After a recent trip to the Manurewa area, it could not be clearer that Louisa Wall is not a voice for her voters. Of the fifty people which were asked whether her marriage amendment bill was representative of what her voters believed in, thirty seven said no. Had it not been for her high placement within the Labour Party during the 2011 election, that huffing piglet Maryan Street would not even be in Parliament, yet she wants to push forth a Bill on Euthanasia, with a biting intolerance towards anyone who questions it, even those who vote for her. Russell Norman and Meteria Turei want to legalise drugs which destroy minds and ruin peoples' lives. Is there any politician who speaks for the people? Winston Peters was thought to have been that person, until he got found out for lying to the public about private donations made to his party by wealthy businessman Owen Glenn.
What people want is a public servant who can tell the truth for a start. Mr. Slippery is a famed expert at talking about everything except the question put to him. People want somebody they feel will give them a voice. Politicians these days lack in this area severely. Isn't their main job to be a public servant? To speak for the people within their respective electorate should be the most important task seen to. Most politicians pretend to be concerned about the problems people have. Much time has passed since New Zealand has had an honest, reliable, consistent, passionate MP who speaks for their voters. No, politicians today are all in it for themselves.
Or has someone flown in under the radar?
Tuesday, 28 August 2012
Sunday, 26 August 2012
Neil Armstrong is one small man, who leaves behind a legacy of exploration
“That’s one small step for man. One giant leap for mankind.” Ever since he used that expression to describe the achievement. Neil Armstrong has become immortalised as one of the most iconic figures in modern history. Lauded as an All American hero, he remained unusually solitary and remote, rarely giving interviews focusing instead on his career and work. Armstrong’s recent passing once again brought back (with a burning flame) moon landing conspiracy theorists to once again come forth with venom to dismiss the moon landing as a hoax. For all the claims these people make, Armstrong denies it being a staged hoax. In the interviews given, his answers were too lucidly detailed, honesty too forthright, with the stories he told about travelling through space too honest and truthful to raise any suspicion. Dismissing Armstrong as a liar or fraud is merely tall poppy syndrome. He remains an iconic figure and deservedly so.
During a speech to Congress in 1961, United States President John F. Kennedy said one goal to achieve before the end of the decade is “To put a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth before the end of the 1960s.” http://www.space.com/11774-jfk-speech-moon-exploration-kennedy-congress-50years.html With fierce competition in space exploration coming from Cold War rivals United Soviet Socialist Republic, the pressure was on the Nation Aeronautics and Space Administration to develop infrastructure, ground control and refine the Apollo Spaceship technology enough to successfully ensure a safe trip to the moon. NASA largely recruited Astronauts from the Defence Forces, inviting pilots, senior officers, as well as anyone willing enough to put their name forth. From the men who signed along the dotted line was a test pilot, Neil Alden Armstrong. After ten Apollo space voyages to determine all the technical aspects required from ground control alongside the working astronauts in Space, Apollo 11 was finally ready to be established. On July 16, 1969, Neil Armstrong, alongside Edwin ‘Buzz’ Aldrin, and Michael Collins piloted man’s first official trip to the moon.
After speaking those famous words, Neil Armstrong, alongside Buzz Aldrin walked around on the moon, jumped up and down in elation, drove a lunar vehicle around in addition to collecting samples of moon rocks. A pity for the cheese lovers though, who received nothing for their unwavering devotion. Those rock samples are a major dent to the conspiracy theorists. All collected samples were tested and confirmed to have been ‘non-earthly’ to put it plainly. The astronauts were welcomed back as heroes, with each man’s life forever changed by their achievement. Media outlets were raring to get interviews from each man, so that millions of interested people could know what exactly it felt like to be on the moon. “How did it feel?” “What was it like being so far away from earth?” “Were you scared?” People vicariously began to experience the sensations of being a moon walker themselves through the masterful story telling from Armstrong. Do not think that all the fame and glamour of being a national hero turned Armstrong into a gregarious go getter. “I am, and always will be, a white socks, pocket-protector nerdy engineer,” he says.
