Why I'm against gay marriage

Homosexuality is no worse than any other sin but it's still a sin and a moral wrong can never be a civil right. Obviously I'm not suggesting it should be recriminalised but the problem is that now it's treated as just another lifestyle and now they're trying to hijack the sacred institution of marriage. If it's just about rights then we've already got civil unions. But that's not enough. Their real agenda is to destroy our traditional values under the guise of "marriage equality." Btw I notice how the liberal media use the newspeak term "marriage equality." That's implying that all types of relationships are just as equal as marriage but, in that case, why should the govt be involved in relationships at all? Marriage wasn't created by the State (or for that matter religion). It was created by God so nobody has the right to redefine it. It takes one man and one woman (who are different but complement each other) to produce a child and that's what makes marriage the foundation of the family. Govt's role is to protect marriage because it provides the most stable environment in which to raise children. If marriage is just about love then why not allow polygamy or incest? And if marriage is a right then what about people who can't find spouses? Should the govt then step in? Another common pro-gay marriage argument is comparing banning gay marriage to banning interracial marriage. Don't know if you've seen the NZ Herald cartoon calling Louisa Wall NZ's Rosa Parks but if I was black I would consider it a huge insult to such a famous Civil Rights icon. The difference is that when interracial marriages were wrongly banned it was because of the spouses' individual attributes and perceived threats to racial purity. A marriage between a black man and a white woman was still (by definition) a marriage, just not a legal one. In contrast when you legalise same-sex marriage you're not just allowing more people to get married (because gays can already get married as long as they follow the same rules as everyone else) but you're actually completely redefining and overthrowing the whole fundamental nature and purpose of marriage itself. Hence gay marriage is an oxymoron. By redefining marriage (instead of just recognising and enforcing it) the govt is actually imposing its own moral value judgement on society and abusing its powers thus leading to a real threat to freedom.

Liberal hypocrisy on John Banks' religious beliefs

Liberals often like to tout themselves as compassionate and preach tolerance of diversity. They always go on about how we shouldn't be judgemental about other people or legislate morality. Whenever a controversial issue (such as same sex marriage, terrorism, immigration or abortion etc.) is being discussed, instead of allowing the facts to be presented openly and fairly, we're expected to tiptoe around the issue for fear of being accused of homophobic,islamophobic, racist or sexist or whatever ism or somethingphobia the liberal establishment decides to make up. MMP, in contrast to First Past the Post, is claimed to be a better electoral system because it supposedly makes Parliament more representative of the diversity of New Zealand. Then along comes John Banks who comes out of the closet as an openly conservative Christian who believes in the Biblical account of creation and suddenly they become the intolerant bigots they accuse their political opponents of being. On Monday the ACT Party leader told the Christian radio station, New Zealand's Rhema, "That's what I believe, but I'm not going to impose my beliefs on other people, especially in this post-Christian society that we live in, especially in these lamentable times.'' It seems there's an unwriten footnote in The Official Socialist Handbook that you have to be compassionate and tolerant towards everyone except of course white conservative Christians. Yesterday morning I was listening to Newstalk ZB's Mike Hosking  interview Dr Peter Lineham, the religion and politics specialist from Massey University, about this non-issue and the antichristian media bias was so blatently obvious.  They may not have actually said anything biased but the tone that was used sounded as though they though they were discussing whether John Banks had suddenly lost his mind. Hosking asked Lineham if this has any effect on him as an MP and cabinet minister, to which Lineham replied that it might in the case of issues such as gay marriage (something that is unbiblical). John Banks is the Associate Minister of Education and supports starting up charter schools, some of which would be Christian schools that teach Creationism, so secular liberals claim that this is relevant because he might "impose his beliefs on other people." But when Chris Carter, who is openly gay, was the Minister of Education during the last Labour Government these same secular liberals who don't want christians to "shove their beliefs down people's throats" never raised questions about whether his sexuality had any relevance to his ministerial duties. More recently, lesbian Labour MP Louisa Wall has had her gay marriage bill drawn out of the ballot but, of course, anyone who tries to make her lesbianism a relevant factor in the gay marriage debate is immediately labelled a homophobe. So being gay is completely irrelevant if you support gay marriage but if you're a Bible-believing Christian (like John Banks) you can't be against it without being biased? Even if John Banks does vote against redefining a sacred institution because of his religious beliefs what makes his views any less deserving of tolerance than anyone elses's? There seems to be a politically correct double standard where liberals are tolerant towards and terrified of offending all kinds of sensitive specially-favoured minorities but conservative Christians are fair game for ridicule and mockery. Their complaints towards Christains for wanting to "legislate morality" shows their hypocrisy even further especially when they're quite happy to force New Zealanders to tithe more to the Church of Climate Change through the Emissions Tax Scam despite the fact that New Zealand's carbon emissions are so miniscule (0.11%) that EVEN IF man-made climate change is happening it wouldn't decrease carbon emissions at all but instead decrease our economic growth. I don't hear John Banks demanding taxpayers pay for his religious beliefs. Another example of beliefs that liberals don't have a problem with imposing is Maori mythology.  For example, significant transport projects (like the Auckland rail loop) are often stalled because it might offend the Taniwha and of course you can't offend the Taniwha because that would be culturally insensitive.

