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 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 26
1559 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 212


  Reply # 665882 2-Aug-2012 09:06 Send private message

tardtasticx: 
My view on this,??
Id like to see it brought into law, its time we move into the 21st century, and accept humans for what they are


Marriage has been the optimal arrangement for successfully bearing and raising children.  For obvious reasons, this excludes gay people. 

This guy explains it well...

http://richardtwaghorne.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/gay-marriage/

Interestingly there is some rather nasty name calling (thanks to the admin for cleaning it up),  and it always seems to originate from those supporting gay-marriage.   The above article addresses that point too. 

1708 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 109

Trusted

  Reply # 665883 2-Aug-2012 09:08 Send private message

just going to add this.

i fully support gay marriage. i say bring it into law.

thats it, my 2 cents.

2329 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 78


  Reply # 665885 2-Aug-2012 09:16 Send private message

surfisup1000: 

Marriage has been the optimal arrangement for successfully bearing and raising children.  For obvious reasons, this excludes gay people. 

This guy explains it well...

http://richardtwaghorne.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/gay-marriage/

Interestingly there is some rather nasty name calling (thanks to the admin for cleaning it up),  and it always seems to originate from those supporting gay-marriage.   The above article addresses that point too. 


Oh look, you brought the "bearing and raising children" BS into it after I asked everyone not to.

So why exactly should equal marriage remain illegal just because _supposedly_ marriage between a man and a woman is the "optimal arrangement"?


Not only that, even if it is "redifining" marriage, so what? Words change their meanings over time and society changes. If you people had your way, we'd still be stuck in the dark ages or wondering around deserts.


1007 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8

Subscriber

  Reply # 665890 2-Aug-2012 09:27 Send private message

kyhwana2: Oh look, you brought the "bearing and raising children" BS into it after I asked everyone not to.

So why exactly should equal marriage remain illegal just because _supposedly_ marriage between a man and a woman is the "optimal arrangement"?


Not only that, even if it is "redifining" marriage, so what? Words change their meanings over time and society changes. If you people had your way, we'd still be stuck in the dark ages or wondering around deserts.


I think the article itself answers your question.
Some further expansion on the discussion here, in case you didn't see it also
http://richardtwaghorne.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/gay-marriage-responses-to-responses/

2329 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 78


  Reply # 665897 2-Aug-2012 09:39 Send private message

Skolink:
kyhwana2: Oh look, you brought the "bearing and raising children" BS into it after I asked everyone not to.

So why exactly should equal marriage remain illegal just because _supposedly_ marriage between a man and a woman is the "optimal arrangement"?


Not only that, even if it is "redifining" marriage, so what? Words change their meanings over time and society changes. If you people had your way, we'd still be stuck in the dark ages or wondering around deserts.


I think the article itself answers your question.
Some further expansion on the discussion here, in case you didn't see it also
http://richardtwaghorne.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/gay-marriage-responses-to-responses/


I read the article, it infact does not answer my question and as above, there's no answer to my "so what if we redefine" the word "marriage".
If equal marriage isn't about children, why do people keep bringing it up all the time? It smacks of the "Won't someone think of the children!" BS.

Again, why can't we redefine what the word marriage means? (Note also that just including same  sex couples as being able to be married in no diminishes the so called "best way to raise children" marriages that opposite sex couples get)
Please to be answering properly this time.



1559 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 212


  Reply # 665899 2-Aug-2012 09:40 Send private message

kyhwana2: 

Oh look, you brought the "bearing and raising children" BS into it after I asked everyone not to.



You asked everyone not to? On what basis do you claim such authority to censor debate?

And, why the swearing?   I take it you did not read the linked article . 

Rather than insult and swear or try to censor you, I will address your point.

One thing has not changed.  Marriage is still the optimal structure for raising children.  So, we should not change the rules around marriage until such time as it is no longer the optimal structure. 




2329 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 78


  Reply # 665901 2-Aug-2012 09:43 Send private message

surfisup1000: 
kyhwana2: 

Oh look, you brought the "bearing and raising children" BS into it after I asked everyone not to.



You asked everyone not to? On what basis do you claim such authority to censor debate?

 

Because it's been done to death.
surfisup1000:

One thing has not changed.  Marriage is still the optimal structure for raising children.  So, we should not change the rules around marriage until such time as it is no longer the optimal structure. 


As I said above, how is equal marriage destroying this so called "optimal structure for raising children"?


2391 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 292
Inactive user


  Reply # 665903 2-Aug-2012 09:46 Send private message

kyhwana2:

As I said above, how is equal marriage destroying this so called "optimal structure for raising children"?



Ummm.. 2 gay men bringing up young girls? I don't think so... Girls need their Moms, especially when they reach pubity. Can think of similar consequences for a boy being brought up by two lesbian women. Not saying it can’t be done, but its not in the child’s best interests. End of story.