To farewell the first man on the moon is indeed very sad. Armstrong spoke with passion and conviction. He was not someone who minced his words, always giving an account which was accurately detailed, yet simple enough for everyone to relate to. He became a reluctant hero yet carried it with a grace and elegance many people could not handle. In the Defence Forces they tell you that two the two cardinal sins in the military are putting yourself ahead of your unit and lying. Armstrong was no liar. What did he stand to gain from repeatedly lying to the American public about the moon landing? To this day, every myth put forth by conspiracy theorists has been discredited or proven false. A more prominent testing of moon landing hoax theories have been conducted by Mythbusters Adam Savage and Jamie Heinemann. In conjunction with NASA, they disproved the theories of the flapping flag, the alleged fake pictures, and the clear footprints left by Armstrong and Aldrin. A recent photo has also been released by NASA shown below confirms that the material left behind still rests safely.
Neil Armstrong was an asset to the world, an honest man brave enough to venture into the unknown to help further man’s understanding of the solar system and universe. He went on to achieve many more great things in his life but will always be remembered as the first man to walk on the moon. Goodbye Mr. Armstrong and thank you for inspiring a generation of people to challenge their own boundaries, to pursue their dreams. Above all, thank you for creating a general interest in space exploration, which is now extending out to the other planets in the solar system.
Saturday, 25 August 2012
Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Can that Slithering Len Brown creature do anything right?
Has that soppy creature Leonard Brown learned anything from his endless Mayoral mistakes? Roads are still clogged with frustrated motorists, public transport remains shambolic, underground electricity cabling is being installed yet pavements remain squalid and uneven, rates continue to rise unfairly for everyone. Auckland is a diabolical experiment of an universal order, which has provided nothing but mediocrity for the masses. 
Public transport was a hot issue. Conservative leader Colin Craig wanted to hear the local people's ideas in combating traffic. John Banks and Leonard Brown whipped up a typical "buy votes" politician answer, assuring concerned motorists improvements would be made. Alas, it was not to be. Auckland, for all the road projects which endlessly take place have not solved anything. Traffic flow has progressively gotten worse, with off ramps clogging up back roads with a foolish "one light per green"
Strange that underground electricity cabling work can be underway, yet pavements cannot be fixed. Walkers, runners, cyclists, mothers with prams, all sorts continually vent frustration towards the inferior pavements Auckland possesses. One of the most livable cities nothing. Rather than address the basic problems with the city, the mush head creature of a Mayor prefers to appear sophisticated by introducing work which merely makes workers look busy. A cities greatest pride should be a clean, modern appearance, safe as well as secure. Auckland hasn't been rattled by any serious earthquakes at all within recent times, so why give everyone else such an impression to the world? Every single day people are trying to exercise and yet the mediocre sidewalks the Brown creature provides provide an ample training ground for cuts, grazes and scratches. Does fixing pavements cost a lot or consume a large amount of time? Absolutely not. Certainly not as long as those lazy workers are taking on the installment of the electricity grids. Ultimately, it comes down to a matter or priority. If Leonard thinks sidewalks are irrelevant, that all people are as lazy and incompetent as him, by all means continue squandering ever increasing rates income on expensive, time consuming projects. Or, attempt listening to all the concerned users of the sidewalk so that injuries from tripping over dodgy surface designs is reduced.
The slimy creature Leonard Brown will be unlikely to see another term in office. Hopefully people know now that if you Vote Brown you get a mouthful of risible excuses.
Public transport was a hot issue. Conservative leader Colin Craig wanted to hear the local people's ideas in combating traffic. John Banks and Leonard Brown whipped up a typical "buy votes" politician answer, assuring concerned motorists improvements would be made. Alas, it was not to be. Auckland, for all the road projects which endlessly take place have not solved anything. Traffic flow has progressively gotten worse, with off ramps clogging up back roads with a foolish "one light per green"
Strange that underground electricity cabling work can be underway, yet pavements cannot be fixed. Walkers, runners, cyclists, mothers with prams, all sorts continually vent frustration towards the inferior pavements Auckland possesses. One of the most livable cities nothing. Rather than address the basic problems with the city, the mush head creature of a Mayor prefers to appear sophisticated by introducing work which merely makes workers look busy. A cities greatest pride should be a clean, modern appearance, safe as well as secure. Auckland hasn't been rattled by any serious earthquakes at all within recent times, so why give everyone else such an impression to the world? Every single day people are trying to exercise and yet the mediocre sidewalks the Brown creature provides provide an ample training ground for cuts, grazes and scratches. Does fixing pavements cost a lot or consume a large amount of time? Absolutely not. Certainly not as long as those lazy workers are taking on the installment of the electricity grids. Ultimately, it comes down to a matter or priority. If Leonard thinks sidewalks are irrelevant, that all people are as lazy and incompetent as him, by all means continue squandering ever increasing rates income on expensive, time consuming projects. Or, attempt listening to all the concerned users of the sidewalk so that injuries from tripping over dodgy surface designs is reduced.
