Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.

View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
2930 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 899


  Reply # 664714 31-Jul-2012 16:12 Send private message

It gets my support, way over due




Mike

 Interesting. You're afraid of insects and women. Ladybugs must render you catatonic.

1293 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 90

Trusted

  Reply # 664725 31-Jul-2012 16:21 Send private message

Firstly, I am 100% in support of this Marriage Equality initiative. I'm also confident that New Zealand is tolerant and informed enough to not derail this, vocal minorities notwithstanding.

But my first thought was, what happens to couples who have already committed via a Civil Union? Will they have a way to have this converted to a marriage, or have some process to ensure they can have all the rights they should now be entitled to, had marriage been an option when they joined via Civil Union? 

Perhaps the Government should provide financial assistance to allow them to have lavish marriage ceremonies, allowing couples to renew their vows under this new legal construct made available to them. :-)


1530 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 195


  Reply # 664726 31-Jul-2012 16:22 Send private message

While I have nothing against gay people, I don't think they should be allowed to change the nature of marriage. 

Marriage should remain the optimal arrangement for child bearing and raising a family as it always has been. 

Gay people cannot bear children naturally, so , they cannot marry. 

Once you start changing the nature of marriage to allow anyone in love to marry, then , what's stopping a brother and sister from marrying, or other bizarre combinations.

Gay people in a civil union can call themselves married, but it is a marriage via civil union . 

Incidentally, the religious aspect of marriage means nothing to me. 

1293 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 90

Trusted

  Reply # 664732 31-Jul-2012 16:29 Send private message

surfisup1000:
Gay people cannot bear children naturally, so , they cannot marry.   


That's not entirely accurate. Two of my closest friends have two young boys, both who were naturally carried to term by one of them. Of course, there did have to be external assistance in terms of a sperm donor, who also has a strong and loving relationship with his sons.

I also am having a hard time reconciling your correlation between the ability to bear children naturally and the right to marry. Does that mean we need to screen couples for potential fertility issues before granting marriage licenses?


gzt

4196 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

Subscriber

  Reply # 664737 31-Jul-2012 16:36 Send private message

surfisup1000: Marriage should remain the optimal arrangement for child bearing and raising a family as it always has been. Gay people cannot bear children naturally, so , they cannot marry.

A lot of people cannot bear children for various reasons, but it is not and never has been a qualification for marriage.

surfisup1000: Once you start changing the nature of marriage to allow anyone in love to marry, then , what's stopping a brother and sister from marrying, or other bizarre combinations.

None of those things you name are being considered here.

1530 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 195


  Reply # 664752 31-Jul-2012 16:50 Send private message

ajobbins: 
Firstly a truck and a car do not have the same rules on the road - and I am quite happy to point out the reasons why they don't, and shouldn't. And this IS broken - we are denying people the right to equal legal recognition of their commitment relationship based on a bias against their sexuality - this, by definition, is discrimination.


We discriminate all the time.  We euthanise pets but not humans Why? Because we discriminate that cats are inferior to us (except for some crazy cat people). This is a good thing, and saves us money so we can treat more people. 

We practice affirmative action in NZ, which is positive discrimination. 

Manufacturers discriminate against left handed people all the time. 

Airlines discriminate against very fat people by making them purchase 2 seats. 

Gay people also discriminate when choosing their partner -- a gay man will avoid sex with a female -- he is discriminating against women. 

Gay people are different -- this is not just a minor difference such as skin colour or height   -- to the point, if everyone were gay, there would be no people at all.

Marriage in the tradition sense is between a man/woman, but this excludes gay people by definition. So civil unions were created to allow gay people to enjoy the same rights under law as a married couple. Yet, the gay people still don't have the exactly the same rights, as the laws of nature prohibit them from naturally bearing children. The gay people can argue that one with god :)

In 1000 years, gay people may treasure the thousand year old tradition of 'civil unions' and want to block straight people from 'civil unions'. 

1530 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 195


  Reply # 664754 31-Jul-2012 16:53 Send private message

gzt:

surfisup1000: Once you start changing the nature of marriage to allow anyone in love to marry, then , what's stopping a brother and sister from marrying, or other bizarre combinations.

None of those things you name are being considered here.


But, this is where such changes can lead. 

1530 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 195


  Reply # 664755 31-Jul-2012 16:54 Send private message

gzt: 
A lot of people cannot bear children for various reasons, but it is not and never has been a qualification for marriage.


But, it is the optimal arrangement for continuing the human race. 


759 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 132


  Reply # 664756 31-Jul-2012 16:55 Send private message

surfisup1000:
gzt:

surfisup1000: Once you start changing the nature of marriage to allow anyone in love to marry, then , what's stopping a brother and sister from marrying, or other bizarre combinations.

None of those things you name are being considered here.


But, this is where such changes can lead. 


O noes, not the slippery slope!!! Before you know it we will all be forced to marry horses at gunpoint! That logically follows from gay marriage!

10703 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 398

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 664759 31-Jul-2012 16:59 Send private message

The issue I have with the surveys etc on this is that they basically only give the options of support, oppose, or undecided.

