Gays and Marriage

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Gays and Marriage

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 26

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#666033 2-Aug-2012 11:49

Skolink:
menabassily: Forgot to mention one more thing:
4- Allowing gay marriage in NZ will probably help the country's economy, as many couple from overseas will come to NZ to get married.?

But would the marriage be recognised at home? If not, why not just have a ceremony at home, rather than spend all that money coming to NZ and get a worthless piece of paper from this state?

Valid point but why do they come to nz for civil right (true story)?

BlueShift

1692 posts

Uber Geek

#666034 2-Aug-2012 11:51

Skolink:
BlueShift:
menabassily: Ok, I lost track of what's happening here, can we adopt this technique to help clarify things again:

Gay Marriage, if you were to vote. Yay or Nay.

Points you are basing your decision on:
1-
2-
3-

I'm in favour

1 - Laws generally exist to protect people from harm
2- Gays getting married will harm nobody (not even the children)
3- Gays not being allowed to marry harms them

Can you please expand on point 3. What harm is caused?

Is it beacuse people 'look down' on them for having a Civil Union rather than a Marriage? If this is tha case surely gay people do not wish to hide the fact that they are in a gay relationship.

The only other harm I can think of is not being allowed to adopt.

So you've named two harms for me: unable to adopt and being second-class citizens.
Any harm that is easily avoidable is too much harm.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#666036 2-Aug-2012 11:51

ajobbins:
surfisup1000: Children are relevant to marriage in my opinion.

The marriage law (which is what the changes are proposed to) disagrees with you. That is why the 'Children' argument has no place in this debate.

But the law change will give gay and lesbian couples the right to adopt. So not with you.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#666038 2-Aug-2012 11:51

ajobbins:
surfisup1000: Children are relevant to marriage in my opinion.

The marriage law (which is what the changes are proposed to) disagrees with you. That is why the 'Children' argument has no place in this debate.

So, anything that is outside the exact wording of the marriage act cannot be mentioned.

I didn't realise that rule.

Thanks for pointing it out.

tardtasticx

3075 posts

Uber Geek

#666040 2-Aug-2012 11:54

BraaiGuy:
Gay Marriage, I vote Nay.

There are actually two separate issues here. The rights for gay couples to adopt, and the right to use the term. "marriage". I vote Nay to both.

Points I'm basing my decision on:
1- Because the definition of the word "marriage" is man and woman. Husband and wife.
2- Its no good if we change the definition of the word here in NZ and Gay marriages are not recognised elsewhere. Moving to Aus for example, your marriage is not recognised, how many thousands of kiwis move to Aus every year? Those that do will still feel discriminated. Only a few countries recognise Gay Marriage.
3- We should be fighting for equal rights for Gay and Lesbian couples, not redefining a word for a minority.
4- Legalise Gay Marriage, the churches will be next to be targeted. There will always be discrimination, like it or not.
5- A child (yes we have to discuss this) brought up in a gay household may grow up thinking this is normal. Its not a normal.
6- Gay men for example will never be able to give a child (especially a daughter) a better upbringing that a healthy mom and dad. Visa vesa for lesbian couples with boys.
7- What about legalising polygamous marriage? My view is that a polygamous marriage would be better in a child?s best interest to a gay marriage. Can anybody come up with some examples why this is not the case? So then why not legalise it too? Some could probably argue that its even better than a heterosexual marriage.

1- whos definition? Who gets to decide that?
2- this change will have an impact on other countries
3- equal rights are nothing if we aren't equal. Stil not being able to marry like everyone else is not equal.
4- no one is forcing churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies.
5- sorry but it is normal. No one chooses to be gay. And it evident not just in humans.
6- We aren't takingchildren from healthy homes, just given children without homes, a home.
7- we aren't discussing that.

BlueShift

1692 posts

Uber Geek

#666042 2-Aug-2012 11:56

surfisup1000:
ajobbins:
surfisup1000: Children are relevant to marriage in my opinion.

The marriage law (which is what the changes are proposed to) disagrees with you. That is why the 'Children' argument has no place in this debate.

So, anything that is outside the exact wording of the marriage act cannot be mentioned.

I didn't realise that rule.

Thanks for pointing it out.