The slimy creature Leonard Brown will be unlikely to see another term in office. Hopefully people know now that if you Vote Brown you get a mouthful of risible excuses.
Sunday, 19 August 2012
Fighting a stupid foreign war isn't going to achieve anything. Bring the Troops home
There is a major problem with the Afghanistan war. In the last twelve months, more members of the New Zealand Defence Forces have lost their lives than any other time since deployment began. It wasn't until mid 2010 New Zealand suffered its first casualty from the war. Today, three more people lost their lives fighting a battle saturated with idealism, dripping with lies. Afghanistan has become a battle New Zealand should no longer be a part of. The Taliban poses very little threat to such a remote, distant Island nation. Leave America to fight stupid wars, the time to bring home the troops is now.
George Bush began spinning a fairy tale of deceit, claiming the war in Afghanistan to the only way to prevent terrorists from causing further damage to western civilization. Anthony Blair was easily persuaded and soon the British Army was out in full support. Rather than deter terrorists from committing heinous crimes, it served as a motivator. Here were deployments of Armies, willingly venturing into enemy territory, attempting to capture Osama Bin Laden, along with other radicals. The first New Zealand deployment to Afghanistan was with the Special Ari Service in 2001, with regular forces moving in in 2003. Soldiers worked on four month rotations, mainly conducting peacekeeping operations, while the Special Air Service conducted operations and raids behind enemy lines. While soldiers in the larger Armies began dropping fast and quick, New Zealand stayed under the radar, continuing the rather un-glamorous tasks of conducting foot patrols to reassure locals, as well as handing out aid packages.
To have not suffered any casualties until 2010 is amazing. Had it not been for the heroics of (former) Corporal Bill Henry "Willie" Apiata, New Zealand would have suffered loss of life in 2004. Facing heavy enemy fire, Apiata carried his comrade across 75 metres of heavy enemy assault so that the person could receive vital first aid, which proved the difference. He lives on to tell the tale. The sad truth of one year of maintaining troops inside this war torn nation is grim. Eight troops have died in the last year alone, two of them SAS soldiers http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5482313/New-details-as-killed-soldier-identified. When the news broke this morning of three soldiers killed in action, some serious questions towards the necessity to even be in Afghanistan were brought up. Afghanistan is a hunting ground for mass murderers; little regard for life is a cornerstone for each and every terrorist looming around.
John Key, Murray McCully and Wayne Mapp have some serious questions to answer. Why are the troops still roaming around in very dangerous areas, completely vulnerable to attacks such as roadside bombs?http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/14594994/taliban-trying-to-hunt-down-kiwis/ Nothing has come of the extended period within Afghanistan. Every passing day gives Al Qaeda a chance to murder more of New Zealand's finest and bravest young men and women. One cannot help but feel sympathy for those forced into an idealistic battle, a losing cause. Leaders who send them abroad do so in the hope it'll bolster an image a Government full of patriotism . On the contrary, it merely sends them out into the field as target practice. Think any politician could manage a day on foot patrol in Kabul? Neither. Mr. Key says withdrawing the Troops would take months and is really not worth the effort because apparently it "wouldn't be sensible, it wouldn't be practical and it wouldn't be right.We made a commitment. I don't think we are the type of country that cuts and runs." Mr. Key seems quite content to continue allowing a country to go on fighting a losing battle, squandering millions of dollars in taxpayer money for a war which poses no direct threat to New Zealand.
