Monday, February 22, 2010

Andrei Paul Henry's "unnatural" remark

The BSA has just ruled that Paul Henry was not being discriminatory when he said "Homosexuality is unnatural".

Complainant Ken Cage said
Henry's comments were offensive and the message conveyed justified "bullying others on the basis of their perceived sexual orientation".

I can't quite see that myself - we live in a society where we let people live as they want and I for one wouldn't want it any other way.

The thing is of course the Gay lobby have succeeded in casting their particular issue as equivalent to a civil rights issue where people are discriminated on the basis of religion or skin color and that is something I have never bought into.

Where my issue with all of this lies is the promotion of homosexual relationships as being equivalent to heterosexual ones, which I don't believe they are.

The thing is we need children and New Zealanders as a whole are barely producing enough to maintain our population and like it or not it takes one man and one woman to create a child and the best way of raising that child is with both parents working together to do it - and that is both natural and desirable for the sake of our Country's future.

And that is what we should be promoting, the nuclear family, mum, dad and the kids - not Gay Marriage, contraception and abortion, none of which are natural.

43 comment(s):

Boganette said...

I'm guessing you believe homosexuality is a choice -taking a massive leap of logic and assuming for a second it is: Do you think religion is also a choice?

Do you think people choose to be Christian or Muslim or Hindu or any other religion?

You chose your religion so why should you be protected against discrimination? If according to you homosexuality is a choice and therefore it's OK to call them unnatural is it OK for me to say I think your family is unnatural because of your religion?

What's the difference?

Would you be offended if Paul Henry said your family was unnatural because you are Catholic (or some other strange religion)?

Oh and "New Zealanders as a whole are barely producing enough to maintain our population" - Where on Earth did you get that idea?

Andrei said...

Do you think religion is also a choice?

The fundamental thing about the Christian Faith is that it is something you choose.

This contrasts with Islam where in many Islamic countries where if you are born Muslim you can be penalized if you abandon it - often the penalty is death.



Is it OK for me to say I think your family is unnatural because of your religion?

Feel free to do so, most people wouldn't agree and think it kind of odd for you to do so though

Again the Christian faith has many martyrs and there are people dying for the Christian faith even today.

Oh and "New Zealanders as a whole are barely producing enough to maintain our population" - Where on Earth did you get that idea?

The latest Vital statistcs release says the average number of children per New Zealand woman is 2.1 which is almost exactly replacement rate.

However the middle classes are not the ones having children, the large
"families" are the likes of the Kahus.

I.M Fletcher said...

I'm guessing you believe homosexuality is a choice -taking a massive leap of logic and assuming for a second it is:

Boganette, well then tell me: do you think pedophilia (or people who like to have sex with children) is a choice? Or are they born that way?

1) If you say pedophilia IS a choice, then explain why it is not innate like homosexuality is? - why isn't it considered an orientation?

2) If pedophiles ARE born that way, why are they discriminated against for their innate sexuality? You might say, well, pedophilia is destructive, but what if the pedophile has those feelings but doesn't act on them? Is it not still his orientation?

Or the same with someone who is into bestiality. Couldn't he say that his preference is innate?

It doesn't take a "massive leap of logic" for me to see that these are ALL purely sexual preferences, but gay rights activists would only have you think about the sexual activities that seem least offensive so as not to harm their cause.

Psycho Milt said...

Your constant attempts to equate sex acts between consenting adults with the sexual abuse of children or animals is extremely ugly stuff. You really should give it up.

BJ said...

Psyco M says"Your constant attempts to equate sex acts between consenting adults with the sexual abuse of children or animals is extremely ugly stuff. You really should give it up."

Why?
Doesn't get to the heart of the Issue?
At some point the "Act" requires a decision of the Will.
You only dont like it because such comparisons expose the flawed logic of attempyting to equate Homsex with hetro Sex.
BJ

Liam Lynch said...

Check out the following blog from Ireland. They have interesting material.The link is www.thoughtactioneire.blogspot.com

Psycho Milt said...

Why?

The "why" is right there in the comment - because it equates sex acts between consenting adults with the sexual abuse of children or animals, an eqation that is not merely blindingly obviously wrong but also a deliberate, calculated insult.

If I turned up here declaring that people who make their children go to church don't have any basis for disagreement with people who make their children service them sexually, I suspect you'd be able to discern not only "flawed logic" but a deliberate attempt to cause offence. Here's a tip - others have the same ability to discern when people are presenting ugly bullshit.

