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 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 26
Watchmaker Wizard
2414 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 57

Subscriber

  Reply # 665371 1-Aug-2012 13:19 Send private message

crackrdbycracku:I don't think so as churches are like private clubs, they don't have to admit anybody. If something is a private organisation doing things on private property they can pretty much refuse anybody on any grounds they like. I think some churches won't let other denominations or people outside the congregation marry there, for example.


I may be barking up the wrong tree, but isn't part of the deal that they pretty much _do_ have to admit anybody? Not from a legal standpoint, but from a as-instructed-by-the-Church (capital C) standpoint?




464 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 6
Inactive user


  Reply # 665372 1-Aug-2012 13:20 Send private message

Ok, this is the first time I hear about "Godwin's Law" but surprisingly enough, it turns out that explaining "Godwin's Law" in fact invokes Godwin's Law lol.

Anyway, I have probably posted my thoughts regarding that matter in the other banned topic, it seems that people keep pointing at it but no body wants to argue with it so, I will take that as a "Yes we agree" statement.

It was very interesting what my flatmate thought of the subject, he said

"The government wants to help tourism to help the country's economy after Christchurch by allowing gay marriage, not every gay couple in Australasia and the Americas will come here to get married"

Sounds like a good plan John, nevertheless, it still is the right thing to do IMO

464 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 6
Inactive user


  Reply # 665376 1-Aug-2012 13:25 Send private message

stevenz:
crackrdbycracku:I don't think so as churches are like private clubs, they don't have to admit anybody. If something is a private organisation doing things on private property they can pretty much refuse anybody on any grounds they like. I think some churches won't let other denominations or people outside the congregation marry there, for example.


I may be barking up the wrong tree, but isn't part of the deal that they pretty much _do_ have to admit anybody? Not from a legal standpoint, but from a as-instructed-by-the-Church (capital C) standpoint?


I agree with you Steve, even the bible says so:
http://bible.cc/mark/2-17.htm

And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” -Mark 2:17

I know this because I myself was born in a Christian family, used to teach the bible in the church for kids. That's of course before I started studying science, philosophy, history and arts. I guess I don't need to explain further.

I iz your trusted friend
5297 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 52

Mod Emeritus
Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 665377 1-Aug-2012 13:26 Send private message

menabassily: "The government wants to help tourism to help the country's economy after Christchurch by allowing gay marriage, not every gay couple in Australasia and the Americas will come here to get married"


We know of a couple from Australia, came over to NZ for their Civil Union.




Internet is my backyard...

«Geekzone blog: Tech 'n Chips Takeaway» «Personal blog: And then...» «Photo blog: I see...»

Please read the Geekzone's FUG


464 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 6
Inactive user


  Reply # 665384 1-Aug-2012 13:27 Send private message

chiefie:
menabassily: "The government wants to help tourism to help the country's economy after Christchurch by allowing gay marriage, not every gay couple in Australasia and the Americas will come here to get married"


We know of a couple from Australia, came over to NZ for their Civil Union.


Well, there you go... that point seems to be very valid indeed.

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28


  Reply # 665385 1-Aug-2012 13:27 Send private message

KevinL:
John2010: Not mentioned is that gay marriage may lead to the extinction of gays, or at least their becoming rarer, through evolution. If, as they claim, homosexuality is genetic rather than learnt then apart from cases of artificial insemination from outside the relationship, gay marriage will end up with fewer gays in accidental mixed gender marriages where they can procreate their own genes.


I'm not sure if you're trolling or not - amending the marriage act to allow for gay and lesbian couples to marry has clearly nothing to do with procreation/genetics/evolution.

The counterargument is that is if us humble heterosexual types stopped having homosexual children, then this wouldn't be an issue!


Errr, a Wink or similar is supposed to lead to others understanding that it is not a troll.

And before you blast off again I suggest that you do things:

First, think what my post was really saying and doing (the Wink , bird names, etc are hints).

Treat yourself to an understanding of evolution before trying to teach others about it (and I suggest also that you do not try a Godwin's Law on me over the genetic bit Laughing).

