The NZ Herald Gay Marriage Poll discussion

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

Forums › Politics › The NZ Herald Gay Marriage Poll discussion

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 41

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#788720 28-Mar-2013 15:38

Klipspringer: Being gay is a lifestyle choice and thats why I don’t believe its possible to discriminate against a lifestyle

I can not and never have been able to choose to live a 'gay lifestyle'. Almost every gay person in the world will assure you that they can't choose to live a 'straight lifestyle' just as almost every straight person in the world (myself and yourself included) concede we cannot choose to live a 'gay lifestyle'.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

Twitter: ajobbins

NZtechfreak

4649 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 461

Trusted

#788722 28-Mar-2013 15:39

I'm not dismissing that piece, if that comment was directed at me jeffnz, I need to study it and other (and more recent) literature to adjudicate its merit or otherwise. I was merely pointing out that if you haven't scrupulously vetted and credentialled a comment like "worlds foremost expert on homosexuality", your basic critical thinking needs some work (alternately I suppose your critical thinking could be fine, and you may just be knowingly cherry picking).

I note with interest the statement that Dr Greenburg is gay himself, as if that somehow credentials the piece or ensures its veracity. Almost as good as every racist whoever said "some of my best friends are black!".

Twitter: @nztechfreak
Blogs: HeadphoNZ.org

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#788737 28-Mar-2013 15:43

NZtechfreak: Almost as good as every racist whoever said "some of my best friends are black!".

Or so so many of the opponents to SSM that start a statement with "I'm not homophobic BUT..."

Twitter: ajobbins

NZtechfreak

4649 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 461

Trusted

#788738 28-Mar-2013 15:46

da5id:I thought I did in my post?

Dr David Greenburg, a New York sociologist, who is gay himself and is the author of a 635 page academic study of homosexuality through the ages called “The Construction of Homosexuality”. It has been hailed within academic circles as the most “extensive and thorough” analysis of homosexuality ever published

Doesn't go remotely far enough. That could be a publicists blurb written in the 80's when (apparently) the paper was done for all I know. The paper is really quite old now, I would be interested to know how it is received now, if the consensus opinion amongst sociologists remained the same you would think this would be now be enshrined as a very strong part of the canon of their body of literature.

Twitter: @nztechfreak
Blogs: HeadphoNZ.org

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#788739 28-Mar-2013 15:47

ajobbins:

I cannot and never have been able to choose to live a 'gay lifestyle'. Almost every gay person in the world will assure you that they can't choose to live a 'straight lifestyle' just as almost every straight person in the world (myself and yourself included) concede we cannot choose to live a 'gay lifestyle'.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

The difference in opinions between you and me is simply:

I believe being gay is sinful (IMO). You don't.

There is no need then to further the debate because we are not going to get anywhere.

da5id

550 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 65
Inactive user

#788741 28-Mar-2013 15:56

I read a lot about this sort of thing and the arguments around it. One of the more interesting snippets I've read is about a book by Dr. Carle Zimmerman from Harvard who wrote a book in 1947 in which he researched the different roles that marriage played in different historical periods. He wanted to find out if there was a correlation between the health of a nation and the health of the family. His book is called “Family and Civilization”.

He found that there are three basic patterns to families. One pattern is always dominant in a developing nation, the second pattern always dominates in a thriving nation, and the third pattern always dominates in a nation in decline.

He found a direct correlation between the health of the family and the health of a nation. He said that you can predict exactly where a nation is in its life cycle just by studying the family.

According to this research, eight specific patterns of domestic behaviour have signalled the downward spiral and imminent demise of every culture:

Marriage lost its sacredness; it was frequently broken by divorce.
Traditional meaning of the marriage ceremony was lost. Alternate forms and definitions of marriage arose, and traditional marriage vows were replaced by individual marriage contracts.
Feminist movements appeared, and women lost interest in child bearing and mothering, preferring to pursue power and influence.
Public disrespect for parents and authority in general increased.
Juvenile delinquency, promiscuity, and rebellion accelerated
People with traditional marriages refused to accept family responsibilities.
Desire for and acceptance of adultery grew.
Increased tolerance for sexual perversions of all kinds, particularly homosexuality, with a resultant increase in sex-related crimes.

http://www.amazon.com/Family-Civilization-Prof-Carle-Zimmerman/dp/1933859377

Does that sound like us today?