Doesn't get to the heart of the Issue?
At some point the "Act" requires a decision of the Will.


What issue? That Paul Henry is an idiot and a creep? Surely that's not in dispute. If you mean the "issue" of whether homosexuality is innate or not, that's undecided, and a question better left to scientists than breakfast TV jabberers. If you mean the "issue" of whether homosexuality should be classed as a crime similar to pederasty or bestiality, that definitely has been decided, on the basis I've already described.

Sean said...

On this occasion I have to side with Psycho Milt. IM Fletcher, sorry but you went too far with those silly comparisons. This blog has been better than that.

BJ said...

PM says

“The "why" is right there in the comment - because it equates sex acts between consenting adults with the sexual abuse of children or animals, an eqation that is not merely blindingly obviously wrong but also a deliberate, calculated insult.


And how does that comparison differ to that of the pro homomsex?
Lets see:

The "why" is right there in the comment - because it equates sex acts between consenting hetrosex. with sodomy of homosex. …..an eqation that is not merely blindingly obviously wrong but also a deliberate, calculated insult.
BJ

David said...

And how does that comparison differ to that of the pro homomsex?
Lets see:


Not very well then. Most people that are older than 15 don't think gay is an insult.

Boganette said...

"Feel free to do so, most people wouldn't agree and think it kind of odd for you to do so though."

Yeah that's how the majority of people feel when they hear religious types crapping on about sexuality.

I'm not going to comment on your 'middle class' aren't breeding rubbish because I don't really know how to argue with someone who wants less brown babies around.

BJ I fear for your mental stability and for the people around you if you can't see the difference between sexuality and sexual assault.

And just a random side note - what the frick is this rubbish about 'homosex' sex acts?

I know you conservative types are highly interested in what everyone else does in the bedroom (I have no idea why) but you must realise that what lesbians do in the sack and what gay men do in the sack aint all that much different to what heteros do. I mean after all one of your commentators has named himself BJ.

Andrei said...

I'm not going to comment on your 'middle class' aren't breeding rubbish because I don't really know how to argue with someone who wants less brown babies around.

Now now Boganette, who said anything about less brown babies.

Point of fact the future engineers, doctors, accountants etc will, if past precedent is any guide, be nurtured in stable family homes, the vast majority with two parents.

Likewise those people who exhibit social pathologies will in the overwhelming majority of cases come from fractured or non existent families.

This is not rocket science and lies at the heart of the conservative objections to the rewrite of social mores.

I.M Fletcher said...

The "why" is right there in the comment - because it equates sex acts between consenting adults with the sexual abuse of children or animals, an eqation that is not merely blindingly obviously wrong but also a deliberate, calculated insult.

PM then tell me how it is different. What if it is a man's "orientation" to be attracted to children, yet he never ever acts on it or sexually abuses anyone. Is it not still his orientation? How is that different from a homosexual orientation?

You may not like me comparing the two, but in both cases there is no proof either way that it is innate.

Go on, prove it to me. Tell me how it is different. Tell me how my equating a desire for sexual conduct in two different instances with being innate is an "insult".

I.M Fletcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
I.M Fletcher said...

If you mean the "issue" of whether homosexuality is innate or not, that's undecided, and a question better left to scientists than breakfast TV jabberers.

Well, see, I don't get that. If you say it is undecided yet then it is possible (I think more probable) that it is a conscious desire or choice, at least in some cases.

Now, should we be teaching children that it is natural and normal and an option for them when we don't even know? And when it is so harmful?

Psycho Milt said...

What if it is a man's "orientation" to be attracted to children, yet he never ever acts on it or sexually abuses anyone. Is it not still his orientation? How is that different from a homosexual orientation?

How is it different from yours? And yet, somehow, I can restrain myself from infering that your sexual acts are no different from those of pederasts and bestialists. How about you show homosexuals the same courtesy?

If you say it is undecided yet then it is possible (I think more probable) that it is a conscious desire or choice, at least in some cases.

Given the number of political lesbians and prison rapists around I'd be nuts to assume it couldn't be a conscious choice in some cases.

Now, should we be teaching children that it is natural and normal and an option for them when we don't even know? And when it is so harmful?

Lacking certainty in whether or not homosexuality is innate, should we be teaching children that their feelings put them on a par with child molesters and animal rapists? Perhaps allowing them the consideration that they may actually not be some kind of criminal monster deserving of intensive playground bullying is to be recommended rather than rejected?

