What’s with the National Party’s main blog and its pre-occupation with this issue? He’s whining on about it again today…!!
FFS, with the country going down the tube economically and socially, why the hell is this such a big issue to National?
They’re not all shirt-lifters are they?
TrueblueNZ 
16 responses to “Kiwiblog- Google Gives 387 references to “Gay Marriage””
There’s a definite pattern here – Whale has another post about it again today too.
LikeLike
Winston kicks a candidate off the list for drinking his urine as some sort of alternative health cure. National celebrates homosexual rights activists who talk shit because because their idea of oral sex is sticking their tongue up their boyfriend’s arse. Some people may find this comment offensive. I find it offensive that people are lobbying to allow a couple of male homosexuals to adopt a child, particularly a boy.
LikeLike
National is the party of urban liberals and the fringe loonies they use to derive much of their voter base–of course they’ll support homosexual “marriage”.
If shovelling conservatives into the gas oven was a vote-buyer, they’d be onboard with it.
LikeLike
You do know that National has the obligatory Maori “partnered” Lesbian on their list – in a winnable position at that?
LikeLike
Two of the biggest issues in this country are welfarism and separatism. Number 1 and number two. Number three is government expansion and overspending. Number four is the utterly decaying socially destructive millstone the left have made of our education system.
I’d put anything to do with homosexuals at about number 500 on the list of things needing attention. If anywhere.
One has to wonder why Kiwiblog is so preoccupied with homosexual issues.
LikeLike
Whaleoil is at it again today too. I reckon the Nats are going to attempt to start attracting the rainbows away from Labour. . . soon after the election.
LikeLike
Sorry Gantt, didn’t see you’d already mentioned that fact.
LikeLike
No worries Angus. It bears repeating. There’s a definite pattern of activity there.
Hey here’s a dream idea: National attracts all the social Liberal leftards away from ACT leaving the Conservative core, which then combines with the Conservative Party.Holy crap, they could end up winning Rodney, Epsom and Botany!
LikeLike
This is more of the same from the brain dead bereft of ideas and rhetoric National who have only ever had one course to government over the last few decades and that is to make themselves like Labour.
In the battle of ideas, they’re useless.
LikeLike
I really hope they do well. This destructive Pandora’s box libertinism is really starting to be a cause for concern. As for the “liberal” actoids, they underestimate how many conservative leaning voters did support them, I think.
. . and notice in that Deborah Russell article RB linked to, how these fruitcakes are now starting to openly discuss “multi-partner” marriages ? Ian Wishart spotted this about 5 years ago when Ruth Dyson mentioned it in a speech . . the need for legal recognition of “triples”.
LikeLike
Yup, and (I think) that’s something sensible libertarians (I know, I know – it’s a contradiction in terms) either are ignorant of or are deliberately ignoring. This one seemingly small change is but the first step towards the Dutch model of “if it can be done, it shouldn’t be illegal”. Multi-partner marriages (whether polygamous or polyamous), incestuous marriages, pedarist marriages, inter-species marriage? They’re all up for grabs if the door is opened.
LikeLike
“inter-species marriage? ”
As long as it is consensual. One ba means yes two means no.
To Oz sports fans would really love that.
LikeLike
I see you noticed it as well!
The debate in the comments has been successfully (in the first couple of hours) turned around to counter the idea that same sex marriage is good for society. Though, having to argue the religious aspect because atheists keep bringing it up!
David Farrar had a strange post the other day (last week, I think) on an argument he had with Jordan Carter (who is gay) about David’s supposed lack of support for gay rights. It was quite a long post, and went into a whole lot of stuff that would make anyone who was trying to follow it, go cross-eyed.
LikeLike
Posted on this KB thread:
Deborah Russell:
The morally repugnant Russell would have no counter argument against ANY sort of sexually perverse relationship – whether that be adult-minor, adult-animal, adult-corpse … or any other evil and perverted ‘relationship’ one may wish to construct. And if the current legal framework doesn’t support it there’s a simple solution – rewrite the law to suit. Perverts like NAMBLA are already pushing to drop the age of consent as just one example.
Normalising homosexual relationships was the gateway to any and all perverted and unnatural relationships. That we now try to label these as ‘marriage’ reveals how corrupt, evil, and perverted are those who support, condone, and no doubt participate in such amoral and deviant amoral constructions.
LikeLike
“It was quite a long post, and went into a whole lot of stuff that would make anyone who was trying to follow it, go cross-eyed.”
Funny that. Why would Jordan Carter expect DPF to have any exceptional level of support for homosexual “rights”?
LikeLike
Gay marriage is correctly viewed as a riskless political football to dribble around – which is why national and labour are so keen to do Shirts and Skins with it.
It means they don’t have to get all courageous and ballsy about the collapsing global economy, apartheid NZ, ETS….
LikeLike