Many liberals claim they have no problems with Christians but that's only as long as you're one of those fake politically correct types who caves into secular liberalism. As soon as you declare yourself as a proper Bible-believing Christian who's not afraid to stand up against their secular liberal agenda (like Colin Craig) you make yourselves eligible for persecution. I would like to think that most people, apart from militant atheists, have no problem with politicians believing in God. But, as Leighton Smith (who came after Mike Hosking) rightly pointed out, if it's possible to believe in God then why isn't it possible to believe that He created the world in 6 days and Adam and Eve last? Atheists often go on about how Christians are intolerant judgemental bigots who believe in some "Sky Fairy" as opposed to themselves whom they portray as "rational free-thinkers." But try having an open and informed debate about evolution or man-made climate change and see how rational and free-thinking they really are. John Banks dared to admit that he doesn't subscribe to the belief that there was nothing and then nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything. Yeah, he must be a real crazy nutcase!
DISCLAIMER: I have NEVER been a member of the ACT Party nor have I ever voted for ACT or have any association whatsover with the ACT Party or John Banks or anyone associated with John Banks - just in case you think I'm being biased.

Olympics and the Nazis

The world's greatest sporting event has finally arrived. But while you're all excited about the London Olympics it may shock you to know that much of the pageantry of the Olympic Games (especially the torch relay) actually has influences from Nazi propaganda. Unlike the Olympic flame, which symbolises the stealing of fire by Prometheus from Zeus, the torch relay did not originate from the ancient Olympics. It was in fact started by Nazi sports administrator, Carl Diem. As the General Secretary of the German Olympic Committe, this guy was responsible for helping Berlin win the 1936 Olympics in 1931. Adolf Hitler, who came to power 2 years later, was originally not too keen on the Olympics and called it "an invention of Jews and Freemasons." However, Joseph Goebbels (the Nazi propaganda minister) was like "Hey wait a minute. This is like the world's greatest sporting event! Why don't we use this as a chance to showcase Aryan racial supremacy?" Hitler was convinced and, after a meeting in March 1933, told Carl Diem that he would support the Olympics. The Nazis used the opportunity of the Olympics for racial propaganda purposes by claiming that the great civilization of Ancient Greece was due to the supremacy of the Aryan race. Carl Diem came up with the idea of the Olympic torch relay to link the ancient Olympics with the modern Olympics. Hitler wanted to use the torch relay to supposedly represent the connection between the rituals and ceremonies of Ancient Greece and the claimed physical superiority of the so-called "master race" that the Nazis were eager to show the world at the Berlin Games. Like all other Olympic torch relays after it, the first one in 1936 was lit in Olympia, Greece (the site of the Ancient Games) and eventually made its way to Berlin. On the way it went through Yugoslavia, Hungary, Austria and Czechoslovakia. It's interesting to note that all of these countries would later suffer the fate of Nazi oppression. Another interesting fact is that the 1936 Berlin Olympics were actually the first to be broadcast live. This made spreading Nazi propaganda a whole lot easier because you could reach a far greater audience more effectively than just through word-of-mouth. So when you're watching the London Olympics and getting all pumped up don't forget that the Olympic Movement is not all about world peace and harmony. Also, you will notice that many of the athletes are sponsored by Adidas. There's Nazi connections there too. But that's another post!