Lucia Maria said...

That was a full on dodge, PM.

"Sexual Orientation" is an artificial construct.

It's people giving a name to their desires in order to legitimise them, when most of those desires should not be acted upon.

Some desires have gained societal acceptance, such as same-sex desire, while as others are not so acceptable, such as those Fletch mentioned.

Desires are just desires when it comes down to them, what's unacceptable is if you act on those desires outside of what is good ... even down to pornography of any type.

Now, as for Paul Henry saying "Homosexuality is unnatural", he could easily have said "Pornography is harmful", or "Bestiality is not what healthy people aspire to". He should be able to say any of that without people jumping on him.

I.M Fletcher said...

How is it different from yours? And yet, somehow, I can restrain myself from infering that your sexual acts are no different from those of pederasts and bestialists. How about you show homosexuals the same courtesy?

PM, you just don't seem to get where I'm coming from do you?
I'm not condemning anyone's sexual acts per se. I know that a lot of people have 'fun' sex lives and carry out all sorts of acts but those people don't go on to say that those acts are normal and natural and should be legitimized by law. You see what I mean?

On the one hand you have the "I'm a consenting adult and I can do what I like with my partner" and that is fine; but on the other hand we have the "I'm a consenting adult and can do what I like with my partner and I want enshrined in law that my sexual acts are normal - futhermore, I want it taught to children in picture books that it is normal as well, nevermind the harm and confusion it causes. I also want anybody who disagrees with me (especially Christians) prosecuted under civil rights laws".

THAT is where I draw the line. I could ask why pederasts can't have the same sort of laws legalizing their preferences and you will tell me because it is harmful to society as a whole and children in particular.

Well, I can say the same thing about homosexuality. A recent study here in New Zealand bu Auckland University show that half of gay students self-harm. They also show elevated rates of alcohol and drug use, sexually transmitted infections and mental health issues.

The survey found that while 10 percent of heterosexual students showed significant depressive symptoms, the figure tripled to 30 percent for those attracted to the same or both sexes.
The survey also found this group are five times more likely to have attempted suicide.
And while 19 percent of those attracted to the opposite sex admitted to self harming behaviour, for those attracted to the same sex or both, the figure was higher at 53 per cent.


This isn't out of the ordinary, and matches studies done overseas.
But no, you would rather expose primary children to this and offer this life of hurt as a lifestyle.

I.M Fletcher said...

That is not to mention the fact that gay relationships don't last very long - the partners like to play around etc, and what about the lowered lifespan?


According to the Cameron research, married gays and lesbians lived 24 fewer years than their conventionally married counterparts.

In Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74yrs., while the 561 partnered gays died at an average age of 51.

In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77 and the 31 gays at 52 yrs. In Denmark, married women died at an average age of 78 yrs. compared to 56 yrs. for the 91 lesbians. In Norway, women married to men died at an average age of 81. v. 56 for the 6 lesbians.

“The consistency of reduced lifespan for those engaging in homosexuality is significant,” said Dr. Cameron. “The same pattern of early death turned up whether we looked at obituaries in the U.S. or deaths in marriage. Given the greatly reduced lifespan for homosexuals, school children should be strongly and consistently warned about the dangers of homosexuality even more so than smoking. Those school districts which are introducing pro-gay curricula need to rethink their priorities.”


Read the full Cameron report HERE

Studies have shown that years of smoking shortens the lifespan of the smoker from 1 to 7 years. Recent analysis of the age of death in Norway and Denmark for gays who are legally married (see above) suggests that engaging in homosexual behavior reduces lifespan by 24 years! So, sure, lets pass along the non-smoking message to kids, but by all means endorse another message which will shorten their lives even more than that.

I.M Fletcher said...

And what about the medical community? How did this legalizing of homosexuality come about? Up until 1973, homosexuality was seen as an illness.

[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.

But after 1973 it all changed. Why? Was it because they found new medical evidence? No, it was because of bullying and intimidation by gay rights activists.

Sorry about the long paste below, but it's good to have an idea of the history in this stuff -


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. Like Dr. Irving Bieber, prominent psychoanalyst and psychiatrist, who presented a paper on "homosexuality and transsexualism" at the 1970 APA convention. Instead of challenging his findings by questioning the accuracy of his research methods, they just disrupted his presentation. Way easier. Especially when there isn't any research to support your position.