1559 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 212


  Reply # 665907 2-Aug-2012 09:51 Send private message

kyhwana2: 
As I said above, how is equal marriage destroying this so called "optimal structure for raising children"?



Please quote where I said anything would be destroyed? You're the only one I've seen using the word 'destroyed'. 

I just think it is useful to have a simple term which identifies the best arrangement for raising a family.

Otherwise, what word will we use?

4759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 122

Trusted

  Reply # 665908 2-Aug-2012 09:54 Send private message

Umm, I think religion has a weak link to what the modern state can now define as marriage.
I think a link to parenting is even weaker.

As mentioned by many others above, the situations being presented as reasons why gay marriage should not be allowed are eventuating right now, regardless of the current legal state definition of marriage.

Adoption perhaps being the only exception, in that I expect the current laws/procedures are similarly out of date and would need amending at the same time? I expect none of this would stand up to a human rights laws test but perhaps the civil union setup satisfies this?

Awesome
3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 561

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 665909 2-Aug-2012 09:55 Send private message

surfisup1000: Marriage has been the optimal arrangement for successfully bearing and raising children.  For obvious reasons, this excludes gay people.


What about couples who get married with either no intention to raise children, or knowing they can't (Eg. Infertility)? Should they be barred from getting married too, or do they get let off on a technicality?

Allowing same sex couples to marry doesn't change marriage being the 'optimal arrangement for raising children' anyway.




Twitter: ajobbins

1559 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 212


  Reply # 665911 2-Aug-2012 09:56 Send private message

ajobbins:
surfisup1000: Marriage has been the optimal arrangement for successfully bearing and raising children.  For obvious reasons, this excludes gay people.


What about couples who get married with either no intention to raise children, or knowing they can't (Eg. Infertility)? Should they be barred from getting married too, or do they get let off on a technicality?

Allowing same sex couples to marry doesn't change marriage being the 'optimal arrangement for raising children' anyway.


Did you read the linked article above? 


Perhaps not.

2260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  Reply # 665916 2-Aug-2012 10:01 Send private message

surfisup1000: 
Did you read the linked article above? 


Perhaps not.


I skipped it, like probably most others.  As soon as I read Irish Daily Mail, it lost all credibility to me.  It's almost as bad as The Guardian, ha ha

I'm married, yet I'm opposed to having children.  Does that mean I shouldn't be married?







I have moved across the ditch.  Now residing in Melbourne as a VOIP/Video Technical Trainer/Engineer. 

1007 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8

Subscriber

  Reply # 665921 2-Aug-2012 10:07 Send private message

So the reasons for gay marriage rather than civil union are

1. Possibly better legal recognition of the relationship overseas
2. The ability to adopt
3. Having the same title/term as for a Male-Female relationship, (and therefore changing the perception of a 'lesser' relationship?)

Were there any others mentioned? Any other legal entitlements that civil union does not have, but marriage does?

Awesome
3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 561

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 665925 2-Aug-2012 10:10 Send private message

surfisup1000: Did you read the linked article above? 


Perhaps not.


Yep. I read it a a couple of days ago and just again now. It doesn't answer my question at all. I'd like your response anyway, not some foreign journalist.

Also, Please point out where in the NZ Legislation (Marriage Act 1955) it refers to Marriage being for procreative purposes? It is the law we are 'redefining' - and the law doesn't say it currently!




Twitter: ajobbins

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 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:




News »

Trending now »
Hot discussions in our forums right now:

Moment of Truth?
Created by BarTender, last reply by gzt on 22-Sep-2014 15:42 (411 replies)
Pages... 26 27 28


GCSB Surveillance Vans?
Created by snowball, last reply by jjnz1 on 22-Sep-2014 21:48 (40 replies)
Pages... 2 3


Geekzone giveaway: ADATA SSD SP610 256GB and ADATA PV110 Power Bank
Created by freitasm, last reply by Elpie on 22-Sep-2014 23:15 (38 replies)
Pages... 2 3


Festival of Democracy
Created by gzt, last reply by sdav on 22-Sep-2014 23:31 (126 replies)
Pages... 7 8 9


Cheapest DSL with no contract in Auckland?
Created by TeaLeaf, last reply by TeaLeaf on 22-Sep-2014 17:52 (21 replies)
Pages... 2


Predict E(l)ection 2014 & win
Created by nakedmolerat, last reply by Geektastic on 22-Sep-2014 23:10 (83 replies)
Pages... 4 5 6


Electrical cable recall
Created by freitasm, last reply by richms on 22-Sep-2014 19:08 (17 replies)
Pages... 2


TV for under $1000?
Created by TeaLeaf, last reply by richms on 22-Sep-2014 20:46 (16 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.