When will NZ get equal rights for ALL citizens?

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

Forums › Politics › When will NZ get equal rights for ALL citizens?

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17

2080 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

#400070 4-Nov-2010 11:11

bazzer: So, you believe in equal rights for incestuous couples, polygamists, etc? It's a serious question, if they do not deserve the right to marry, why not? I understand these practices are currently illegal, but isn't that, liek homosexuality once was, simply due to social convention? What's wrong with having two wives?

The problem with incest is it leads to a greater risk of genetic abnormalities in the offspring.

This is used to great effect in selective breeding but then you kill any offspring without the desired traits. Hardly something acceptable in human breeding!

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#400075 4-Nov-2010 11:15

graemeh:
bazzer: So, you believe in equal rights for incestuous couples, polygamists, etc? It's a serious question, if they do not deserve the right to marry, why not? I understand these practices are currently illegal, but isn't that, liek homosexuality once was, simply due to social convention? What's wrong with having two wives?

The problem with incest is it leads to a greater risk of genetic abnormalities in the offspring.

This is used to great effect in selective breeding but then you kill any offspring without the desired traits. Hardly something acceptable in human breeding!

I don't think legalising it will lead to a proliferation of inbred children. Is the legal aspect the only reason most people find the idea "distasteful"? Plenty of babies are already born with genetic abnormalities, should we test couples to ensure they'll have healthy children? What kind of increased risk are we talking about anyway?

At least there's no similar barrier to legalising polygamy.

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#400076 4-Nov-2010 11:15

Teeps:
bazzer:
Teeps: But for the equivalent amount you earn you do pay the same amount of tax, you just pay a higher rate of tax when you break certain thresholds. That seems pretty fair.

What is fair about taxing dollars earned above $70K at 33% compared to 10.5% under $14K?? How are those dollars earned any different, why should they be taxed differently?

But you also pay tax at 10.5% for your earnings under $14k too.

Would you prefer to pay let's say 25% on ALL of your earnings instead of having different thresholds? I'm pretty certain you'd find you'd be paying more if you did.

To go back to the equality issue, how would you feel if the government decided that as same sex couples (as they have no children) have less impact on society so their taxes should reflect this and they should not have to pay towards schools etc. Would that feel fair to you?

I'm happy to pay towards society and happy that my taxes are equal to the person next to me whatever their sexuality is as that's how I believe it to be fair and equal.

Yes, I would prefer this. I would end up paying less taxes, as would many other people. Whatever the flat rate, there will be a threshold below which people pay more tax (they are against the flat tax) and aobve which people pay less tax (they are for it!).

Your comparison is invalid as the only thing you're missing (as you've stated) is a choice. In your example, no one has a choice. Do same sex couples who have adopted in your scenario pay higher taxes? Do childless opposite sex couples not?

As I've said before, I'm on your side. I just don't think any of the arguments presented are very convincing. You're against incest? Blacks are against gays. Whites are/were against blacks. It's funny how history repeats, isn't it?

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#400079 4-Nov-2010 11:17

I also want to add that I'm in no way trying to compare homosexuality with incest/polygamy or implying that all gays want to have sex with their brothers etc. It's a completely separate issue, but there's a parallel between them at least.

graemeh

2080 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

#400085 4-Nov-2010 11:26

bazzer:
graemeh:
bazzer: So, you believe in equal rights for incestuous couples, polygamists, etc? It's a serious question, if they do not deserve the right to marry, why not? I understand these practices are currently illegal, but isn't that, liek homosexuality once was, simply due to social convention? What's wrong with having two wives?

The problem with incest is it leads to a greater risk of genetic abnormalities in the offspring.

This is used to great effect in selective breeding but then you kill any offspring without the desired traits. Hardly something acceptable in human breeding!

I don't think legalising it will lead to a proliferation of inbred children. Is the legal aspect the only reason most people find the idea "distasteful"? Plenty of babies are already born with genetic abnormalities, should we test couples to ensure they'll have healthy children? What kind of increased risk are we talking about anyway?

At least there's no similar barrier to legalising polygamy.

