Conservative voters will be happy with Act and National not having any openly gay MP's, I've had gay friends but I don't support their lifestyle, is that okay or am I not allowed a personal conviction?
Printable View
Of course you can choose with whom you socialise and have as friends. It depends what not "supporting their lifestyle" means. If it means discrimination in employment and services then it is not OK.
If it means that National Party candidates are selected on whether they appear straight and/or "in", then they are on the wrong side of history.
Perhaps "gay" became a self-identifier to counter-balance others who used pejorative labels as discriminatory put-downs. Maybe it was part of Polari - the code language of British Homosexuals used to avoid discrimination and imprisonment (Homosexuality was deemed unlawful in the British Empire)
Maybe "gay" was used by others pejoratively and then claimed by the LGBTQIA community in the same way the "N" word was reappropriated (to an extent) by African Americans?
One third of NZers have had mental distress. The gay rate is twice that. The youth rate and Maori rate are higher than average too.
https://www.cph.co.nz/your-health/mental-illness/
I don't think it is. 'Straight' people don't seem to recoil from being called heterosexual or hetrosexual. 'Straight' is another term but not a euphemism. 'Gay' is definitely a euphemism. I think you will find most homosexual or lesbian people are quite open to being called 'homosexual or lesbian'. They don't find it offensive. But then along came the politically correct do-gooders who have decided their description should be changed to 'gay'. That is offensive. Like the blind who some years ago were pleading to be called 'blind' but couldn't defeat the PC lunatics who insisted they be called 'visually impaired'.
It matters because diversity and inclusivity matters. It matters because a group of people who identify as gay are not included or welcome in some groups or organisations. They are judged on matters that are not relevant to their suitability as MPs. If you are gay you are unlikely to get ahead be accepted into organisations with conservative values.
And you say many who are entitled to their opinion will see that as a positive that ACT and National have no openly gay MPs, and implicit in that is that you don’t want any of that sort in organisations you belong to. You can have an opinion but when it translates into excluding people it becomes discrimination.
Which way would you have it moka? They be judged on their ability as MPs or some other irrelevant matter such as ethnicity or sexual orientation?
The woke Left's logic always crumbles upon itself. One minute they are demanding no discrimination, the next, discriminate. Apparently people of a certain ethnicity or gender all think alike according to the woke mob, hence a need to have all the colors of the rainbow.
It escapes them that this is a racist bigoted view of the world.
So on the one hand you say while you don’t approve of their chosen lifestyle, you consider your gay friends your equals - but at the same time you wouldn’t vote for a party with a high proportion of homosexual members. If you truly consider homosexuals your equals, why then do you deem them unworthy of your vote?
That's not what you said. You said you would "never vote for a party with a high proportion of members in that position."
Now you are making ridiculous assumptions about gay people and what they stand for. Just be honest and admit you are a homophobe. You're not fooling anyone.
You haven't been back long but I reckon it may be time to take a break, your aggro slipper is showing. PS-Im no homophobe but I did vote National which is actually what this thread is meant to be about. PPS- I'm not making assumptions I know what these people believe on what I consider important.
Here's Dave Chappelle's view. Guaranteed to offend while you laugh your arse off!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysLUKiTbE
I suppose all this gay/homosexual stuff will come to an end eventually through attrition of the exponents.
I would be extremely reluctant to participate if any party tries to make it compulsory.
That would certainly turn the tables from previously making heterosexuality compulsory!
Hetero-sexual activity naturally produces more Homo-sexual people each generation. "Attrition" will only occur if Humans over-populate (through heterosexual or laboratory reproduction) our globe and continue to destroy the environment to the extent that it cannot sustain human life (the next mass extinction event?) and then both heterosexual and homosexual people would be affected.
How can you speak for every other English speaker? I know some who still reserve a disapproving tone when they utter "homosexual" or an even more disapproving tone when using the more pejorative "homo." The terms were and are often associated with condemnation, deviancy and of course criminality until 1986 reform.