What value is New Zealand getting out of fighting in Afghanistan? Everyday families of soldiers live life in angst that someone close to them may fall next. Helping other countries is not a reasonable answers. Maintaining a healthy relationship with America can be achieved without spilling kiwi blood over it. If Lieutenant General Rhys Jones were asked that question, he'd likely deliver a cliched "doing it for freedom" answer. A proper assessment of the situation needs to happen now. War is a dangerous, risky and very lethal event and neither Mr. Key or Mr. Jones can give proper answers as to the reasons behind New Zealand's operations over there, they shouldn't be playing the "we're blindly loyal" card. Loyalty to a good cause is commendable. Being loyal to a cause you know will end in defeat spells out "odd" from earth and "Nutter" from Space.
Why should New Zealand remain in Afghanistan? It's not for a cause anyone in New Zealand believes in? Nobody is benefiting from constantly living in fear a roadside bomb may spell the end. People need to be resolute they do not want New Zealand's bravest throwing stones at the enemies' tank. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not phased at all by New Zealand presence and will barely notice the Military's withdrawal. Leaving now will settle the dust. No peace has been achieved over there, so why should anyone think peace will come in the next nine months? Risking lives to hand out Aid Packages is not worth the loss of life, nor was it what the brave soldier's died for. They died fighting an war they knew they could never win. Enough already. Bring the troops home.
George Bush began spinning a fairy tale of deceit, claiming the war in Afghanistan to the only way to prevent terrorists from causing further damage to western civilization. Anthony Blair was easily persuaded and soon the British Army was out in full support. Rather than deter terrorists from committing heinous crimes, it served as a motivator. Here were deployments of Armies, willingly venturing into enemy territory, attempting to capture Osama Bin Laden, along with other radicals. The first New Zealand deployment to Afghanistan was with the Special Ari Service in 2001, with regular forces moving in in 2003. Soldiers worked on four month rotations, mainly conducting peacekeeping operations, while the Special Air Service conducted operations and raids behind enemy lines. While soldiers in the larger Armies began dropping fast and quick, New Zealand stayed under the radar, continuing the rather un-glamorous tasks of conducting foot patrols to reassure locals, as well as handing out aid packages.
To have not suffered any casualties until 2010 is amazing. Had it not been for the heroics of (former) Corporal Bill Henry "Willie" Apiata, New Zealand would have suffered loss of life in 2004. Facing heavy enemy fire, Apiata carried his comrade across 75 metres of heavy enemy assault so that the person could receive vital first aid, which proved the difference. He lives on to tell the tale. The sad truth of one year of maintaining troops inside this war torn nation is grim. Eight troops have died in the last year alone, two of them SAS soldiers http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5482313/New-details-as-killed-soldier-identified. When the news broke this morning of three soldiers killed in action, some serious questions towards the necessity to even be in Afghanistan were brought up. Afghanistan is a hunting ground for mass murderers; little regard for life is a cornerstone for each and every terrorist looming around.
John Key, Murray McCully and Wayne Mapp have some serious questions to answer. Why are the troops still roaming around in very dangerous areas, completely vulnerable to attacks such as roadside bombs?http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/14594994/taliban-trying-to-hunt-down-kiwis/ Nothing has come of the extended period within Afghanistan. Every passing day gives Al Qaeda a chance to murder more of New Zealand's finest and bravest young men and women. One cannot help but feel sympathy for those forced into an idealistic battle, a losing cause. Leaders who send them abroad do so in the hope it'll bolster an image a Government full of patriotism . On the contrary, it merely sends them out into the field as target practice. Think any politician could manage a day on foot patrol in Kabul? Neither. Mr. Key says withdrawing the Troops would take months and is really not worth the effort because apparently it "wouldn't be sensible, it wouldn't be practical and it wouldn't be right.We made a commitment. I don't think we are the type of country that cuts and runs." Mr. Key seems quite content to continue allowing a country to go on fighting a losing battle, squandering millions of dollars in taxpayer money for a war which poses no direct threat to New Zealand.