654 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

  Reply # 665387 1-Aug-2012 13:29

stevenz:
crackrdbycracku:I don't think so as churches are like private clubs, they don't have to admit anybody. If something is a private organisation doing things on private property they can pretty much refuse anybody on any grounds they like. I think some churches won't let other denominations or people outside the congregation marry there, for example.


I may be barking up the wrong tree, but isn't part of the deal that they pretty much _do_ have to admit anybody? Not from a legal standpoint, but from a as-instructed-by-the-Church (capital C) standpoint?


I agree that as a private organisation with generally no public funding (other than a tax break, which is itself arguably controversial) I suspect they're well within their right to refuse to marry people.

Looking at it from another perspective though, if you were a gay or lesbian couple (with no affiliation to a church), would you want to get married by an organisation that is openly against your sexual orientation and beliefs?  

3bit.com
5889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 195

Moderator
Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 665389 1-Aug-2012 13:32 Send private message

KevinL: The main trouble is they didn't change the wording of the Adoption Act - that's the primary point of difference between marriage and civil unions (civil union partners cannot apply to adopt as a couple, only one partner can apply - the other can apply for guardianship retrospectively, but that doesn't have the same legal implications as parenthood has).


I wonder now if this is even a valid argument.

I wasn't able to find any decent sites with up-to-date stats for adoption levels, however this one site says there's an average of 14 adoptions in just Auckland per year (of a population of 1.4million).  Surely it's too small a number to be giving such prominence to?

edit: Even thinking of my own group of family/friends I know of only one person who is adopted (also a Geekzone user)

(I spose the counter-argument is this could/would increase?)




464 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 6
Inactive user


  Reply # 665390 1-Aug-2012 13:33 Send private message

I am very sure this particular church won't say no


654 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

  Reply # 665391 1-Aug-2012 13:36

John2010:
KevinL:
John2010: Not mentioned is that gay marriage may lead to the extinction of gays, or at least their becoming rarer, through evolution. If, as they claim, homosexuality is genetic rather than learnt then apart from cases of artificial insemination from outside the relationship, gay marriage will end up with fewer gays in accidental mixed gender marriages where they can procreate their own genes.


I'm not sure if you're trolling or not - amending the marriage act to allow for gay and lesbian couples to marry has clearly nothing to do with procreation/genetics/evolution.

The counterargument is that is if us humble heterosexual types stopped having homosexual children, then this wouldn't be an issue!


Errr, a Wink or similar is supposed to lead to others understanding that it is not a troll.

And before you blast off again I suggest that you do things:

First, think what my post was really saying and doing (the Wink , bird names, etc are hints).

Treat yourself to an understanding of evolution before trying to teach others about it (and I suggest also that you do not try a Godwin's Law on me over the genetic bit Laughing).


I'm not sure why you feel the need to attack me personally.

I'm also not sure what the point of your original post was.

If you are indeed "not a troll", then you are suggesting that the marriage amendment act will reduce the number of gay children born.  Are you suggesting that gay children are only born to gay parents (or two parents with a recessive "gay" gene)?  If homosexuality is genetic (which by no means is completely proven), then the sexuality of the parents has very little to do with the sexuality of the offspring.  Perhaps you should treat yourself to an understanding of the difference between genotype and phenotype.

BDFL
49996 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4645

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Subscriber

  Reply # 665394 1-Aug-2012 13:39 Send private message

I didn't think it was a personal attack, and the "extinct bird the dildo" reference made me think it was a joke from the start.




464 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 6
Inactive user


Reply # 665395 1-Aug-2012 13:40 Send private message

BlueShift:
maybe a nice compromise would be to make all "marriages" civil unions with equal legal rights and make weddings a purely religious ceremony



Good news! This is already (almost) the case. The civil marriage ceremony is basically filling out the paperwork under supervision of an authorised person, with appropriate witnesses. All the frock and speeches bits are entirely optional and purely ceremonial.


This is exactly what I am pointing at when I say that marriage is a contract. Between a man and a woman in NZ so far.

Just a contract saying who vows what to whom, etc etc etc... till death do you part.

Marriage 2.1 will include same sex couples, then the new update will be release and the number "2" is not going to be a limitation no more (checkout Vicky Cristina Barcelona for more information)

Being against marriage myself, but I don't see the need to deny people the right to sign that damn contract.