Imagine the prestigious, scientific setting of the APA conference where Dr. Bieber presents his study – homosexual activists employ what has become their customary tactic: fear and intimidation. As Bieber begins to present his research, homosexual attendees loudly mock and laugh at him. They further disrupt his presentation by shouting and calling him names and making threats, suggesting he deserved to be "drawn and quartered." If we said something like that about homosexuals, it'd be a "hate crime."

On May 3, 1971, the psychiatrist protesters broke into a meeting of distinguished members of their profession and grabbed the microphone – giving it to one of their allied outside activists, who proclaimed:

Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you. … We're rejecting you all as our owners.

"No one raised an objection," recounts Dr. Satinover. Their disruption was met with more reconciliation and an appearance before the APA's Committee on Nomenclature. Further bullying and lobbying delivered the committee vote that maybe, just maybe, homosexual behavior was not a sign of psychiatric disorder after all.

By the time of the 1973 APA convention, the group announced its new "finding" with only 15 minutes for dissenters to discuss 70 years of psychiatric research to the contrary. The hijacked vote was formally appealed to the full membership. But activists already had a letter drafted, in part by friends at the National Gay Taskforce, urging a vote to "retain the nomenclature change," which was sent to the 30,000 APA members with the money the NGTF had raised.

Of course, no one let on to APA members that the letter came from homosexual activists, as Dr. Bayer revealed, "that would have been 'the kiss of death.'" But the letter drafted and paid for by the NGTF was able to secure a majority response from a third of the members who responded. But the vast majority was not behind the change. How do I know? Four years later, the Medical Journal Aspects of Human Sexuality reported a survey showing "69 percent of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote and still considered homosexuality a disorder."

But it didn't stop there. The American Psychological Association recently published a study favorable to pedophilia – you know, child molestation. If you call it "Adult-child sex," it doesn't sound as bad.

Psycho Milt said...

Not a dodge at all, it was a fair answer.

You assert sexual orientation is an artificial construct, and yet I'm willing to bet that you required no deliberate decision-making to choose men as preferred sex partners. I certainly recall no conscious decision-making process in opting for women as preferred sex partners.

Some desires have gained societal acceptance, such as same-sex desire, while as others are not so acceptable, such as those Fletch mentioned.

Like IM Fletcher, you're refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the room, ie the basic moral difference between acts involving consenting adults and those involving rape.

Desires are just desires when it comes down to them, what's unacceptable is if you act on those desires outside of what is good ... even down to pornography of any type.

There's a serious requirement for a definition of "good" in there. I'm picking that agreement on the definition is unlikely...

Psycho Milt said...

THAT is where I draw the line. I could ask why pederasts can't have the same sort of laws legalizing their preferences and you will tell me because it is harmful to society as a whole and children in particular.

Elephant? There's an elephant in the room, you say? Where? I can't see one...

Boganette said...

"I'm not condemning anyone's sexual acts per se. I know that a lot of people have 'fun' sex lives and carry out all sorts of acts but those people don't go on to say that those acts are normal and natural and should be legitimized by law."

What? Everyone thinks their sex life is normal and natural - and those sex acts ARE legtimised by law. I'm guessing you think yours is normal - while I might think it's totally weird (please don't tell me, I don't want to know about it I'm not a conservative so I don't care). Do you want sodomy to be banned now? What else should be banned? Oral sex? Dressing up as the Pope etc?

This is all rather silly. You shouldn't care what people do in the bedroom and nobody is teaching your kids about sodomy OK? They'll learn for themselves about it once they take their first steps into the real world.

"The gays" aren't coming to steal your children and turn them into devil worshipping drag queens who love sodomy. So just chill and mind your own business (I'm guessing that message will fall on deaf ears).

Don't you Christian-types homeschool your kids anyway? They probably won't find out about gay people until they have their first job. By then they'll be adults. Such a shame!

Redbaiter said...

Extremely interesting read based on the backlash after Ryan Sorba bowed out of speaking at CPAC in protest at the presence of a homosexual group.

One very interesting claim is that George Soros, who funds many Progressive groups, is also funding the Cato Institute.

Another equally interesting claim is that liberals are attempting to infiltrate CPAC and wrest control from actual Conservatives.