Well I can't remember much of my University genetics course but found this info from http://www.netwellness.org/question.cfm/77915.htm

Couples who are related by blood have a higher chance of having children with genetic diseases or birth defects. It is estimated that couples who are siblings (1st degree relatives) have about a 7-12% risk above the population risk, which is estimated to be about 3-4% of newborns. Because your friend and his biological sister share one-half of their genes in common, they are 1st degree relatives so would have this higher chance to have a child with birth defects or a genetic disease. If there was a genetic disorder in their family, then the risk may be even higher than 7 -12 %.

So it is a 2 to 3 times higher risk than where the parents are not related and potentially more.

Teeps

501 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 26

#400086 4-Nov-2010 11:27

bazzer:
graemeh:
bazzer: So, you believe in equal rights for incestuous couples, polygamists, etc?? It's?a serious question, if they do not deserve the right to marry, why not?? I understand these practices are currently illegal, but isn't that, liek homosexuality once was, simply due to social convention?? What's wrong with having two wives?

The problem with incest is it leads to a greater risk of genetic abnormalities in the offspring.

This is used to great effect in selective breeding but then you kill any offspring without the desired traits.? Hardly something acceptable in human breeding!

I don't think legalising it will lead to a proliferation of inbred children.? Is the legal aspect the only reason most people find the idea "distasteful"?? Plenty of babies are already born with genetic abnormalities, should we test couples to ensure they'll have healthy children?? What kind of increased risk are we talking about anyway?

At least there's no similar barrier to legalising polygamy.

You will find I am not against anything, as long as it isn't harmful. The incest issue does have genetic problems so there is a direct relationship between allowing that and giving birth to children who will almost definitely have genetic disorders. I'm not saying that no children are ever born unlike this and I'm not suggesting some form of testing or policing, but with incest it's a direct path to genetic disorders. If you feel you would like a relationship with your brother or sister go ahead, but I think it would be wrong to go blindly into that without knowing that you were likely to bring up a child with a genetic disorder.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#400115 4-Nov-2010 12:07

Teeps: You will find I am not against anything, as long as it isn't harmful. The incest issue does have genetic problems so there is a direct relationship between allowing that and giving birth to children who will almost definitely have genetic disorders. I'm not saying that no children are ever born unlike this and I'm not suggesting some form of testing or policing, but with incest it's a direct path to genetic disorders. If you feel you would like a relationship with your brother or sister go ahead, but I think it would be wrong to go blindly into that without knowing that you were likely to bring up a child with a genetic disorder.

1) Why the assumption that incestuous couples want to have children anyway? Gay/elderly/actually many couples are happy to enter into a loving relationship without the preoccupation with procreation. Why would incestuous couples be any different? In any case, if we can justify making criminals of consenting adults for choosing partners who will increase the risk of having children with disabilities, then don't we set a precedent for all couples who may pass on genetic disorders to their children?

2) Offspring of brother/sister couples, for example, will not "almost definitely" have genetic disorders, but nice generalistion for an open-minded guy. Even if the risk is slightly higher, it's hardly a "direct path to genetic disorders". I would guess that the offspring of an incestuous relationship are no more likely to desire an incestuous relationship themselves than the offspring of a homosexual couple (not a "partnership obviously) are to be homesexual. Falling in love is not genetic, is it?

3) As I've mentioned, I do not desire such a relationship, and I find your suggestion that I would inflammatory.

4) I agree with your final point, but refer you back to my point 1.

Jaxson

8172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1332

Trusted

#400119 4-Nov-2010 12:16

Man huge post, all gone as took too long to refine it.
Dumb time out thing.....

Highlights:

Church gets first dibs on what constitutes marriage.
I don't get what business a marriage status has on any legal stuff.

So my plan would be:
Keep marriage out of any legal stuff.
Replace by civil union, which is a legal document that shows intent for a couple to stay together.
This is required even if you are married.

Debate would then be around what constitutes a civil union but once you have it you are eligible to enter any subsequent adoption/other legal activity relating to an approved couple etc etc.