It can be mentioned, but its not really relevant since its the changes to the Marriage Act that we are debating.
Its like complaining that they shouldn't have changed the left-hand turn rule because the indicator lever in my car is on the left. It might look kind of related, but it isn't.

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#666049 2-Aug-2012 11:58

KevinL:
Skolink:
tardtasticx: Sorry to break this to you but gay relationships and straight relationships are exactly the same appart from the gender aspect. There is love, there is commitment, there is everything you'd expect from a relationship. So why should they be called different things? Because yourreligion says so?

Being married myself I just can't see how they could be exactly the same, unless one in the couple takes on the role similar to a man, and one a role similar to a woman. I am not disputing your point with regard to love and commitment. I disagree that the two relationships are identical.

EDIT: On reflection perhaps by "apart from the gender aspect" you were referring to the roles each plays in a relationship. But that would still support my point that they are not "exactly the same".

Having been married as well, I think you're being remarkably closed minded. I don't believe traditional gender roles are at all important. I suppose you are opposed to home-husbands as well? The gender of the two individuals has nothing to do with the quality of the relationship and they are for all intents and purposes -exactly- the same as defined by law.

You make a good point regarding house-husbands, I wan't referring to that type of role (man works, woman cooks). I was also not referring to the roles in raising children.

I can't make a first-hand comparison like you, so I accept that perhaps the two people behave the same way toward each other as a man and woman would. I just expected things would work differently.

KevinL:
This may be different from what you personally define as marriage, but the important thing is that the law affects everyone, but your personal/religious views only affect those who share your beliefs

The law does affect everybody, which is why I don't agree that a law change will affect only gay couples themselves. I would say my behaviour affects others, not my beliefs.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

BlueShift

1692 posts

Uber Geek

#666051 2-Aug-2012 12:00

tardtasticx:
BraaiGuy:
Gay Marriage, I vote Nay.

There are actually two separate issues here. The rights for gay couples to adopt, and the right to use the term. "marriage". I vote Nay to both.

Points I'm basing my decision on:
1- Because the definition of the word "marriage" is man and woman. Husband and wife.
2- Its no good if we change the definition of the word here in NZ and Gay marriages are not recognised elsewhere. Moving to Aus for example, your marriage is not recognised, how many thousands of kiwis move to Aus every year? Those that do will still feel discriminated. Only a few countries recognise Gay Marriage.
3- We should be fighting for equal rights for Gay and Lesbian couples, not redefining a word for a minority.
4- Legalise Gay Marriage, the churches will be next to be targeted. There will always be discrimination, like it or not.
5- A child (yes we have to discuss this) brought up in a gay household may grow up thinking this is normal. Its not a normal.
6- Gay men for example will never be able to give a child (especially a daughter) a better upbringing that a healthy mom and dad. Visa vesa for lesbian couples with boys.
7- What about legalising polygamous marriage? My view is that a polygamous marriage would be better in a child?s best interest to a gay marriage. Can anybody come up with some examples why this is not the case? So then why not legalise it too? Some could probably argue that its even better than a heterosexual marriage.

1- whos definition? Who gets to decide that?
2- this change will have an impact on other countries
3- equal rights are nothing if we aren't equal. Stil not being able to marry like everyone else is not equal.
4- no one is forcing churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies.
5- sorry but it is normal. No one chooses to be gay. And it evident not just in humans.
6- We aren't takingchildren from healthy homes, just given children without homes, a home.
7- we aren't discussing that.

Additional:
2- There are many certifications that aren't recognised between countries - your NZ gun licence won't get you a gun in the UK. Your South African engineering qualification may not be accepted by IPENZ. We are talking about NZ laws for NZers in NZ.

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#666053 2-Aug-2012 12:04

BraaiGuy:
Gay Marriage, I vote Nay.

There are actually two separate issues here. The rights for gay couples to adopt, and the right to use the term. "marriage". I vote Nay to both.

