Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Lucia Whale Oil's: A threat to us all

From time to time the argument is put forward that a certain thing has not made the world end, the implication being that all those that predicted dire consequences if something were allowed, were wrong and those dire consequence did not immediately take place.

For example this rhetorical technique is used often in the "Gay Marriage" debate. Whale Oil used it the other day when he posted a number of pictures of men and women who had "married" those of the same sex and said:

The first same-sex marriages in the state of New York have occurred. I dunno how we are going cope, it’s the end of the world as we know it.

A threat to us all?

Let's use this on another example to show what I mean. Say that blowing up Parliament, with all the politicians inside the building is a bad thing to do. I would not condone such a thing at all, and if anyone came onto this website and encouraged such an incredible act of evil in all seriousness, that I would most likely delete their comments. If I was to argue with such a person, I would say that blowing up Parliament would harm our country and our democracy, not to mention the harm done to those individuals inside the building at the time. So, there would be the immediate harm of the act itself, but then the long term consequences of such precedent for action in New Zealand.

Now, if such an action did actually come to pass, the perpetrator could use the same argument as Whale Oil did in his "Gay Marriage" thread, that the action did not have any ramifications on those not involved. All the council buildings all over the country would still be operational, all other Government buildings would still be standing, and bar a few missing politicians, the country would be much the same as it always was, ie the world didn't end, democracy wasn't destroyed, the country is still standing.

I hope I've made my point.

30 comment(s):

Sb said...

What a strange rambling post?

"I hope I've made my point."

No you haven't

Blowing up Parliament kills people Gay marriage doesn't.

Two gays getting married does not have any effect on my marriage or anybody eases marriage.

Is you marriage so weak Lucia that two other people getting married can destroy it?

Do you want to try again?

Gay marriage is like killing people because????

Lucia Maria said...


That's not the comparison I'm making. Gay marriage, like blowing up Parliament, does not herald the end of the world - but they are both wrong.

Sb said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sb said...

Well why not say that without all those ramblings?

Why not be honest ( just like Jesus teachings ) and say "I hate Gays" and I want them to be treated like second class citizens.

That would make it clear without all that superfluous text.

The Gantt Guy said...

In one sense, Whale is right, in that homosexual marriage in and of itself will not bring about the end of the world (although given it would be abomination to God, He could well just blow the joint up and be done with it). What will bring about the end of the world (at least as we know it) is the unchecked March through the Instituitons the Leftists have been on the past half-century. The attack on traditional marriage (and the Church, for that matter) is just the latest battle front, now they've successfully taken over government and our education system and committed cultural genocide with their 'multi-culturalism'.

Ciaron said...

Sb said...

Wow... Epic strawman.


Lucia Maria said...


Obviously because I wouldn't be honest if I were to say such a thing and you know it.

Ciaron's got it in one.

Danyl said...

Here's the flaw in your argument Lucyna:

Gay marriage is not a single discreet event. Blowing up Parliament is. If you changed the law so that anyone could blow up anything they wanted - analogous to gays being able to marry who they want - then that would, basically be the end of the world, or at least the end of civilisation.

JJ said...

I've given up on whaleoils blog. The continual agitating for evil has worn thin for me. I think the truth is that people who support the idea of allowing a sick parody of marriage to exist is that they support it not because they really believe it - they don't - or that they care about homosexuals - they don't - but they HATE the idea that something stands in the way of them doing exactly what they want all the time. In other words, its just the petulance of a child - NOBODY TELLS ME WHAT TO DO. Whale of instance says there are no logical reasons against unnatural marriage, seemingly oblivous to the fact that there are no logical reasons for it either. Still, in our march towards totalitarianism this will be forced on us, but I for one will never recognize it. They will however, have fashioned a very good weapon to use against the church, thats what this is all really about.

Lucia Maria said...

Hmmm, good point, Danyl.

The problem I found with making this comparison is what type of example could I choose that would make the point best? Any sort of behaviour that I find unhealthy would not necessarily do, because someone would pop up and tell me that they do x, y or z and there's nothing wrong with it and how dare I tell them different.

So, yeah, it's not a perfect comparison, and really it was just supposed to illustrate the "it's not the end of the world" if this happens, but it's still not good and it will lead to all sorts of problems.