After 1885 until reform, British law classified any homosexual activity as punishable gross indecency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimin...dment_Act_1885
So the National thread is now the Homosexual/Lesbian thread, made that way by some pushing their own agendas, devoting too much time to the off market section is like a dog chasing its tail, spinning around but going nowhere.
Yes. I'm sure most know the recent history of homosexual law reform. I am also sure adults generally know the meaning of the simple term, homosexual; I accept there will be the odd exception, but that applies to every word in the dictionary.
Some of us find euphemisms are cringe inducing. e.g I shudder when I hear someone has 'passed' or 'passed away' when we all know they have died. It's similarly offensive.
I am not sure what agenda you think people are pushing couta :confused: And you did engage on the topic more than once when you stated you do not support people who “choose the gay lifestyle”
What exactly is the gay lifestyle? :confused: And how does it differ from your lifestyle choice? :confused:
https://medium.com/an-injustice/to-p...e-a8b11b821244
Back to Politics. I would like to make some observations about the next 3 years.
The most significant challenge in the Health service confronting the new government next year will not be covid. It will be a protracted strike action from the NZ Nurses Organisation. The conditions and salary expectations will come up against a government needing to restrain all spending. It will be fraught to say the least. It will be a winter of discontent.
Long term I think there is a reasonable probability that Jacinda Ardern will step down as PM, my prediction is that around December 2022 she will announce this, replicating John Key in 2016
You are pretty optimistic that most know the recent history of law reform.
I don't like euphemisms but I ask an American for the location of "the rest room" not because I want a little nap. Stateside, asking for the toilet can get a bit of a shocked reaction and water closet and lavatory elicits a bit of puzzlement.
I regard "gay" used in relational to "homosexual" as I regard "loo", "rest room" or "bathroom" in relation to a lavatory or latrine. It is a term with accepted local currency.
I did not ask for or expect an apology.
Being gay and christian are not necessarily mutually exclusive?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_c...n_Christianity
Edit: I am spending more time on the offmarket forum currently as I am housebound with more spare time!
It depends on the context. I say “I am sorry to hear your mother passed away.”
I would not say “I’m sorry to hear your mother died” to anyone. "Died" is too blunt in many situations.
Death is a very sensitive subject and any discussion if not handled with understanding can cause distress to someone else who is still grieving a loved one.
What people call reality is usually perception, a way of understanding or interpreting something.
Cognitive biases (there are 100s) are systematic ways in which humans create subjective social reality that deviates from objective reality.
Perception deviates too far from reality when it shifts from mild illusion to delusion, e.g. conspiracy theories.
That's interesting moka. I feel the exact opposite. I would rather someone directly acknowledged that my loved one has died rather than "passed away." I also feel very uncomfortable using the expression myself when offering my sympathies to someone in person or written in a card. I just find "passed away" distasteful. Maybe it is a religious thing? I am not religious and don't believe in life after death, so for me "died" makes more sense than "passed away" does. Maybe people who do believe in life after death reflect that with this expression?
Religious or not - we all know what died means, and I do not believe anyone (with the very odd exception) finds it offensive; - rather they think that the party they are speaking to will find it offensive.
On the other hand 'passed away' is a horrible and offensive term to me and many others.
Up to the parties who offer you & many others then to be aware of that sentiment and offer their condolences accordingly, surely?
Meanwhile, up to you & the many others to appreciate that many many others who are religious prefer 'passed away' and you should show care & consideration accordingly?
I've given up trying to workout what this discussion has got to do with the title of the thread.
:mellow:
Well it started with an analysis of how many LGBT MPs there were representing the NP. Whether that was good or bad. Then someone objected to the term "Gay" claiming it was an unnecessary euphemism. And then someone's interpretation of Christianity was added.
To be honest, my interpretation of Christianity is that it is based on love and socialism predicated on "The meek shall inherit the Earth" and "It is hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven"
The passage relates to lust not the romantic love between people of the same sex.
