.
Rightly or wrongly, some will turn to drink and/or drugs to help cope with this.
If society was more open minded and tolerant , then the pressures would probably lessen and so with it the drinking and drugtaking.
If Andrei wants gay people to be like anybody else, no different, then he needs to treat them likewise, rather than constantly raking up anti-gay prejudice.


Society is not open-minded and tolerant about smoking; it has proven detrimental to health.

The evidence is continuing to pile up that homosexual behaviour is detrimental, but the gay lobby is acting exactly the same as the tobacco lobby did in the US: hiding the truth, manipulating the political process, launching a massive propaganda blitz


the misuse of the word "tolerant" is starting to annoy me.

NZ society couldnt be more tolerant of Homo's. They are protected by law in all areas where they might be discriminated against and they are free to do what they do without really being bothered.

Being "tolerant" doesn't require forcing the majority in this country to like what they are.

If this fact has them running to the booze cabinet then I am sorry but it is not my problem.

The "I was born like it" argument shouldn't force sympathy. I suspect paedophiles are hardwired as well, how about extending the hand of tolerence to them?



Pedophiles, homosexual and heterosexual, remain a dilemma. Answers are elusive as the Roman Catholic Church has found to its considerable cost.

It does not make sense to confuse issues concerning adult power over minors with relationships between consenting adults.

References to smoking are similarly irrelevant. It was not so long that that the anti-Helen-Clark-fans were wanting to make smoking nothing more than a "freedom of choice" area. On which side were you at the time Peasant?

I know that there were National MPs promising to repeal smoking legislation - MPs like say John Banks, Paul East or whoever.

The other thing is that smoking (as a form of self medication) CLEARLY has alternatives. It is just that the alternatives are not in your face at the corner dairy!

Gay orientation I repeat is not a matter of choice, but a matter of orientation. I don't care how gay people get to be how they are, we must accept how they are.


Yeah, the same statistics could also apply to various other fringe groups aswell. I.E: Prostitutes!


Again there is some way to go before sex workers are recognised as service providers, under the new regulated environment.

Sex workers should not actually be marginalised as well. It may be more appropriate to look motivations of their Customers which apparently include everyone from judges to labourers.

What about those involved in casino and other gambling enterprises>


I am not sure that this Homosexual malaise is down to discrimination and stress.

In my experience the term "gay" is quite ironic as homosexuals tend to be some of the unhappiest people I have met.

It may be that there is something truly unfulfilling in the Homosexual lifestyle that promotes escapism through drink and drugs. The high importance placed on the physical and the incredible promiscurity being examples.


It may have been necessary and even good for us to question some of the values handed down from previous generations... but what a shambles we have created.

Are we defending people's 'right' to smoke cigarettes, or are we really defending people's 'right' to rake in huge profits by selling gullible, weak minded people something that will very likely kill them (and maybe their passive smoking family members)?



Homosexual 'orientation' could be either innate or learned - this has not been proven.

However Homosexual ACTs are a choice. Some people believe these acts are harmless and others believe they are damaging both to the participants and society.

If the former (harmless) then things are going well. If the latter (damaging) then the harm will snowball.


If gays want to destroy their own lives, that's one thing; but if they keep insisting that society needs brainwashing into their warped image that's a real transgression into areas of conscience & opinion. A highly debatable political topic should not be put beyond question behind rhetorical smokescreens of 'tolerance'. It makes me think those using such smokescreens are trying to hide something.


A while back I heard of another study comparing suicide rates amongst homosexuals compared with the rest of the population (I can't quote a reference for this) unsurprisingly the suicide rate was significantly higher for homosexuals. What did not fit the standard claim that this is a result of persecution was that the suicide rate was highest in San Fransisco which is noted as being 'gay friendly'. If persecution was the primary cause then it would be expected that there would be a lower rate in places like San Fransisco. Also as far as I am aware other persecuted groups throughout recent history (e.g. Jews in countries where antisemitism is prevelant) do not show similar patterns of high suicide and drug abuse.

Shane Ponting

I resent the idea that I must "accept" homosexuality. As with any other "sin", it is right that as a Christian I will be "tolerant" of the sinner (seeing as I'm a sinner myself, as we all are) but will continue to carry the conviction I have after reading Leviticus 18:22 (NLV):
“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.


Goodness me, Leviticus is old Old Testament isn't it?

In any case, all it is saying is that according to Leviticus homosexuality is not recommended. Take the advice as personal if you want to and if you can.

But surely Leviticus is recognising that homosexuality is a reality in the first place. Also it does not say that we should show bigotry toward another that is homosexual.


Robk resorts to the old "practising homosexual" argument that holds no water if you give it a minute's thought.

He says:

"Homosexual 'orientation' could be either innate or learned - this has not been proven.

However Homosexual ACTs are a choice."

Why should a person with a homosexual orientation not engage in homosexual relationships?

We could equally say:

"Heterosexual 'orientation' could be either innate or learned - this has not been proven.

However Heterosexual ACTs are a choice."

The fact is that homosexual acts are popular with homosexuals, and heterosexual acts are popular with heterosexuals.

Its Nature!



War against gays?

Indeed, it is right to report that many gays do smoke and drink.
Furthermore, I agree that much does come down to the responsibility of individuals.

So what is intolerant about me pointing this out?

The trouble is that left wing victimology is used as a hammer to beat people who point out unpalatable truths over the head with.

By bringing this subject up I am intolerant?

In all likelihood it is the extent of this type of bullying that made it necessary for the lead researcher who published this data to make the statement he did, a kind of CYA to avoid accusations of homophobia.

Given the number of 'openly gay' mps in parliament as well as other positions of authority is it even correct to say gays are 'marginalised'?


Hows about we just respect everyone's right to be who they are in the public arena while retaining our right to dislike it and avoid it in our private lives?

(In spite of the Socialists forcing us to have to accept it in our private lives via "Human rights "acts and other PC Nazism...)

Can we agree on that...mmmmmm?


In reply to Peter, (a good biblical name), there is plenty of New Testament as well as Old Testament evidence about homosexuality being outside of God's plan for our lives.
The book of Romans comments on this precise point --
Romans 1:21 -- 23
"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

I take this to mean people who reject knowledge of God, people who believe in science as the source of all truth and particularly people who believe in evolution. "They exchanged the glory of God for images made to look like man and birds and animals and reptiles" sounds a lot like evolution to me.
However because of this -- because of rejection of the knowledge of God and belief in evolution, this is what has happened --

Romans 1:26 says " Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion".

Clearly according to the Bible, both the New Testament and the Old Testament, homosexuality is outside of God's plan for our lives.



You can take the view that homosexuality is outside God's plan for YOU and that is great if you just happen to be heterosexual.

The important question is whether anyone else should be obliged to accept that as a plan for them.

It is somewhat contradictory with what Ian has been saying. What is the point in God having a plan for someone when God knows what will happen anyway?

The first quote from St Paul is an argument against idolatory. And I will agree with St Paul on this occasion - idolatory is a waste of time and energy. St Paul knew nothing of evolution - goodness - Darwin did not come along until a couple of millenium later!

St Paul was quite a good joker and he was an amazing correspondent. But he was not God and he was not Jesus.

Your second quotation from Romans look like ancient bigoted folklore and that is how I would regard it.

The comments to this entry are closed.