Points I'm basing my decision on:
1- Because the definition of the word "marriage" is man and woman. Husband and wife.
2- Its no good if we change the definition of the word here in NZ and Gay marriages are not recognised elsewhere. Moving to Aus for example, your marriage is not recognised, how many thousands of kiwis move to Aus every year? Those that do will still feel discriminated. Only a few countries recognise Gay Marriage.
3- We should be fighting for equal rights for Gay and Lesbian couples, not redefining a word for a minority.
4- Legalise Gay Marriage, the churches will be next to be targeted. There will always be discrimination, like it or not.
5- A child (yes we have to discuss this) brought up in a gay household may grow up thinking this is normal. Its not a normal.
6- Gay men for example will never be able to give a child (especially a daughter) a better upbringing that a healthy mom and dad. Visa vesa for lesbian couples with boys.
7- What about legalising polygamous marriage? My view is that a polygamous marriage would be better in a child?s best interest to a gay marriage. Can anybody come up with some examples why this is not the case? So then why not legalise it too? Some could probably argue that its even better than a heterosexual marriage.

Thank you for your justifications, but personally this post makes me a little bit sad.

1) The current definition according to the Oxford English Dictionary states a man and a woman; but the definition of "marry" also includes to bring together; to join harmoniously. Fortunately the dictionary does not dictate the law, indeed the law dictates the dictionary.

2) Possibly true, but there are probably more countries that will recognise a gay marriage than a civil union. Nobody has said that heterosexual marriages will no longer be recognise (and I believe this to be far from the truth)

3) Redifining the word in legistlation is the same as fighting for equal rights. Until it is called the same thing, it is still segregating the population into civil union couples, and married couples. Two things cannot be the same if they are called different things.

4) How will the church possibly be targetted? The discussion is about the legal definition of marriage, not the religious definition. As pointed out several times the law change does not affect the ability of the church to refuse to marry a couple for any reasons.

5) How can you possibly comment on what is "normal" and what is not? What you consider to be "normal" may be substantially different from what other people think is "normal". I personally feel it is "normal" to sleep in on a Sunday morning, yet I don't go around stopping people from going to Sunday morning services.

6) There is no evidence that gay or lesbian parenting is any better or worse than heterosexual parenting. Again, you are free to have your own personal opinions - however it's not your right to impose those opinions on others and in doing so infringe upon their rights.

7) Quite possibly. I suspect there would be a substantial backlash from the church if this were suggested (and from those of us who are still single for whom polygyny or polyandry would potentially reduce the dating pool). Personally, I have no issues with the concept. The key point to this "slippery slope" argument is that it only applies to consenting adults.

mattRSK

822 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#666055 2-Aug-2012 12:05

I do not support the gay marriage bill. Simply because I believe that it is not normal.

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#666056 2-Aug-2012 12:06

BraaiGuy:
Gay Marriage, I vote Nay.

There are actually two separate issues here. The rights for gay couples to adopt, and the right to use the term. "marriage". I vote Nay to both. .

I will address your points individually

1- Because the definition of the word "marriage" is man and woman. Husband and wife.

Who's definition? Look at the Wikipedia article on marriage. Also, definitions of words change and evolve - they are not (and should not) be static for all of eternity. A hundred years ago the word 'gay' didn't mean homosexual... meaning change, the world evolves and matures.

2- Its no good if we change the definition of the word here in NZ and Gay marriages are not recognised elsewhere. Moving to Aus for example, your marriage is not recognised, how many thousands of kiwis move to Aus every year? Those that do will still feel discriminated. Only a few countries recognise Gay Marriage.

The state has agreements in place where other countries recognise the marriage as defined by our act, not theirs. Eg. Commonwealth states would recognise a marriage that the NZ law recognises.

3- We should be fighting for equal rights for Gay and Lesbian couples, not redefining a word for a minority.

I'm not quite sure what your argument is here. We aren't redefining a word, we are re-wording a law in order to give equal rights for Gay and Lesbian couples as your suggest.

4- Legalise Gay Marriage, the churches will be next to be targeted. There will always be discrimination, like it or not.

That doesn't make it ok or justifiable. If we just accept that there will always be some from of discrimination and never seek greater equality in the world we wont make much progress as a civilisation. As it is in the current law, a church doesn't have to perform a marraige ceremony that falls outside the registered beliefs of that organisation. This right wont change as has already been confirmed by the member proposing the bill.

5- A child (yes we have to discuss this) brought up in a gay household may grow up thinking this is normal. Its not a normal.

Conjecture. Not to mention, when I have children in the future (likely with my current (female) partner) they will be brought to think for themselves and to understand that whoever they are is OK - gay or straight. Being gay isn't a condition. It's not something they choose to be or can choose not to be. People are who they are. How do you define 'normal'? Because they are a minority?