Making Mugabe tourism envoy only makes UN even more of a sick joke

The United Nations was set up in 1945 after World War II in order to supposedly facilitate peace and human rights. That's what it's supposed to do. Unfortunately, what started out as a great idea to get countries to get along with each other has now become a huge joke and has made the UN about as useless and irrelevant as its predecessor, the League of Nations. There are too many examples of their incompentence but let's start with failing to prevent the Rwandan or Bosnian Genocides in the 1990s. Then you have the oil-for food scandal in which Russia, France and China (the 3 permanent Security Council members that opposed the Iraq War) continued to prop up Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime in exchange for oil while at the same time accusing the United States and Britain of fighting a war for oil. The fact that Russia, France and China kept pushing to remove sanctions on Iraq kind of destroys the whole "blood for oil" argument that liberals kept going on about since it was the countries that opposed the Iraq War that were the ones truly motivated by oil. Next example: Israel bashing. Israel gets hounded by the UN every time they try to defend themselves against terrorists (who hide among civilians in order to elicit sympathy) yet the UN hasn't even passed a single resolution to condemn the genocide in Sudan. The UN is supposed to protect and promote human rights but it does anything but that. For example, the so-called Human Rights Council flew the UN flags at half-mast after Kim Jong-il died and, more recently, the United Nations can't really do anything about Syria because Russia and China (who both have veto power) have such cozy relationships with that murderous regime. Want another example of the Useless Nations hypocrisy over human rights? The UN Human Rights Council is supposed to protect human rights which you would've thought includes free speech. Not according to the Human Rights Council, otherwise they wouldn't have passed a resolution banning criticism of Islam so they could appease Muslim dictatorships and legitimise their persecution of Christians. Oh, and don't even get me started on the ironically named UN World Conference Against Racism providing a soapbox for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to air his antisemtic holocaust denials and demands for Israel to be wiped off the map. When you notice all these scandals you start to realise how much of a joke this waste of a talkfest has become. Making Robert Mugabe, an evil dictator that commits atrocious human rights violations and has turned Zimbabwe into a complete basket case in the space of just 30 years, the Special Ambassador of the United Nations World Tourism Organization is yet even more proof of how irrelevant and out of touch the UN really is. Obviously there are heaps of other examples of the UN's uselessness but this post is long enough already. Feel free to comment below with your own examples.

Why is Easter different every year and how is the date determined?

Easter is different every year because it is around the same time as the Jewish festival of Passover which is based on the Lunar Calendar.Ok so how is it the date determined? Well basically Easter Sunday is the first Sunday after the Paschal Full Moon which is the first full moon on or after 21 March. Therefore Easter Sunday can never be earlier than 22 March or later than 25 April.

South Auckland version of the Anchor Zero Lacto ad with that annoying kid

If you live in New Zealand then you've probably seen the Anchor Zero Lacto ad with that annoying kid and his overly tolerant mum. Well this is the more realistic South Auckland version that more properly reflects modern New Zealand society.

Boy: Mum?
Mum: Eh wat?
Boy: Y do u drink milk different from us? U retarded?
Mum: Nah it's cos I'm f***** lactose intolerant OK? U got a prob with dat?
Boy: Wats intolerant?
Mum: It's wat I am of ya stupid questions u dumb $#*! Geez get a f***** education eh! Only had u to get da DPB & now dats gon 4 da week.

Nek minnit...
One News: A young boy is currently in a critical condition in the intensive care unit of Middlemore Hospital suffering from what police are calling "non-accidental injuries."

3 News wrong about Green Party's "record-setting night"

Yes I know the election was nearly two months ago and I was going to blog about this much earlier but it's better to be late in pointing out false statements in the media than to let them remain unchallenged. So what did 3 News get so SHOCKINGLY WRONG? Well we all know about TV3's obviously extreme left wing bias (case in point: that liberal douchebag John Campbell) and their infatuation with the Greens. On Election Night they couldn't stop themselves from getting excited over their unprecedented success in capturing the idiot vote.  While it is true that, unfortunately, the Green Party achieved their best ever result  by pretending to be more sensible than they really are, 3 News made the absolutely false statement that it is the first time since the 1996 MMP that a third party has got over 10% of the party vote. I don't pretend to be an expert in extensive research but it didn't take much extensive research for me to quickly find out from the official election results website that the Green Party is NOT the first minor party to have won more than 10% of the party vote. In fact, in the 2002 General Election, New Zealand First won 10.38% of the party vote. Yes, 10.38% not just 10%. Now I know some of you (most of you idiots which is probably why you voted for the Greens) will be like "Wow 10.38%?  That's pretty much close to 10% anyway. Big freakin deal!" But you don't have to be a mathematical genius to figure out that 10.38% IS STILL MORE THAN 10%!!! I'm honestly surprised that nobody else has realised this SIMPLE FACT before but then when has the lamestream media ever cared about facts and objectivity?