Frankly, I find it refreshing to see people like Sorba at last fighting back against the intense speech and thought control that homosexual groups attempt to enforce.


http://www.rightsidenews.com/201002228786/editorial/the-gay-infiltration-of-the-conservative-movement.html

KG said...

I don't mind at all if somebody is 'gay'--it's good to have cheerful people around, after all. ;)
What I do care about is homosexuals who pretend that their sexual preference is somehow "normal" and who insist that it should be presented that way to children.

It's aberrant, often dangerous and very often promiscuous and it's difficult to imagine anything further from the kind of family life which is necessary if children are to do well.
The fact that a sex act is "legitimised by law" doesn't make it healthy, safe or good for society.Following that argument, if the law was changed tomorrow to make paedophilia legal then Boganette would have no problem with it. The law is not and cannot be the arbiter of morality.

I have no problem with somebody being homosexual--I work with a couple of them and we get along just fine. Because they don't try to make their sexual preferences into some kind of political/social statement.
Perhaps the most useful lesson 'out and proud' homosexuals could learn is that the vast majority of people simply aren't interested in their sex lives.

Boganette said...

"Following that argument, if the law was changed tomorrow to make paedophilia legal then Boganette would have no problem with it"

Oh please. Don't destroy your already pathetic argument. If you don't understand the difference between sexual assault and a sex act that's something I can't help you with. You need to talk to a professional about it.

In terms of the law and what you think is 'moral': Is it OK for straight people to have anal sex? Is oral sex something you think should be banned? Maybe you could list all the legal sex acts you think are icky so we know what laws you think should be changed. Or maybe you could just stop stressing about what legal sex acts consenting adults do in the bedroom.

I'm sure the "homosexuals" you work with wouldn't get along fine with you if you were honest about how you feel about them. But I'm quite positive you don't have the balls to out yourself to them about how you really feel. It's fine to put it on a blog but actually saying this stuff out loud is not something you'd be brave enough to do - since I'm positive you know it's inherently wrong to attack people based on sexuality.

Don't deny you're not interested about their sex life buddy. Otherwise why would you be so fixated on it? To the extent that you want certain sex acts banned.

KG said...

"If you don't understand the difference between sexual assault and a sex act that's something I can't help you with."
I'll assume you're being deliberately obtuse there. What I did was point out that the law is not the arbiter of morality after you said "..and those sex acts ARE legitimised by law".
Got it now?

"
In terms of the law and what you think is 'moral':"
Irrelevant. What I think is moral has nothing to do with the point I made about the law and morality.

"I'm sure the "homosexuals" you work with wouldn't get along fine with you if you were honest about how you feel about them."
Perhaps you just have a comprehension problem. If you read what I wrote again you'll see the words:
"Because they don't try to make their sexual preferences into some kind of political/social statement."
They know how I feel about them. And they know how I feel about the "out and proud" bunch. Oddly enough, they share that distaste.
And by the way--they read my blog. :)
By the way--you have no idea what I'm brave enough to do, girlie.
Got it again?

And I'm not your buddy and not interested in their sex life.

Boganette said...

"By the way--you have no idea what I'm brave enough to do, girlie."

Oh nice and threatening there buddy. Thanks for proving what I already thought about you.

If a wee argument over the internet gets you that riled up that you'd pull that kind of rubbish I don't want to know what you're like offline.

I'd rather debate with people who don't resort to that kind of behaviour.

Just don't take out that obvious pent up aggression on anyone offline K?

KG said...

"Oh nice and threatening there buddy. Thanks for proving what I already thought about you."

LOL! Seeing threats where none exist. How..convenient. :)

KG said...

"I'd rather debate with people who don't resort to that kind of behaviour."

No, you'd rather debate with people who are too polite -or too cowed by the PC atmosphere in NZ- to point out what a load of feminist lefty crap you spout.

Redbaiter said...

Well said Keith. We have to ignore their PC dictates and stick it to these arseholes or they'll never know just how much they're pissing us off these days.

Still reading Boganette? Learn this. We've had it up to here with your Progressive bullshit.

I.M Fletcher said...

Maybe you could list all the legal sex acts you think are icky so we know what laws you think should be changed. Or maybe you could just stop stressing about what legal sex acts consenting adults do in the bedroom.

I think you're confusing 'icky' with the fact that these acts are actually dangerous to the health and wellbeing of those that practice them (see my posts above).
Again, I have no problem with people doing what they want in the privacy of their own homes, but what I do have a problem with is these acts being presented to children as an option when they actually shorten life more than smoking.

