Rugby: It's Like Wholesome God Fearing Marriage in a Way

If you don't have time to read Bob McCroskie's compelling arguement against allowing gay people to marry, I'll sum it up for you.

http://bobmccoskrie.com/?p=5174

Heterosexual buttocks flex in a manly display of men in short shorts fighting over who gets to touch the ball.

Rugby is a game played by most boys in New Zealand in their childhood, though some don’t want to play it at all, in fact according to statistics NZ out of. A significant section of the community have always preferred to play a different sport, like soccer.

Fact: According to the 2001 NZ Census of the 847,740 people under the age of 15 only 118, 245 play rugby. Which means the majority of people must play soccer, and we all know that soccer is shorthand for gay.

Conclusion: Our kids today are experimenting with the love the dare not speak its name at an alarming rate. Family first demands that soccer be outlawed immediately.

But Rugby gets all the status in New Zealand, commanding all the respect. So much so that those who play soccer are often made to feel like second-class citizens. They lack the mana of those who play the nation’s revered game. Reliable studies show that this has statistically led to a higher degree of depression among soccer playing boys, and already our rate of male youth suicide is far too high.

Fact: Some people might suggest that bringing up youth suicide in such a flippant manner is a sign of a lack of empathy or basic human decency, but Family First wish to emphasise that they only treat people like second-class citizens and drive kids to suicide because rugby must be respected at all costs. Come on people, it's rugby!

To end this discrimination we have decided to redefine Rugby to include any sport involving two teams with a ball.

Fact: Gay Marriage Proponents want to redefine marriage as being between two people with an excess of balls or no balls at all. At Family First we're incredibly anxious that the right ball ratio be kept within the sacred and holy bounds of marriage. We fear if excess/lack of balls is allowed that this will lead to the sickness of hockey sticks and other sport paraphernalia entering into the bedrooms of New Zealand.

We should remember that rugby itself has historically undergone many changes. Once upon a time, there were only four points for a try and now there are five. There are eight in the scrum today instead of six in earlier times. Before you had to jump by yourself in the lineout and now you can be lifted. So the Rugby Union is happy to adjust and refine the definition of rugby throughout the ages– but for some reason they stop at soccer. That old boys’ club want to control the definition themselves because underneath, they really regard soccer players as wusses. But look at how they handled their own finances in Otago. And let’s never forget that once upon a time there were white Rugby Union teams in South Africa who refused to let black people be rugby players alongside them. Do we want to perpetuate the same kind of discrimination by denying that soccer is an equally legitimate form of rugby?

Fact: Rugby, sorry, marriage, has certainly gone through a lot of changes. Which would mean that if you thought of gay people as being, well people, that these changes could move to encompass them being welcomed into the fold of human beings that can now get married. Thank goodness they're just soccer people rather than people people otherwise this logic might be in trouble!

New Zealand has always prided itself on a clear separation between sport and politics, and in the 21st century our political system needs to be free from all forms of discrimination. We led the world in giving women the vote. Yet there are still those who are happy to bar the door to those who play sport differently. There is no point in having a referendum on the issue because of course most rugby-playing New Zealanders will want to defend their privileges and guard the status quo.

Fact: The Springbok tour was certainly a time to be proud of in our strident desire to keep politics and sport seperate. As a nation we all still feel that pride and know that we did the right thing by elevating a game of rugby over political considerations and human rights.

Some say that we have already achieved equality, when the national soccer team finally got called the “All Whites”. That was a step in the right direction, but it didn’t go far enough. Soccer players need the same access to the “All Black” name and jersey. It’s not good enough to call them “All Whites” when overseas everyone’s heard of the All Blacks. No one talks about the All Whites. It is time to embrace the right of all ball-playing New Zealanders to be regarded as rugby players, regardless of the shape of the ball they use and how they choose to handle it.

Fact: Family First also advocate that, like gay soccer players, white and black people must be kept seperate. A lot of research was done handling differently shaped balls to bring you this stunning display of logic.

BATNZ - It Worries and it Cares!

British and American Tobacco is really worried at the moment. Not about the people they're killing, or their profit margins, but about principles and the law. See, all they're concerned about is that their copyright is protected, not that once the mystique is gone from the years they've spent up building up their brands that their product will be reduced to what it actually is, a pack of paper tubes stuffed with an addictive substance that will make you ill and shorten your lifespan. That would be crazy talk.

From their website:

We are strongly opposed to the plain packaging of tobacco products and call on the Government to reject the proposal. Below is an overview of why.