654 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

  Reply # 665396 1-Aug-2012 13:42

nate:
KevinL: The main trouble is they didn't change the wording of the Adoption Act - that's the primary point of difference between marriage and civil unions (civil union partners cannot apply to adopt as a couple, only one partner can apply - the other can apply for guardianship retrospectively, but that doesn't have the same legal implications as parenthood has).


I wonder now if this is even a valid argument.

I wasn't able to find any decent sites with up-to-date stats for adoption levels, however this one site says there's an average of 14 adoptions in just Auckland per year (of a population of 1.4million).  Surely it's too small a number to be giving such prominence to?

edit: Even thinking of my own group of family/friends I know of only one person who is adopted (also a Geekzone user)

(I spose the counter-argument is this could/would increase?)


Adoption levels have dropped significantly over the last 50 years or so - http://adoptionoption.org.nz/adoption/Adoption-in-New-Zealand/

According to their numbers, there are only about 100 adoptions a year (although that doesn't include whangai adoption where Maori children may be sent to be brought up with extended family).  My understanding is that there is generally a much larger number of potential parents than parentless children born each year.  I also note the current law also allows for the birth mother to have the final decision as to the adoptive parents.  

Changing the definition of marriage to allow for gay and lesbian couples doesn't change any of these facts, but it does give them the same rights to adopt as heterosexual couples.  It also would give current homosexual guardians the right to become legal parents, which is an important distinction.  It may be small numbers, but there is still a substantial inequity.

Watchmaker Wizard
2414 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 57

Subscriber

  Reply # 665398 1-Aug-2012 13:43 Send private message

KevinL: Looking at it from another perspective though, if you were a gay or lesbian couple (with no affiliation to a church), would you want to get married by an organisation that is openly against your sexual orientation and beliefs?  


Certainly not if I was athiest/agnostic, but if were both homosexual, and a practicing christian, then I might think differently as I'd be more likely to be approaching the concept of marriage from a religious rather than legal perspective, at least in part.




654 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

  Reply # 665406 1-Aug-2012 13:46

stevenz:
KevinL: Looking at it from another perspective though, if you were a gay or lesbian couple (with no affiliation to a church), would you want to get married by an organisation that is openly against your sexual orientation and beliefs?  


Certainly not if I was athiest/agnostic, but if were both homosexual, and a practicing christian, then I might think differently as I'd be more likely to be approaching the concept of marriage from a religious rather than legal perspective, at least in part.


Sure, but one would hope that if you were a practicing christian and homosexual, that the church/denomination you belonged to would be in support of your beliefs?  I note that not all christian churches are opposed to the marriage amendment act (although admittedly many of them are).

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 26
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:





Trending now »

Hot discussions in our forums right now:

Government Limos
Created by networkn, last reply by Bung on 31-Oct-2014 12:39 (94 replies)
Pages... 5 6 7


Snap refuses to replace faulty gear
Created by Brendan, last reply by MadEngineer on 28-Oct-2014 19:07 (92 replies)
Pages... 5 6 7


Shutup and take my money (via NFC on my mobile phone)
Created by sxz, last reply by sonyxperiageek on 31-Oct-2014 22:34 (24 replies)
Pages... 2


How good is your general Science Knowledge?
Created by Aredwood, last reply by Dairyxox on 1-Nov-2014 14:30 (46 replies)
Pages... 2 3 4


OneDrive code giveaway - go!
Created by freitasm, last reply by PhantomNVD on 1-Nov-2014 10:31 (36 replies)
Pages... 2 3


Uber: a cheaper taxi ride?
Created by kingdragonfly, last reply by livisun on 31-Oct-2014 14:47 (34 replies)
Pages... 2 3


DDos Protection from ISP
Created by charsleysa, last reply by freitasm on 31-Oct-2014 12:11 (46 replies)
Pages... 2 3 4


Sky will be 'upgrading software' of My Sky to connect to internet. What does that mean?
Created by Geektastic, last reply by wsnz on 1-Nov-2014 15:23 (29 replies)
Pages... 2



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.