Smoking is also legal but I bet parents would up in arms if little Johnny brought home a picture book that said it was a viable lifestyle and he should give it a go with his buddies - and smoking is not as bad as the health risks we're talking about.

I.M Fletcher said...

Like IM Fletcher, you're refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the room, ie the basic moral difference between acts involving consenting adults and those involving rape.

And what if the child consents? Or do you mean legal (or underage) rape? As far as a moral difference, homosexual acts used to be seen as immoral and were illegal as well. Before 1973 those with homosexual tendencies were seen as having psychiatric problems.

So has morality changed between then and now? Or was it always moral in your mind? Or have you been swayed by the PC brigade?

Psycho Milt said...

And what if the child consents?

I had no idea you were such a moral relativist. Is there something about the term consenting adult that's difficult to grasp? We accept that children are not adults and protect them accordingly.

This is not rhetoric but entirely serious: if you, Lucyna and KG are not simply engaging in sophistry but are in fact genuinely incapable of recognising a clear moral distinction between sex acts involving consenting adults and those involving sexual abuse of children and animals, people really should avoid leaving you alone with their children or animals. Personally, I don't believe for a moment that you fail to recognise such a distinction and am assuming sophistry.

Before 1973 those with homosexual tendencies were seen as having psychiatric problems.

So has morality changed between then and now? Or was it always moral in your mind? Or have you been swayed by the PC brigade?


Before 1973 women were paid less than men for the same work. Before 1833 it was fine to keep slaves. Before 1893 women didn't get a say in who governed the country. On what basis could you claim morality doesn't change over time?

Psycho Milt said...

Further to the above, it's not "PC" to recognise Paul Henry as a malicious idiot.

This is a man who declares homosexuality "unnatural" and in the next breath declares it common in the natural world.

He's also a man who uses "unnatural" as a pejorative, seemingly without noticing that he's talking not to a human being but a TV camera. A more "unnatural" act would be difficult to imagine.

If he really does say what many people are thinking, we can only conclude the NZ population contains a depressing number of imbeciles.

Lucia Maria said...

PM,

This is not rhetoric but entirely serious: if you, Lucyna and KG are not simply engaging in sophistry but are in fact genuinely incapable of recognising a clear moral distinction between sex acts involving consenting adults and those involving sexual abuse of children and animals, people really should avoid leaving you alone with their children or animals. Personally, I don't believe for a moment that you fail to recognise such a distinction and am assuming sophistry.

You assume wrong both times.

Stop making wild accusations or all future comments of yours will be deleted from this blog.

Psycho Milt said...

Wrong both times, ie no you don't recognise such a moral distinction and no it's not sophistry? In that case, you're right - I'd better stop commenting on this thread as it wouldn't end well.

Lucia Maria said...

PM,

Yeah, you better, because you are really, really, really pissing me off.

Going from "genuinely incapable of recognising a clear moral distinction between sex acts involving consenting adults", to then turn that into me saying that I don't recognising a moral distinction between the items is to lie about what I said.

Obviously, morals are not a strong point with you.

KG said...

"..people really should avoid leaving you alone with their children or animals."
PM,if you'd care to email me I'll give you my full address and the times when I'll be home. And you're invited to find out first-hand why people should really avoid leaving me alone with slimy leftists.

leftrightout said...

Nice one KG; can't win the debate, so threaten violence. Yep, a real man of morals.

Redbaiter said...
Well said Keith. We have to ignore their PC dictates and stick it to these arseholes ...


So Redbaiter is advocating anal rape of those with whom he disagrees?

KG said...

"Threaten violence"? Well, since you're simply another leftist slimeball I'll keep this simple:
Any person who suggests it's not safe to leave me alone with children and animals will get the response they deserve. And that response will be to beat the daylights out of them should they come anywhere near me.
For some insults, words won't suffice. The kind of scumbag who issues them needs a direct and painful lesson--that words have consequences.
So, my advice to you is to keep out of my way. An 'assault occasioning grievous bodily harm' charge would be a small price to pay for the pleasure of meeting either you or PM.

KG said...

Now I'm done with the pair of you. Talking to you leaves me feeling the way somebody must feel after crawling through a sewer pipe.

Lucia Maria said...

This thread is attracting the sorts of people that don't want to discuss this issue in a fair and even-handed manner and instead resort to personal attacks and lies.

I'm shutting it down.