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 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 26

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 3
Inactive user

#666159 2-Aug-2012 13:23

Colin, do you stand by your comment "It's just not intelligent to pretend that homosexual relationships are normal." ? And Louisa, how do you feel about these sorts of statements ?
by Paul 12:12 PM

i think this is what a lot of New Zealanders think, civil unions and subsequent changes to legislation (over 160 changes) created the level playing field that most New Zealanders are comfortable with.
by Colin Craig 12:12 PM

My statement is that it is not intelligent to pretend that a mum and dad as parents is the same as say two dads. I think the difference is important when we are talking about what is in the best interests of a child.
by Colin Craig 12:14 PM

In reply to Colin's statement, on average 400 civil unions are performed annually in NZ. Of these, approximately 20 per cent are heterosexual couples. We have choice in civil unions, this bill seeks choice in marriages...
by Louisa Wall 12:14 PM

OH for fudge's sakes, go join the debate, I'm not going to be reporting live anymore :D
by MenaBassily 13:23 PM

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 32

#666169 2-Aug-2012 13:31

ajobbins:
You say "encouraging people to believe that there is nothing wrong with it (those few that still think so)"

The facts strongly show otherwise. The current Herald Poll has 58% of respondents in support of marriage equality. The stuff poll is at 76% support. The TVNZ poll has support at 63%. I think this fairly demonstrates that your 'few that still think so' comment is merely a projection of your own bias.

Perhaps I didn't word it so well. I meant the few that still believe that homosexual relationships are wrong, as the statistics show.

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 32

#666171 2-Aug-2012 13:36

menabassily:
Skolink:
menabassily:
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)?

Oh you mean to live here. Yes, if immigration helps the economy.

The last time I've checked, immigration does help the economy. What's your point again?

My orginal point was why would tourists come here to get something worthless to them.
My last point was that now I understand what you meant by "come to NZ"

menabassily

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 3
Inactive user

#666180 2-Aug-2012 13:41

Skolink:
menabassily:
Skolink:
menabassily:
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)?

Oh you mean to live here. Yes, if immigration helps the economy.

The last time I've checked, immigration does help the economy. What's your point again?

My orginal point was why would tourists come here to get something worthless to them.
My last point was that now I understand what you meant by "come to NZ"

First: this is just an example: http://www.puregaynz.com/category/wedding-civil-union-in-pure-gay-new-zealand/

Second:

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.

Third:

ajobbins:

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.

Does that answer your question?

Edited to be more friendly, sorry if I seemed a bit aggressive.

chiefie

I iz your trusted friend
5877 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 151

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#666198 2-Aug-2012 13:51

menabassily:
Skolink:
menabassily:
Skolink:
menabassily:
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)?

Oh you mean to live here. Yes, if immigration helps the economy.

The last time I've checked, immigration does help the economy. What's your point again?

My orginal point was why would tourists come here to get something worthless to them.
My last point was that now I understand what you meant by "come to NZ"

First: this is just an example: http://www.puregaynz.com/category/wedding-civil-union-in-pure-gay-new-zealand/

Second:
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.

Third:
ajobbins:

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.

Now should I write more myself or do the quotes do fine?

I like to point out that, the same couple that came to NZ for their Civil Union, are now residing in England, and being in Commonwealth, their relationship/marital status is formally recognised, which is a huge thing for these two couple. It meant a lot to them, and I am certain for a fact that if NZ had Same-Sex Marriage Bill instead of Civil Union Bill, they would not hesitate to apply for that marriage license.

To many few, having a formal recognition is very important to their lives, as an establishment of their journey through their relationship. Not having this option to them will always berated them the freedom to live as what seem a "normal behaviour" to them as to every other human. Why rob someone off from their dream to have a normal lives of their own.

Not just one's life can be in joyous if you know you can bring joy in others to share.

Internet is my backyard...

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

Please read the Geekzone's FUG

Dolts

214 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 76

#666203 2-Aug-2012 13:53

Marriage should just be between a Human and another Human, or many Humans xD. At the end of the day things change. If it directly effects yourself or your family/friends then fight against this change. But you will lose the fight. It might finally be fully accepted in 100 years from now and 99% of us will be dead, and hopefully a less discriminative Generation will have been raised by straight and gay couples. Maybe marriage all together will be abolished and these petty arguments will cease (I can dream can't I?).

Just my 2cents
I'm a 23yo straight male and this is just my personal opinion

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

menabassily

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 3
Inactive user

#666208 2-Aug-2012 13:55

Dolts: Marriage should just be between a Human and another Human, or many Humans xD. At the end of the day things change. If it directly effects yourself or your family/friends then fight against this change. But you will lose the fight. It might finally be fully accepted in 100 years from now and 99% of us will be dead, and hopefully a less discriminative Generation will have been raised by straight and gay couples. Maybe marriage all together will be abolished and these petty arguments will cease (I can dream can't I?).

Just my 2cents
I'm a 23yo straight male and this is just my personal opinion

+1
Agree

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#666212 2-Aug-2012 13:57

ajobbins:

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.

Here is the section in our act which recognises external marriages from other commonwealth countries:

Other regions we have agreements with have similar items in their marriage laws.