Lucia Maria said...

Hi JJ,

I've not visited Whale Oil much at all over the years, mainly because he posted a disgusting doctored picture of a teenage boy a while back that I objected to. But this gay marriage push needs a push back. He's getting away with too much.

Lucia Maria said...



Sb said...


Lucia vs The Whale.

Gets ice cream out.

Sits back to watch......

Andrei said...

The photographs that illustrated that post were taken on the first day "gay" marriage was permitted in New York.

They show essentially harmless old people "tying the knot".

On that day hundreds did the same thing and it was often a freak show - the photos of the freaks are carefully deep sixed so as to not to enlighten the populace that this event was really a circus.

As for the harm - the damage to the institution of marriage has/is taking years actually generations to fully manifest itself.

DrCP said...

As far as I can tell, Cameron Slater is a twice convicted criminal, failed businessman who is dabbling with joining the cult of the Seventh Day Adventists. He also has an undeclared interest on this matter in Korea I suspect.

Why are his arguments on this topic taken seriously at all?


Lucia Maria said...

Hi Chris,

Most likely because he's got a very popular blogsite, journalists want to know his opinion, and he was on the radio just a little while ago. He has reach.

ZenTiger said...

I ordered a coffee the other day, and was given a chai tea.

I really didn't find it the same. I mentioned to the barista that I had got a chai tea, and I was actually after a coffee. Boy, that really hit a raw nerve. This person behind me got stuck in too, and abused me for suggesting there was anything different about it. I half think though they just wanted to get their drink (he had ordered coffee too) and me not hold up the queue. So I gave him mine, and told him it was a flat white. Seemed to do the trick. It's good we can sort these little problems out in life.

Ciaron said...

I have done my best to confront Cam on his position, but I am now totally convinced that it is simply a daily flame war to dive traffic and comments up on his blog.

I want no part of it.

Lucia Maria said...

It certainly drove up my blog traffic yesterday! Not that I knew until this morning as Statcounter was not behaving.


You may be right, and chances are that posting on this topic is part of his push for traffic, however, I think it goes deeper than that.

He's got an underdog to battle for and that makes him feel good. Given his mental condition, anything that makes him feel good and some others feel good may be worth doing in his mind. Never mind that the way you have to help some people is by not giving them what they want (in this case, "gay marriage").

Lucia Maria said...

Aaahh, Ciaron, just saw that conversation about sinfulness that you have with WO. He's made a number of mistakes in what he said, such as all sin is the same. It's not.

There's varying degrees of sin, just as there are varying effects of sin. The effect on a person of murdering someone is far worse than lying, and so the sin is also far worse. Catholics separate sin into mortal and venial. Mortal cuts a person off from the Grace of God and can only be healed through repentance through Confession. Venial sin is not so severe, but repeated venial sin will most likely lead a person to committing a mortal sin through the damage being made to their conscience.

Sexual sin is always mortal and needs Confession. Encouraging someone to persist in unhealthy relationships outside of true marriage is like encouraging a person to murder. Each sexual encounter hurts and degrades the perpetrator just like each act of sexual sin hurts and degrades the perpetrator. There a numerous instances of Our Lord healing people and telling them their sins are forgiven and instructing them to sin no more.

Mortal sins are far easier to avoid committing than venial sins and so helping people see that what they are doing is wrong and harmful is an act of charity - not judgement of that person. Especially when those people identify themselves by their sin (ie acts of homosexuality) and demand that that sin be given legal recognition.

Anyway, he can read all that here. His blog is too annoying to comment on the way it loads and makes me load all the comments that are off the screen.

Ciaron said...

Mortal sins are far easier to avoid committing than venial sins and so helping people see that what they are doing is wrong and harmful is an act of charity - not judgement of that person. Especially when those people identify themselves by their sin (ie acts of homosexuality) and demand that that sin be given legal recognition.

Now why can't I articulate it that clearly...

The other thing I find fraudulent is those who claim that their morality comes from the Judeo/Christian context, yet dismiss the Bible as authorative! talk abiout aving your cake and eating it.

Lucia Maria said...


Thanks! You'll get there, though. Ask Our Lord to enlighten your mind before you post.