I would be surprised if a single MP has not contravened at least one verse, proverb or commandment in the Christian bible.
Actually I think the socialist aspect is more relevant to a discussion on the National Party.
Matthew 19:21
Somehow the farce that remains of the current National Party has infected & contaminated this thread.
Funny! :lol:
And regarding the discussion re using the term “passed away” or “dead“ I use both. On the whole I tend to reflect the word the persons family use back to them as that way I know I am using words they are comfortable with.
As a medical person I probably have a bias towards using the word dead and that is the word I use in talking about my mother and my father who have died. But I know some people are not comfortable with the word especially when a person has died suddenly or unexpectantly and I respect that. Sometimes it takes a while for people to process that a loved one is gone so they might refer to a person as having passed away early on in the process but once they have accepted the person is gone they are able to refer to them as having died.
Anyway thats been my experience of things :)
Maybe so tim23. The worm will turn. Remember the Blair days in the UK? The Left gobbled up the Centre Right, much like the Clark regime here. Then came Key who gobbled it back. The only question is how many terms? And how much damage will they wreak in the meantime?
Quite probably at some stage in future, but there's a major difficulty National are facing for 2023 & that's a perceived lack of talent in their severely diminished caucus.
One of the biggest reasons Labour completely annihilated National & just won by a record is that most NZers could not see the remaining National MP's as a viable government, too many mistakes, too much scandal, too much infighting, not enough diversity, lacking cohesion, boring old crusty and stale.
Somehow they have to refresh & rebuild into a group which looks like representing the board interests of the country and being a viable government.
The problem is how to do that with the remaining uninspiring bunch theyre left with.
The one possible outlier I see to this is Chris Luxton who has excellent media presentation skills but would voters see a first term MP as a viable PM in 2023?
I think that was the origin...sometimes with concrete shoes. (building had a lot of mafia involvement)
Popping your clogs is probably of Northern English origin.
https://www.mariecurie.org.uk/blog/w...me-from/259120
Back to cark.. it comes from the word Khak.. which means dirt, dust, etc. the word Khaki is also from the same root, meaning the colour of dust, or the colour of the dirt/mud, in Hindi. So the term to 'cark it' derives from 'dust to dust, ashes to ashes' referring to death..
Int origin thanks.I was thinking maybe carked meant dying in a parked car.
Pushing up daisies and Croaked others and maybe "fallen off their perch " fits Nationals current situ.
You fail to mention Covid! Even Cindy called it the Covid Election and made damn sure of it with her 1pm propaganda slots. I very much doubt she will bother post election to be there on a daily basis if there is another lockdown. No votes to be won. No point in ramping up the fear and propaganda without an election on the horizon.
I don't think it had much to do with National's talent pool. Labour's is a puddle, but the Nats leadership struggles and infighting certainly didn't help.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/vaughan-gunson-assessing-the-2020-election-through-risks-rewards-lens/G7QOYRQH75CFTLJUWBAKZ4YEBM/
National must reduce its reliance on the conservative vote of property-owning, generally older New Zealanders. It's a voter base that isn't growing.
National will need to make policy concessions to young people. Which means getting serious about climate change, public transport, and housing affordability, and maybe even moderating its go-to-policy of tax cuts for the well-off. The wealth gap is too large in New Zealand, and younger voters know this.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/23...-ray-of-light/
The National Party is undertaking a review of its campaign. Presumably this will not be to determine the cause of its historic defeat.
The cause is well known. The cause screams out from the pages of The New York Times, The Economist, The Guardian, The Sydney Morning Herald. The cause haunts the dreams of National’s vastly reduced caucus of 34. The cause is Jacinda.
More specifically, it is the relationship the prime minister formed with the public during the first lockdown, and the promise of stable and secure leadership through three years of unknown dangers as Covid continues to wreak havoc on the world’s economy and population.
That should focus the party on the real question: knowing the tide was going out, did it bring in enough new talent, from different backgrounds? The answer is almost certainly no.