The important wording here is "Nothing in this section shall affect the validity of any marriage solemnised out of New Zealand in accordance with the law of the country where the marriage was solemnised."

Twitter: ajobbins

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#666219 2-Aug-2012 14:06

Skolink:
kyhwana2:
Skolink:
4. Churches which receive public funding to maintain a historical building may be pressured to.

Good, they should be pressured to do so. (Since they're taking MY taxpayers dollars)

Fair enough, I suppose they will have to make the choice.

kyhwana2:

Skolink:
5. Shall we agree to disagree on this one?

That just means you don't have an acceptable answer and you know it.

No, it is off topic, and would be a huge debate on its own.

So you don't want to debate or talk about how you know you don't have a good answer? gg..

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#666237 2-Aug-2012 14:17

kyhwana2:
Skolink: No, it is off topic, and would be a huge debate on its own.

So you don't want to debate or talk about how you know you don't have a good answer? gg..

It's off topic if you accept that it's irrlevant to the argument Skolink. But seeing as you seem insistant on using it as part of your argument...

a) back it up
or
b) concede it's irrelevance and retract the statement

Twitter: ajobbins

raytaylor

4076 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1296

Trusted

#666283 2-Aug-2012 15:14

I am going to throw my thoughts in:

I am 24 and gay. I am not overly for gay marriage but that is probably because i am not at a stage in my life where i am concerned about it.
I believe that a marriage is a legal institution, that is presided over by a celebrant - be that a priest or qualified member of the community.

The church and its priests may decide not to allow gay marriages within its buildings, but that is up to them. And that is where their influence should stop.

A church or religious group should not have the audacity to think they are the moral guide for this country when we no longer have a single dominant religion followed by 80% of our population.

Now in saying that,

I believe all children should have a mother and a father figure. And a typical family with a mother and a father is where a child should be raised. However at the same time, we have unhealthy families that are failing and as a result CYFs always have demand for good homes for children.

If me and my future partner can provide a better home then its better than an unhealthy family that does not provide a good home.

I am pro gay adoption, if the child comes from an unhealthy home, rather than using a friendly female for a gay couple to have a child. Just like I am pro pet adoption from the spca and against buying a cat from a petshop.

Ray Taylor

There is no place like localhost

Spreadsheet for Comparing Electricity Plans Here

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 32

#666296 2-Aug-2012 15:22

kyhwana2:
Skolink:
kyhwana2:
Skolink:
4. Churches which receive public funding to maintain a historical building may be pressured to.

Good, they should be pressured to do so. (Since they're taking MY taxpayers dollars)

Fair enough, I suppose they will have to make the choice.

kyhwana2:

Skolink:
5. Shall we agree to disagree on this one?

That just means you don't have an acceptable answer and you know it.

No, it is off topic, and would be a huge debate on its own.

So you don't want to debate or talk about how you know you don't have a good answer? gg..

I don't think it is valid to argue against gay marriage on the basis that people are not born gay. Nor do I think it is valid to agrue for gay marriage on the basis that people are born gay.

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#666305 2-Aug-2012 15:30

Skolink:
kyhwana2:
Skolink:
kyhwana2:
Skolink:
4. Churches which receive public funding to maintain a historical building may be pressured to.

Good, they should be pressured to do so. (Since they're taking MY taxpayers dollars)

Fair enough, I suppose they will have to make the choice.

kyhwana2:

Skolink:
5. Shall we agree to disagree on this one?

That just means you don't have an acceptable answer and you know it.

No, it is off topic, and would be a huge debate on its own.

So you don't want to debate or talk about how you know you don't have a good answer? gg..

I don't think it is valid to argue against gay marriage on the basis that people are not born gay. Nor do I think it is valid to agrue for gay marriage on the basis that people are born gay.

People are born gay or straight. It's not a choice. IT is a choice though if you want to tell people or act on it and live a lie. This needs to be ruled out of the debate because it is simply not true to say it is a choice, whether people want to accept it or not.

How isn't it valid o argue for gay marriage on the basis they are born gay?

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 32

#666308 2-Aug-2012 15:38

tardtasticx: People are born gay or straight. It's not a choice. IT is a choice though if you want to tell people or act on it and live a lie. This needs to be ruled out of the debate because it is simply not true to say it is a choice, whether people want to accept it or not.

How isn't it valid o argue for gay marriage on the basis they are born gay?

You are right it is a valid arguement, if people were born gay it would be extremely unfair to deny them the right to a civil union or marriage.

I dispute that there is no choice.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 68

#666316 2-Aug-2012 15:51

I don't, and have never, seen why it matters if you are born a certain way or if you choose to be a certain way.

The rights are attributed to the human.

A person chooses to be religious but that, as far a I know, has never been used, by civilised people, as an argument to deny then the same civil rights as everybody else.

Personally, I think human experience is wide enough to include homosexuals/lesbians etc who were born that way and those who choose it as a lifestyle, for whatever reason.

Firstly, why someone chooses the sexual orientation they do (within the reasonable framework of this debate) is none of my, your or anybody's business.

Secondly, whatever that reason is does not impact on their humanity and therefore their qualification for human rights.

Anybody got an argument against?

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 26