There’s no proof that plain packaging would reduce smoking rates in New Zealand.
Absolutely! That's why they're spending hundreds and thousands of dollars fighting this because they don't want something that may not work being implemented. They want to make sure that whatever comes into force has been proven to reduce demand of their product, that's just logical. And after all, if something hasn't been proven it should never be done and the cultural and social evolution of humankind must be immediately ground to a halt.

Intellectual property is one of the most valuable assets of any business. Our brands are our intellectual property, which we have created and in which we have invested. Plain packaging would deprive us of the right to use our brands.
First of all, while studies have shown links between tobacco and brain damage, they're not talking about that kind of intellectual property, they're talking about the legal right of ownership to a brand by a company, and we all know that things are more important than people. We must protect brands because without them what kind of world would we live in? Not one that I want to be in, that's for sure.

Plain packaging would infringe New Zealand’s international obligations, damage its strong trading reputation and expose the country to legal challenges.
The tobacco industry doesn't WANT to hit us, you've got to understand that baby, but the way you're acting, with your parliamentary supremacy and your laws, you're giving them no choice. It's not them, it's us, and they will legal challenge us even though they don't want to because we've got to see reason. They will be crying while they legally challenge us around the courtroom, and I hope you're happy.

Plain packaging would make packs easier to counterfeit. A growth in the illegal market would reduce the Government’s excise revenue, expose New Zealand consumers to cheap, low quality, unregulated tobacco products, and fuel a rise in criminal activity.
You've got to agree, that is incredibly refreshing to see Big Business concerned about the taxation revenue stream to Government (is that an offer to pay more I detect? SO nice!), but that they're also worried that smokers will get a product that is cheap and low quality which would, I don't know, make them sick? Kill them? They are simply worried for us, can't we understand that?

If plain packaging is implemented, adult consumers would no longer have the freedom to choose based on branding. This could force the industry to compete on price, making cigarettes more affordable and frustrating the stated aim of plain packaging.
This isn't a company worried about market share, this is a company wanting to make sure that fundamental basic liberties, including freedom of choice, are kept. From here on in nicotine and other addictive substances will be removed from their product so that smokers will now have the true freedom of choice whether to stop smoking or not. Just kidding!

Australia is the only country to have passed plain packaging legislation. Other countries, such as Canada, have looked at plain packaging and decided not to introduce the measure.
I like this. Going for the competitive country angle. Who do you want to be more like, New Zealand? Australia or Canada? ONE OF THESE COUNTRIES ONCE BOWLED UNDERARM IN A GAME OF CRICKET. I rest my case.

We have invested in our brands over many years and have a responsibility to our shareholders to do everything we can to defend our right to use them.
See, again? Worried about everyone else but themselves. Take a second to worry about the shareholders, these poor people who put their money in to tobacco, just wanted to profit off an industry that causes the premature deaths of half their users. Those poor shareholding bastards.

Plain packaging, once introduced, is unlikely to be limited to tobacco products. Which products will be next?
GAY MARRIAGE! D: Sorry, I got my slippery slope fear arguments mixed up. It'll probably be medicine for babies in plain packaging and medications will get mixed up and thousands of NZ babies will die. And it all started here, folks. They warned us, but did we listen? What will we tell our grandchildren. Oh, right, we just killed them all by putting cigarettes into plain packaging.

Sacrifices and Priorities

I'm sure due to the careers that John Key has had that his son has not seen him as much as he might like. I'm sure that's true for many families out there, especially the ones that are pulling down more than one job trying to scrape by. I'm sure there were also advantages of growing up in that household, including going to the best schools, living in a mansion in a good area, holidaying at the families bach in Hawaii, and being able to attend baseball games overseas. That was me being bitchy, I thought I should point that out.

Key said that he will attend his sons baseball game in America and will not go to the funeral of the soldiers killed in action because his son has made so many sacrifices. I can't think of a more inappropriate or insensitive remark to make under the circumstances.

It's not like we have a huge contingent stationed out in Afghanistan, and it's not like we've had huge loses. So when there is a loss it resonates. We know that because in 2010 Key left a trade mission to come back to NZ to attend the funeral of three fallen soldiers. Key put aside business dealings because it was the right thing to do.

Those soldiers are employed by this country and as part of their job description gave up their lives; it is only fitting that Key, as leader of this country, showed up to show his respects and to represent us at those funerals. His political decisions put those two soldiers in a situation where they gave up their lives for this country, at the very least he could pay them and their families the respect of being there at the end.

Yes, missing out on a child's sporting event, even an important sporting event, is hard for any parent. But there is a certain degree of responsibility and weight to the position he holds. He interrupted a business trip under the same circumstances, but wont interrupt a personal one. That's not only a case of a glaring lack of priorities on his part, but is also, in my opinion, a sad indictment of his character.