As for the Bible (which is the Word of God, just so you don't misunderstand what I'm going to say next), the problem is if everyone can have their own interpretation of what it means, then you get what WO is doing - interpreting what he reads the way he likes it.

As a Catholic, I can't do that. If my interpretation doesn't match what the Church teaches, I have to change my view. I'm quite happy to do that, because having to figure out everything myself is something I left behind when I abandoned a New Age way of thinking.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen said on a YouTube clip I listened to the other day (on Youth and Sex):

"Never pay too much attention to what people say - pay attention to why they say it - what they are covering up."

This was referring to atheists and agnostics, but it could be easily applied to WO as well.

Ciaron said...

I think I know what you mean, I'm at the stage myself where when someone presents an argument, I can clearly see that they are simply trying to justify their behaviour (as often as not to themselves as much as an audience), and I think to my self; if one has to justify ones behaviour to that extent, one must know somewhere deep down that it is wrong, as I certainly do.

I find providing the appropriate loving rebuke is considerably less apparent, and if those who do pray could do so for me, I would be eternally grateful.

Rudy said...


I've been reading Kiwiblog and Whaleoil for years. I've been reading NZ Conservative for a while now too, and I enjoy Crusader Rabbit.

I generally read, and sometimes post. I don't often have the time for it, and usually can't be bothered with the mud wrestling involved.

I have had a go at asking some questions of the folk at Whale's blog recently, but it's a waste of time.

I've spent far too much time on there lately, and don't think I gave a very good account of myself, or been a very good witness. The internet is not the best place to have a civil conversation.

I don't understand Cam anymore.

Whale has in the past made such a big deal about his Christian faith, his beliefs, the church (can we call it that?) he attends etc.

However he's been supporting gay marriage for a while now. While it started with a bit of fun (he thinks everyone deserves a mother-in-law), he's become very hard-line pro-gay marriage all of a sudden.

Instead of attacking the deplorable tactics of the left, aimed at shutting down debate, he's using them, quite openly.

He's even mocking and taunting his fellow Christians - which is saddest of all.

When pushed, he won't explain the incongruity between his supposed Christian faith and his support for gay marriage.

He simply side steps, posts another pro-gay piece, claims there is no decent argument against it, and mocks the opposing view some more.

If you don't agree with the line being pushed by Whale, his little pet Kosh starts flinging insults.

I just don't understand it.

I've considered whether he has a close family member or friend who is gay, or if its as banal as trying boost his site visitor numbers, and subsequent exposure/ site revenue.

He's changed.

I've said goodbye to Whale Oil. I wish him and his liberal / gay buddies all the best.

Sorry to vent, but I felt like I had to share some of my frustrations and sadness.

Hurrah Easter is just around the corner!

Lucia Maria said...

Hi Rudy,

No need to apologise. It's nice to meet you! I'm looking forward to Easter, too. :)

Lucia Maria said...


If you have a particular intention that you would like prayed for, email me on my Gmail. If I don't hear from you, I'll just pray for you generally. :)

Cyrus_NZ said...

I don't approve of homosexuality - but I wonder why there needs to be a government license for regular marriage. In America before a 100 years ago, I believe it was only interracial marriage that needed a license. Otherwise marriage was recorded at the church and in the family Bible

libertyscott said...

Lucia: What is a venial sin? (examples)

I find it hard to understand this statement, because the ramifications of it are profound - "Encouraging someone to persist in unhealthy relationships outside of true marriage is like encouraging a person to murder".

So all of the leaders of genocide over the years are akin to gay activists? Can you see how this can draw parallels between yourself and Islamist mullahs who execute homosexuals "as if it was murder" and execute apostates equally?

After all, I would have thought encouraging someone to NOT be a Christian would be similar.

Am I right in understanding that your interpretation of the Bible is not literal, but that which is promoted by the Vatican (which is, always, ever evolving)?

The easiest criticism of any atheist is to find the numerous references in the Old Testament to all sorts of practices that are allowed or banned which I see precious few Christians giving heed to today (thankfully).

Lucia Maria said...


Have a read of this link: The Gravity of Sin: Mortal and Venial Sin. That will give you some background. Then we can go from there.

Ross Calverley said...

Rudy, keep in mind who he blogs for...

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.