What value is New Zealand getting out of fighting in Afghanistan? Everyday families of soldiers live life in angst that someone close to them may fall next. Helping other countries is not a reasonable answers. Maintaining a healthy relationship with America can be achieved without spilling kiwi blood over it. If Lieutenant General Rhys Jones were asked that question, he'd likely deliver a cliched "doing it for freedom" answer. A proper assessment of the situation needs to happen now. War is a dangerous, risky and very lethal event and neither Mr. Key or Mr. Jones can give proper answers as to the reasons behind New Zealand's operations over there, they shouldn't be playing the "we're blindly loyal" card. Loyalty to a good cause is commendable. Being loyal to a cause you know will end in defeat spells out "odd" from earth and "Nutter" from Space.
Why should New Zealand remain in Afghanistan? It's not for a cause anyone in New Zealand believes in? Nobody is benefiting from constantly living in fear a roadside bomb may spell the end. People need to be resolute they do not want New Zealand's bravest throwing stones at the enemies' tank. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not phased at all by New Zealand presence and will barely notice the Military's withdrawal. Leaving now will settle the dust. No peace has been achieved over there, so why should anyone think peace will come in the next nine months? Risking lives to hand out Aid Packages is not worth the loss of life, nor was it what the brave soldier's died for. They died fighting an war they knew they could never win. Enough already. Bring the troops home.
Wednesday, 15 August 2012
Two months of pretending is over. Oil Companies have run out of excuses
When the price of petrol crept under $2 per litre for 91 Octane, a young woman was smiling happily. "No sign of the price going anywhere but down." If she knew the true intentions of petrol companies she'd know them to be nothing more than cynical opportunists who suck the happiness out of everyone each time a trip is made to the petrol station.
If you are looking for previous excuses and want to compare them to the current piffle being spurted out by spokespeople you can find the post "Oil Companies are running out of excuses" here. Like most selfish conglomerates, each company pretend to show sympathy with the common man, unable to properly accept blame for selfishly pursuing higher profits. "Yesterday BP blamed a rise in the price of international product." http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/7478453/Motorists-suffer-as-petrol-price-nudge-record/ If people do not begin worrying about being unable to drive, very little seems to be rattle cages these days. Being pulled by the ear isn't something which should be compulsory. News on petrol prices have shown something. Reluctant price drops kept people at bay, albeit temporarily.
"The price fell six times in June, with a litre of 91 octane briefly down to $1.97 a litre in the main centres - the first time it had dipped below $2 since last August." http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/221325/petrol-prices-way-back. Dropping petrol prices during this period were deemed unacceptable by senior members. As oil companies all work in cartels, easily the worst kept secret, collaborating and agreeing on universal lies to feed the media with resulted in AA spokesman Mark Stockdale succumbing to the reality of not being able to say anything but how much of an increase to expect, rather than the justification of the Oil Companies unjust price rises. "After crude oil prices fell to 18-month lows of US$88 a barrel in June, they then jumped 20 per cent during July,” said Mr Stockdale. It really would be a sad day if Mr. Stockdale delivered such morose news without putting forth a challenge to Oil Companies greed.http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/7392096/Fuel-costs-on-the-way-up-again
Caltex, BP, Shell, Mobil, even Gull manipulate all information they present to the public and make it sound as if they had no other choice. No evidence from recent dips in the New Zealand dollar (a pathetic excuse often used by BP in particular for price rises), give reason to suggest such fast, rapid rises are justifiable. Feathered talk about commodity prices rising up translating to increased costs at the pump defy logic and seek to destroy the common sense many smart motorists hold; that is in the premise that when commodity prices were falling, prices slowly went down, slower than any snappy increases from overnight losses in the dollar. Petrol spokespeople all have a PhD in lying, presenting themselves as sympathetic bourgeois business people, they hoof fake sympathy onto their victims, whilst secretly reveling in high price petrol mania, well aware of the fat bonus awaiting them for whipping up propaganda. Jonty Mills and Jonathon Hill are the spokespeople for BP and Z energy respectively. "It's not unusual for things to change from one day to the next though and, if prices do drop, we'll certainly be passing it on to the customer," Mr Hill said. Mr Mills indirectly says customers should accept all their price hikes, however unfair they seem. "We don't base our prices on AA commentary. It's purely a transparent tax that we're just passing through," Mills said.
