Gays and Marriage

Forums › Off topic › Gays and Marriage

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 26

2145 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 665964 2-Aug-2012 10:49
BraaiGuy: 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. Lots of things aren't in a child's best interests but are still allowed to happen. (Legally)

kyhwana2

2145 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 665967 2-Aug-2012 10:50
surfisup1000: 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? It's implied that equal marriage would destroy said structure. Why else would you people be against legallising equal marriage? Sure, so lets come up with a new word that identifies the best arrangement for raising a family. Something like "Breeding arrangement/relationship"?

menabassily

389 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 665968 2-Aug-2012 10:50
Simple question here: What's better for a kid, gay couple parents, or no parents at all?? Kiwinized geek

KevinL

539 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Reply # 665970 2-Aug-2012 10:51
menabassily: BraaiGuy: You a parent? Not yet mate, but I have parents, friends with parents, close family members who are parents and have parents of their own, friends with bad parents, friends with no parents and friends trying hard to be parents. ...and we have all been children (one of those few universal truths) and thus each have the right to form our individual opinions about being a child, even if we haven't become parents yet (if, of course, we make that choice).

kyhwana2

2145 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 665971 2-Aug-2012 10:52
Technofreak: BraaiGuy: 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. +1 The discussion a focuses on the rights of gay people. One thing that seems to be forgotten is that one persons rights stop when another persons rights are being infringed. Every child has the right to a mother and father, not two mothers only or two fathers only. Right, lets ban divorce and ban people from dying while they're married. Sorted.

menabassily

389 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 665973 2-Aug-2012 10:55
kyhwana2: Technofreak: BraaiGuy: 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. +1 The discussion a focuses on the rights of gay people. One thing that seems to be forgotten is that one persons rights stop when another persons rights are being infringed. Every child has the right to a mother and father, not two mothers only or two fathers only. Right, lets ban divorce and ban people from dying while they're married. Sorted. Lol, Family is what children need, good warm family (maybe a pet too) One thing I love about the TV show "Friends" is that Ross had a kid with his wife and then she and her lover as a gay couple are taking care of the baby, and you can look at it and wonder, they are doing just fine. Kiwinized geek

kyhwana2

2145 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 665974 2-Aug-2012 10:55
ajobbins: IMHO, the 'won't someone think of the children' argument doesn't belong in this debate. The discussion is about changing recognition of a marriage in law - A law which currently doesn't have any mention of the way in which a family unit can or should be made up (and rightly so). +1 "wont someone think of the children" arguments don't belong in most debates, including this one! I'm incensed that people keep bringing it up!

Klipspringer

1276 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

Reply # 665975 2-Aug-2012 10:56
menabassily: Not yet mate, but I have parents, friends with parents, close family members who are parents and have parents of their own, friends with bad parents, friends with no parents and friends trying hard to be parents. Your Gorilla, feral children comment that those kids end up fine made it clear. It proves too that you have lost credibility to this discussion . Lets not forget, all those things you mentioned from worst case scenario could happen in a Gay Marriage with kids too. And the end result will be even worse on the kids if they were legally adopted by a gay couple. Happy Mum and Dad with kids is a healthy home. You should be making your comparisons to what’s best for the kids, not to what’s could be the worst situation, ie abuse etc .. The New Zealand family court always rules at what’s in the childs best interest. Sure there could be cases where a parenting order could be issued to a gay couple where one parent is from a failed marriage. And maybe the Mom was an alcoholic. But what if both the parents from the failed marriage are equally capable of raising the kids. Who would the court give the parenting order to? The mom that has moved on to find a new Husband, or the dad thats moved on into a gay relationship? Its always about putting the kids first. Offense can never be given, only taken ...

surfisup1000

572 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 665978 2-Aug-2012 10:58
kyhwana2: It's implied that equal marriage would destroy said structure. Why else would you people be against legallising equal marriage? No, you imply that yourself. Legalising gay marriage will not destroy anything. But, it changes to meaning of marriage to something that it is not (based on my beliefs). So I do not see the point of changing it. If the gays really feel so deeply about this (and I don't really care that much) then go ahead and change the law.

KevinL

539 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Reply # 665979 2-Aug-2012 10:58
BraaiGuy: menabassily: Not yet mate, but I have parents, friends with parents, close family members who are parents and have parents of their own, friends with bad parents, friends with no parents and friends trying hard to be parents. Your Gorilla, feral children comment that those kids end up fine made it clear. It proves too that you have lost credibility to this discussion . Lets not forget, all those things you mentioned from worst case scenario could happen in a Gay Marriage with kids too. And the end result will be even worse on the kids if they were legally adopted by a gay couple. Happy Mum and Dad with kids is a healthy home. You should be making your comparisons to what’s best for the kids, not to what’s could be the worst situation, ie abuse etc .. The New Zealand family court always rules at what’s in the childs best interest. Sure there could be cases where a parenting order could be issued to a gay couple where one parent is from a failed marriage. And maybe the Mom was an alcoholic. But what if both the parents from the failed marriage are equally capable of raising the kids. Who would the court give the parenting order to? The mom that has moved on to find a new Husband, or the dad thats moved on into a gay relationship? Its always about putting the kids first. I think in that situation shared/joint custody would be the answer - it would be a significant breach of human rights if the court ruled solely on the basis of parental sexuality.