Im not supporting it, I am not opposed to it and I am pretty much decided that I dont care either way on it happening, yet there is no option for that.

I suspect that if they did have that option then a lot fewer people would be putting themselves in the undecided or opposed options.




Richard rich.ms

759 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 132


  Reply # 664760 31-Jul-2012 17:00 Send private message

surfisup1000: Gay people also discriminate when choosing their partner -- a gay man will avoid sex with a female -- he is discriminating against women. 


And I choose not to have sex with anyone who isn't my wife, aren't I such a bigot - discriminating against 99.999999% of the world!
 
Marriage in the tradition sense is between a man/woman, but this excludes gay people by definition. So civil unions were created to allow gay people to enjoy the same rights under law as a married couple. Yet, the gay people still don't have the exactly the same rights, as the laws of nature prohibit them from naturally bearing children. The gay people can argue that one with god :)


Traditionally, racially mixed marriages were illegal. For many millennia the laws of nature prohibited marrying people from other continents. Times change.

In 1000 years, gay people may treasure the thousand year old tradition of 'civil unions' and want to block straight people from 'civil unions'. 

I'll leave the science fiction to the sci fi authors, I think you should too.

gjm

647 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 55

Subscriber

  Reply # 664761 31-Jul-2012 17:00 Send private message

scuwp: OK, I will have a crack at a sort of opposing view...

Marriage is a defined term, why are we trying to redefine it? Marriage is between a man and woman, end of story. Gay and lesbian couples claim to only want the same rights as married couples, and guess what...they do under current laws in a variety of ways including civil unions.

"Man" and "Woman" are also defined terms. When woman wanted the same "rights" as men, we didn't go out and change the definition of "women" so they could enjoy an equal status in modern society.

I am all for non-discrimination and equal rights no matter what your gender or sexual orientation, but a car is a car, and a truck is a truck. Both have the same rules and rights on the road, lets not try to fix something that isn't broken.   Isn't this just more PC nonsense?




This is pretty much what I think as well but probably written better than I could. I'm not sure how similar the rights of married and "unioned" couples are at the moment but they should be the same. However I get annoyed when I think they are trying to change the meaning of words. Call my old fashioned but if everyone decided to call a horse a dolphin it would still be a horse.




[Amstrad CPC 6128: 128k Memory: 3 inch floppy drive: Colour Screen]

759 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 132


  Reply # 664769 31-Jul-2012 17:03 Send private message

surfisup1000:
gzt: 
A lot of people cannot bear children for various reasons, but it is not and never has been a qualification for marriage.


But, it is the optimal arrangement for continuing the human race. 



Until gay marriage actually becomes compulsory for all, this argument is invalid. All evidence shows that the human race has absolutely no problems in propagating itself, there are over 7 billion exhibits for the defense there.

759 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 132


  Reply # 664775 31-Jul-2012 17:10 Send private message

For the record I am in favor of anyone in a loving, consensual relationship being able to have that relationship recognised as a marriage by law. Religions can look after themselves, this is solely a legal/civil matter.

I'm not gay, I have gay friends and relatives, but none that are planning on getting hitched to my knowledge.
What really gets my snark going is the shonky, post-hoc 'reasoning' some people come up with to try and justify their own prejudices. I will attempt to keep my snark civil (if not unionised) and restrain my rebuttals to mattters of fact and logic (mostly).

1585 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 136


  Reply # 664778 31-Jul-2012 17:14 Send private message



Gay people are different -- this is not just a minor difference such as skin colour or height   -- to the point, if everyone were gay, there would be no people at all.


what a load of rubbish, of course there would be people , you dont need sex to carry on the human race and im with the majority who thinks this whole issue is a storm in a teacup and in the long run , the law will pass and the world wont end and i still wont care

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic




Twitter »
Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:




News »

Trending now »
Hot discussions in our forums right now:

Lightbox press event release
Created by freitasm, last reply by Noodles on 31-Jul-2014 21:29 (79 replies)
Pages... 4 5 6


New Mobile plans coming?
Created by nunasdream, last reply by BigHammer on 31-Jul-2014 19:32 (74 replies)
Pages... 3 4 5


Does acupuncture work?
Created by timmmay, last reply by timmmay on 31-Jul-2014 20:47 (45 replies)
Pages... 2 3


Checking UHF aerial is working
Created by OnceBitten, last reply by B1GGLZ on 28-Jul-2014 21:49 (21 replies)
Pages... 2


2010 Honda Jazz, Suzuki Swift - which has higher maintenance cost?
Created by joker97, last reply by jonathan18 on 31-Jul-2014 10:47 (76 replies)
Pages... 4 5 6


2 x PS4s to give away. Geekzone members only.
Created by BigPipeNZ, last reply by bjorn on 31-Jul-2014 15:43 (72 replies)
Pages... 3 4 5


Hierarchy of a mistake: Gerry Brownlee
Created by joker97, last reply by DonGould on 29-Jul-2014 21:57 (93 replies)
Pages... 5 6 7


VF, why you lie to me?
Created by kenkeniff, last reply by Handle9 on 31-Jul-2014 18:53 (68 replies)
Pages... 3 4 5



Geekzone Live »
Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.

Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.