Oil companies can afford to absorb the price volatility of the commodities market but choose not to. Their lame efforts to sympathise with the victims who reluctantly shell out more of the disposable income on each visit fall on flat ears. They have run out of excuses. The nitwit National Party added an unneeded fuel excise which will be squandered on mediocre transport projects; so much for a brighter future Mr. Slippery (and to you Princess Simon and the wretched creature Steven Joyce).
When it comes to offering a good price, the big name Oil Cartels seem to disappear into the shadows. More pressure ought to be laid on them to begin absorbing costs. All these recent AA incentives merely keep people hanging around. Once electric cars flood the marketplace, do not expect sympathy from victims of price fixing and market regulation. Electric cars could really not come sooner, although politicians, being the thieves they are, will find a way to make motorists suffer.
The brief spell of assuming Oil companies are like any other business, driven by demand and supply has been proven to be a fictitious myth. Secretly they're conspiring to keep the prices high by any means possible and it's leading to all sorts of financial disasters. Maybe once day the Government might actually start caring enough to rid petrol prices of unwarranted fuel excise taxes and the politically correct "emissions trading scheme" tax. Until then, stay put. All excuses have dried up. Hopefully the drought will hit the conglomerates where it hurts the most.
If you are looking for previous excuses and want to compare them to the current piffle being spurted out by spokespeople you can find the post "Oil Companies are running out of excuses" here. Like most selfish conglomerates, each company pretend to show sympathy with the common man, unable to properly accept blame for selfishly pursuing higher profits. "Yesterday BP blamed a rise in the price of international product." http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/7478453/Motorists-suffer-as-petrol-price-nudge-record/ If people do not begin worrying about being unable to drive, very little seems to be rattle cages these days. Being pulled by the ear isn't something which should be compulsory. News on petrol prices have shown something. Reluctant price drops kept people at bay, albeit temporarily.
Caltex, BP, Shell, Mobil, even Gull manipulate all information they present to the public and make it sound as if they had no other choice. No evidence from recent dips in the New Zealand dollar (a pathetic excuse often used by BP in particular for price rises), give reason to suggest such fast, rapid rises are justifiable. Feathered talk about commodity prices rising up translating to increased costs at the pump defy logic and seek to destroy the common sense many smart motorists hold; that is in the premise that when commodity prices were falling, prices slowly went down, slower than any snappy increases from overnight losses in the dollar. Petrol spokespeople all have a PhD in lying, presenting themselves as sympathetic bourgeois business people, they hoof fake sympathy onto their victims, whilst secretly reveling in high price petrol mania, well aware of the fat bonus awaiting them for whipping up propaganda. Jonty Mills and Jonathon Hill are the spokespeople for BP and Z energy respectively. "It's not unusual for things to change from one day to the next though and, if prices do drop, we'll certainly be passing it on to the customer," Mr Hill said. Mr Mills indirectly says customers should accept all their price hikes, however unfair they seem. "We don't base our prices on AA commentary. It's purely a transparent tax that we're just passing through," Mills said.
Oil companies can afford to absorb the price volatility of the commodities market but choose not to. Their lame efforts to sympathise with the victims who reluctantly shell out more of the disposable income on each visit fall on flat ears. They have run out of excuses. The nitwit National Party added an unneeded fuel excise which will be squandered on mediocre transport projects; so much for a brighter future Mr. Slippery (and to you Princess Simon and the wretched creature Steven Joyce).
The brief spell of assuming Oil companies are like any other business, driven by demand and supply has been proven to be a fictitious myth. Secretly they're conspiring to keep the prices high by any means possible and it's leading to all sorts of financial disasters. Maybe once day the Government might actually start caring enough to rid petrol prices of unwarranted fuel excise taxes and the politically correct "emissions trading scheme" tax. Until then, stay put. All excuses have dried up. Hopefully the drought will hit the conglomerates where it hurts the most.
