What's more dangerous to NZ society? Gay marriage or Garth McVicar and the Sensible Sentencing Trust?
There is glitter all over my house, the place has been tidied and redecorated and my wine selection mocked, thanks to Garth McVicar, I now know that I've been robbed by the gays!
Who woulda thunk that Queer Eye for the Straight Guy was really a crime ring for gay burglars? Where will the gay crime wave strike next?
If gay marriage increases child abuse, domestic violence & the prison population in the manner in which McVicar insinuates, what the hell has straight marriage been doing for the last 20 centuries?
In the tiny little world according to Garth McVicar, if those gays get the right to marry, they'll be leaving burning rainbows on people's front lawns. I'm waiting for Garth to call for a war on rainbows to tackle the deadly pink crime wave.
Gay marriage is not dangerous to NZ society. Garth McVicars and the Sensible sentencing Trust is. It should be a national source of cringe worthy shame that McVicars has the sort of political and media clout that he does. No other group has done more to degrade the dialogue about crime and punishment than McVicar and his Sensible Sentencing Trust.
They have injected anger, fear and hysteria into the debate so that our social policy has been warped by hate. Our staggeringly high incarceration rates have McVicar and his ability to manipulate victim grief to thank for, that and a political spectrum who seem hell bent on rewarding private prison profit margins rather than the responsible guardianship of justice.
By 2014, NZ will have the largest percentage of prisoners in private prisons than anywhere else on the planet. This has happened under the roar of McVicar's lynch mob and its constant scream for more punishment.
For a man who has such a malignant impact on society to claim gay marriage of all things will lead to more prisoners is simply so disconnected from reality it's difficult to respond with anything less than contempt.
Surely after McVicar's homophobic brainfart, the SST has to drop the word 'sensible' from their name? It's false advertising if they don't.
FACEBOOK TWITTER
posted by Bomber @ 7:01 am
5 comments
5 Comments:
I guess old McVicar is aiming for a knighthood, probably going the right way about it if recent knighthoods are anything to go by.
If McVicar is ever knighted, that will complete the derisory view that many have of that so-called "Honours" system.
As for McVicar's crazy submission to the Select Committee - he has truly "outed" himself as one deranged nutbar.
God knows what monsters he thinks lurk under his bed at night...
Dr Syn - well said. McVicar deserves nothing more.
Looks like the SST is distancing itself from McVicar:
McVicar's gay marriage talk rejected.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8204520/McVicars-gay-marriage-talk-rejected
And then there’s:
Society right to discriminate – Craig.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10860840
Conservative Party leader Colin Craig says homosexuality is a choice and society is right to discriminate against gay relationships.
He said the debate about Manurewa MP Louisa Wall's bill to define marriage as the union of any two people regardless of gender was about the value the country placed on its history and traditions.
"It asks whether the history and tradition of marriage as an institution uniting a man and a woman for the benefit of children and society deserves our protection," he said.
"Changes like this should not be made lightly. I am not convinced that there is a compelling reason for change.
"Yes, we are discriminating between relationships. We are saying that marriage between a man and a woman is recognised. We are saying that a relationship between a man and a man, for example, goes down the path of a civil union."
Labour MP Moana Mackey asked Mr Craig if he still believed, as he said last August, that homosexuality was "a choice".
"I do," he said. "It's a choice influenced by a number of things including genetics."
The usual argument presented by Craig; the value of national history and tradition with regard to marriage.
What I find ridiculous is Craig’s belief homosexuality is a choice and quote: “It's a choice influenced by a number of things including genetics.”
If people are genetically inclined to be homosexual, and considering the obvious that no one can choose their genetic background, he’s essentially advocating gays supress their orientation.
Imagine advocating for heterosexuals to supress their orientation, that’s a tall order - nigh on impossible. So in his mind one group has freedom of their sexual orientation while the other must conform to the latter. Looks to him it’s majority rules.
Or does he personally feel from his own experience that everyone can go either way?
Everyone can be certain this government will play the gay marriage card due to all the controversial policies they’re about to implement, it’ll allow them a liberal image while distracting the public with bizzare tirades from the likes of McVicar, McCroskie and Craig. The media will be sure to propagate their messages with the usual sensationalist vigour.
Those who are religiously inclined and concerned can argue over the semantics of marriage from their perspective, but from many of the arguments, we find characters that demonstrate an underlining prejudice which essentially invalidates their argument, or perhaps sexual ambiguity on their part.
Having the Conservative Party in Parliament: do we really need another millionaire MP? I trust many of us have woken up to the problems with our millionaire PM. What does a millionaire know about Jack or Jill Average and their concerns?
@ Procrastonatir ( Sorry , I'm drunk . ) That's some fine writing there Mr or Mrs , or Ms . Isn't it comforting , in these heady times , to be in the company of like minded souls ?
Post a Comment
<< Home