menabassily

389 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 665980 2-Aug-2012 10:59
BraaiGuy: menabassily: Not yet mate, but I have parents, friends with parents, close family members who are parents and have parents of their own, friends with bad parents, friends with no parents and friends trying hard to be parents. Your Gorilla, feral children comment that those kids end up fine made it clear. It proves too that you have lost credibility to this discussion . Lets not forget, all those things you mentioned from worst case scenario could happen in a Gay Marriage with kids too. And the end result will be even worse on the kids if they were legally adopted by a gay couple. Happy Mum and Dad with kids is a healthy home. You should be making your comparisons to what’s best for the kids, not to what’s could be the worst situation, ie abuse etc .. The New Zealand family court always rules at what’s in the childs best interest. Sure there could be cases where a parenting order could be issued to a gay couple where one parent is from a failed marriage. And maybe the Mom was an alcoholic. But what if both the parents from the failed marriage are equally capable of raising the kids. Who would the court give the parenting order to? The mom that has moved on to find a new Husband, or the dad thats moved on into a gay relationship? Its always about putting the kids first. I believe my point was clear, once a parent is proven to be a good parent, nothing else really matters. I mean, think of grandparent acting as parents, they are doing fine too as long as they are good. Kiwinized geek

Klipspringer

1276 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

Reply # 665981 2-Aug-2012 11:00
kyhwana2: +1 "wont someone think of the children" arguments don't belong in most debates, including this one! I'm incensed that people keep bringing it up! You see this is where the debate falls flat on its face ... It has to be discussed. Marriage is all about settling down, having a family, and bringing up kids. Sure it does not always work out like that for some, but having kids is one of the primary objectives of a marriage. Offense can never be given, only taken ...

Klipspringer

1276 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

Reply # 665982 2-Aug-2012 11:01
KevinL: I think in that situation shared/joint custody would be the answer - it would be a significant breach of human rights if the court ruled solely on the basis of parental sexuality. There is no such thing as custody in New Zealand. Let me guess. You not a parent either? Offense can never be given, only taken ...

freitasm

BDFL
43650 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Subscriber

Reply # 665986 2-Aug-2012 11:03
kyhwana2: ajobbins: IMHO, the 'won't someone think of the children' argument doesn't belong in this debate. The discussion is about changing recognition of a marriage in law - A law which currently doesn't have any mention of the way in which a family unit can or should be made up (and rightly so). +1 "wont someone think of the children" arguments don't belong in most debates, including this one! I'm incensed that people keep bringing it up! "Think of the children" should be left out of this debate altogether. If anyone actually thought of children they would be working right now to prevent the daily news of kids dying because of the beatings, bashing, strangling they take from their dysfunctional heterosexual parents. I don't see anyone trying to fix THAT problem. People are too worried that humans of same sex getting together will bring down the world, but completely forget what is happening around us right now. Just look at Kahui Twins case and the string of news we get every day of toddlers being accepted into hospital of life threatening injuries. People should take care of that instead of worrying about the possiblity that two men or two women might have sex (horror, shock). Mauricio Freitas (Geekzone Admin, Devil's Advocate, my blog, technology disclosure, my tweets, Web Performance Optimization) Geekzone Price comparison \| Amazon Kindle order page \| How to get the best out of Geekzone \| New Zealand IT Jobs \| Geekzone News \| Jinglebugs

menabassily

389 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 665989 2-Aug-2012 11:06
freitasm: kyhwana2: ajobbins: IMHO, the 'won't someone think of the children' argument doesn't belong in this debate. The discussion is about changing recognition of a marriage in law - A law which currently doesn't have any mention of the way in which a family unit can or should be made up (and rightly so). +1 "wont someone think of the children" arguments don't belong in most debates, including this one! I'm incensed that people keep bringing it up! "Think of the children" should be left out of this debate altogether. If anyone actually thought of children they would be working right now to prevent the daily news of kids dying because of the beatings, bashing, strangling they take from their dysfunctional heterosexual parents. I don't see anyone trying to fix THAT problem. People are too worried that humans of same sex getting together will bring down the world, but completely forget what is happening around us right now. Just look at Kahui Twins case and the string of news we get every day of toddlers being accepted into hospital of life threatening injuries. People should take care of that instead of worrying about the possiblity that two men or two women might have sex (horror, shock). Ok am I the only one that disagrees with this point??? One of the very important differences between marriage and civil union is the ability to adopt. And the point of debate here is, does it make any difference if the adopting couple are gay or straight ?? Kiwinized geek

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 26