6- Gay men for example will never be able to give a child (especially a daughter) a better upbringing that a healthy mom and dad. Visa vesa for lesbian couples with boys.

Idealistic argument that doesn't stand up in the real world. What about families where a parents dies? What about the 10's of thousands of boys (and girls) raised by a single mother because they dad didn't stick around. Go fight for them - the real victims.

7- What about legalising polygamous marriage? My view is that a polygamous marriage would be better in a child?s best interest to a gay marriage. Can anybody come up with some examples why this is not the case? So then why not legalise it too? Some could probably argue that its even better than a heterosexual marriage.

I have no issue with polygamous marriages. Again, if more than two adults in a loving, consenting and committed relationship want to have their relationship recognised by law - I support this.

I look forward to your responses.

Twitter: ajobbins

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#666059 2-Aug-2012 12:07

tardtasticx:
BraaiGuy:
Gay Marriage, I vote Nay.

There are actually two separate issues here. The rights for gay couples to adopt, and the right to use the term. "marriage". I vote Nay to both.

Points I'm basing my decision on:
1- Because the definition of the word "marriage" is man and woman. Husband and wife.
2- Its no good if we change the definition of the word here in NZ and Gay marriages are not recognised elsewhere. Moving to Aus for example, your marriage is not recognised, how many thousands of kiwis move to Aus every year? Those that do will still feel discriminated. Only a few countries recognise Gay Marriage.
3- We should be fighting for equal rights for Gay and Lesbian couples, not redefining a word for a minority.
4- Legalise Gay Marriage, the churches will be next to be targeted. There will always be discrimination, like it or not.
5- A child (yes we have to discuss this) brought up in a gay household may grow up thinking this is normal. Its not a normal.
6- Gay men for example will never be able to give a child (especially a daughter) a better upbringing that a healthy mom and dad. Visa vesa for lesbian couples with boys.
7- What about legalising polygamous marriage? My view is that a polygamous marriage would be better in a child?s best interest to a gay marriage. Can anybody come up with some examples why this is not the case? So then why not legalise it too? Some could probably argue that its even better than a heterosexual marriage.

1- whos definition? Who gets to decide that?
2- this change will have an impact on other countries
3- equal rights are nothing if we aren't equal. Stil not being able to marry like everyone else is not equal.
4- no one is forcing churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies.
5- sorry but it is normal. No one chooses to be gay. And it evident not just in humans.
6- We aren't takingchildren from healthy homes, just given children without homes, a home.
7- we aren't discussing that.

1-      Its part of the English language, have a look at its definition in the Oxford dictionary. Its a word with a definition that has been around for centuries. Just because the definition of the word does not suite some, does that mean we must change it.

2-      Will it? South Africa implemented it in 2005. And culturally its not accepted there. Nor has it had much affect on any of the neighbouring countries.

3-      So fight for equal rights. Not changing the definition of a word. The word marry does not suite gay and lesbian couples simply because it does not fit the definition. Its the same as me saying I have the right to many other words, lets change the meaning of the word “Sir”, then we can all be “Sirs”

4-      Its coming ... And thats what has happened in other countries. Seen this in South Africa where Churches are labelled as discriminating.

5-      Normal? Ummm lets leave it just there. Our human bodies were not designed in that way, so cant agree with u there.

6-      There is so many problems about this point. Its about finding the best home. My point is, the best kind of home gay and lesbian couples can provide does not sit at the top of the list.

7-      True. But its a valid point

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#666061 2-Aug-2012 12:08

Skolink:
The law does affect everybody, which is why I don't agree that a law change will affect only gay couples themselves. I would say my behaviour affects others, not my beliefs.

The law only affects gay people who want to get married. It doesn't affect you.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#666062 2-Aug-2012 12:09

BlueShift:
It can be mentioned, but its not really relevant since its the changes to the Marriage Act that we are debating.
Its like complaining that they shouldn't have changed the left-hand turn rule because the indicator lever in my car is on the left. It might look kind of related, but it isn't.

OK, since so many believe children are irrelevant to the argument on marriage, I will drop out .

So you guys can start patting each other on the back about how you all agree with each other.

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#666063 2-Aug-2012 12:10

mattRSK: I do not support the gay marriage bill. Simply because I believe that it is not normal.

Why do you think it's not normal?

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 26