I thought that was a pretty cool idea.

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 138

#400131 4-Nov-2010 12:35

Marriage, as an institution, legitimises relationships and has done for many centuries. Civil unions are perhaps a more clinical way of legalising things simply because the religious component is removed.

But either way, here in NZ we have laws that recognise when you are in relationship whether it has been legitimised by a marriage or civil union.

Again... at the end of the day it's all about legalising the property brought into and acquired by the partnership. Because eventually it ceases (either by disallusion or death) and thats when nature of the 'partnership' is really tested.

Gender issues associated with the 'partners' feed minority debates around emotional issues which aren't relevant to the 'nature of the relationship' theme.

graemeh

2080 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

#400151 4-Nov-2010 13:06

Jaxson: So my plan would be:
Keep marriage out of any legal stuff.
Replace by civil union, which is a legal document that shows intent for a couple to stay together.
This is required even if you are married.

This is how it is done in Malaysia and it works. I think they refer to both as marriage though.

If you're married in a church you also effectively have a civil marriage too so legally it is exactly the same as if you had been in a registry office or a temple or any other type of ceremony.

nate

6473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 458

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#400203 4-Nov-2010 14:17

Here's my take on it.

Someone posted earlier on that a gay person is able to adopt a child (I have no idea if this is correct, I am assuming that person has done their research). That person is also able to have a civil union with another gay person - in the eyes of the law, this is no different from a marriage (other than by name). So in essence, that couple could have a family, which would be no different from a "traditional family" (and I mean no offense in calling it that, just can't think of a better way to describe it) when it comes to guardianship and legal rights.

Now just because only one partner in that civil union can adopt a child (or children), surely that has no bearing on that makeup of that family, or any other legal implications? Parental roles (I assume) would be shared equally, and they would still be a family.

Is there any benefit from going through the processes to change marriage when you (as a gay couple) receive no extra benefit, when you have a civil union instead?

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet - in my mind, it's more important that a loving, nurturing, supportive family unit is setup, regardless of what term society gives to the two parents in it.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Jaxson

8172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1332

Trusted

#400205 4-Nov-2010 14:18

Just seems clearer to me if you remove the legal power element of a marriage from these things.

As I understand it the adoption legislation requires marriage. Take this out of the loop, replace it with a requirement for a civil union (or some better sounding name, couple contract?) and you're halfway there to freeing up the bias against same sex couples.

It just seems odd to me in this day and age that we're still pretending that you can't be great parents unless you are a married couple.

jaymz

1136 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 76

#400207 4-Nov-2010 14:23

nate: Here's my take on it.

Someone posted earlier on that a gay person is able to adopt a child (I have no idea if this is correct, I am assuming that person has done their research). That person is also able to have a civil union with another gay person - in the eyes of the law, this is no different from a marriage (other than by name). So in essence, that couple could have a family, which would be no different from a "traditional family" (and I mean no offense in calling it that, just can't think of a better way to describe it) when it comes to guardianship and legal rights.

Now just because only one partner in that civil union can adopt a child (or children), surely that has no bearing on that makeup of that family, or any other legal implications? Parental roles (I assume) would be shared equally, and they would still be a family.

Is there any benefit from going through the processes to change marriage when you (as a gay couple) receive no extra benefit, when you have a civil union instead?

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet - in my mind, it's more important that a loving, nurturing, supportive family unit is setup, regardless of what term society gives to the two parents in it.

Correct, as long as the person adopting the child meets all other requirements (marriage is NOT a requirement) Gender, sexual preference, race are independant of the adoption process.

wreck90

780 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#400214 4-Nov-2010 14:47

Teeps:
wreck90: I pay more tax than my neighbor.

This is not equal.

Boo!!

Which of course means you earn more money than your neighbour!

No, it means I worked harder.

nate

6473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 458

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#400222 4-Nov-2010 15:12

jaymz: Correct, as long as the person adopting the child meets all other requirements (marriage is NOT a requirement) Gender, sexual preference, race are independant of the adoption process.

So this should satisfy tardtasticx's (the OP) question?

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17