Friday, 10 August 2012
Homosexual Marriage
Many people have been complaining that this blog is too biased and one sided. This is an opinion news blog. The views given are a demonstration of why someone can believe in something, backing it up with reason and evidence. You, the readers who come here are the main reason the blog will continue, so if it's an objective analysis of something you want, it's an objective analysis you'll get. Subject under discussion. Homosexual marriage. Homosexual is used because the word 'gay' is a rather ambiguous, indie word. Brief reasons from both sides will be given and no conclusion as to which is the better option shall be given in the post. Please note that any comments which use the words "queer" "ignorant" "intolerant" "bigoted" "haters" "homophobic" "abomination," that stupid word "offensive" or any other such language will not have their comments posted. Keep it civilised and keep it on topic.
Homosexual marriage should be legalised
Supporters of homosexual marriage profess the legalisation of homosexual marriage is to allow equal rights. Marriage, they say is something two individuals come together to celebrate. Love between two males of two females is exactly the same as the love a man and a woman share with each other.
Homosexuals point to the law, which is supposed to treat and respect everyone as equal, irrespective of their skin colour, race, gender, or sexual orientation. Allowing homosexual marriage will bridge the gap on inequality and prevent social discrimination from following through.
"You're either born a homosexual or you're born straight." Advocates insist one cannot choose their sexual orientation and being homosexual is a something natural to them, so ridding them of the right to get married is discriminating against them because they cannot change how they are born.
As many people today enjoy thinking about themselves in every way imaginable, the premise "It won't affect me at all," is also given to support homosexual marriage. The argument here is people will still be respected for having a relationship status as married but so to will homosexuals.
Homosexual marriage should not be legalised
People who do not support gay marriage cite religious reasons for not supporting homosexual marriage. Religious texts in Christianity, Islam and Hinduism talk about disapproval of gay marriage. The bible calls it an "abomination," while the Qu'ran speaks of it as "transgressing beyond bounds."
Marriage was designed for men and women. It is said that the man and woman become one once they're married. This is said to be because only a man and woman couple can have sexual intercourse which can reproduce and repopulate the planet, while homosexual couples are unable to do that.
There are people who are traditionalists who believe that the original view of marriage was between a man and a woman. Homosexuals, they say, can still live together, but under civil unions, rather than marriage.
Supporters of keeping marriage between men and women state the upbringing of the child is better in a traditional household where a child is subjected to a male and female influence. This is said to have a healthy and positive impact on children.
Four reasons people give in support of gay marriage, four reasons against. What are your thoughts? Remember to keep the debate civil. No name calling from either side.
Homosexual marriage should be legalised
Supporters of homosexual marriage profess the legalisation of homosexual marriage is to allow equal rights. Marriage, they say is something two individuals come together to celebrate. Love between two males of two females is exactly the same as the love a man and a woman share with each other.
Homosexuals point to the law, which is supposed to treat and respect everyone as equal, irrespective of their skin colour, race, gender, or sexual orientation. Allowing homosexual marriage will bridge the gap on inequality and prevent social discrimination from following through.
"You're either born a homosexual or you're born straight." Advocates insist one cannot choose their sexual orientation and being homosexual is a something natural to them, so ridding them of the right to get married is discriminating against them because they cannot change how they are born.
As many people today enjoy thinking about themselves in every way imaginable, the premise "It won't affect me at all," is also given to support homosexual marriage. The argument here is people will still be respected for having a relationship status as married but so to will homosexuals.
Homosexual marriage should not be legalised
People who do not support gay marriage cite religious reasons for not supporting homosexual marriage. Religious texts in Christianity, Islam and Hinduism talk about disapproval of gay marriage. The bible calls it an "abomination," while the Qu'ran speaks of it as "transgressing beyond bounds."
Marriage was designed for men and women. It is said that the man and woman become one once they're married. This is said to be because only a man and woman couple can have sexual intercourse which can reproduce and repopulate the planet, while homosexual couples are unable to do that.
There are people who are traditionalists who believe that the original view of marriage was between a man and a woman. Homosexuals, they say, can still live together, but under civil unions, rather than marriage.
Supporters of keeping marriage between men and women state the upbringing of the child is better in a traditional household where a child is subjected to a male and female influence. This is said to have a healthy and positive impact on children.
Four reasons people give in support of gay marriage, four reasons against. What are your thoughts? Remember to keep the debate civil. No name calling from either side.