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#788746 28-Mar-2013 16:02

Klipspringer: I believe being gay is sinful (IMO). You don't.

Yep, and that position is invalid and irrelevant to the debate on SSM for the following reasons:

1) Your belief homosexuality is a sin is a religious position. This law is about legal recognition of a relationship. Religion has nothing to do with it.

2) People will continue being gay regardless of the outcome of this law. The success of this law won't cause any straight people to turn gay - nor would it's defeat cause any gay people to turn straight.

Twitter: ajobbins

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#788754 28-Mar-2013 16:11

NZtechfreak:
da5id:I thought I did in my post?

Dr David Greenburg, a New York sociologist, who is gay himself and is the author of a 635 page academic study of homosexuality through the ages called “The Construction of Homosexuality”. It has been hailed within academic circles as the most “extensive and thorough” analysis of homosexuality ever published

Doesn't go remotely far enough. That could be a publicists blurb written in the 80's when (apparently) the paper was done for all I know. The paper is really quite old now, I would be interested to know how it is received now, if the consensus opinion amongst sociologists remained the same you would think this would be now be enshrined as a very strong part of the canon of their body of literature.

I may be wrong here but have as yet to see anything posted by proponents of the SSM to the contrary in fact most posts are based on emotion and "what is perceived to be right" so i find it interesting when evidence is presented it is just dismissed off hand and saying it isn't really proven, no it isn't like what has been in this thread.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#788757 28-Mar-2013 16:16

jeffnz: I may be wrong here but have as yet to see anything posted by proponents of the SSM to the contrary in fact most posts are based on emotion and "what is perceived to be right" so i find it interesting when evidence is presented it is just dismissed off hand and saying it isn't really proven, no it isn't like what has been in this thread.

We could probably sit here and throw academic articles at each other all day, but the reality is that there is currently no universally accepted, peer reviewed academic articles on the matter than are not heavily disputed.

Furthermore, homosexuality was illegal up until the late 80's, and the last who examples cited in this thread are from 1988 and 1947 respectively, so they are hardly good arguments on that basis alone.

Twitter: ajobbins

NZtechfreak

4649 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 461

Trusted

#788760 28-Mar-2013 16:21

jeffnz:
NZtechfreak:
da5id:I thought I did in my post?

Dr David Greenburg, a New York sociologist, who is gay himself and is the author of a 635 page academic study of homosexuality through the ages called “The Construction of Homosexuality”. It has been hailed within academic circles as the most “extensive and thorough” analysis of homosexuality ever published

Doesn't go remotely far enough. That could be a publicists blurb written in the 80's when (apparently) the paper was done for all I know. The paper is really quite old now, I would be interested to know how it is received now, if the consensus opinion amongst sociologists remained the same you would think this would be now be enshrined as a very strong part of the canon of their body of literature.

I may be wrong here but have as yet to see anything posted by proponents of the SSM to the contrary in fact most posts are based on emotion and "what is perceived to be right" so i find it interesting when evidence is presented it is just dismissed off hand and saying it isn't really proven, no it isn't like what has been in this thread.

Again, you're quoting me, but I'm not sure this is directed at me. I'm not dismissing the paper, I even stated that explicitly. I am asking the person who put it forward to proffer something more than a blurb to substantiate it. It will take me time I don't presently have to really look into that piece, I thought perhaps they might have some more information about the piece to save me some time (presuming they have done their own "due diligence" on it).

Additionally unsure if your comment is directed at me since I have given no opinion whatsoever on gay marriage.

Twitter: @nztechfreak
Blogs: HeadphoNZ.org

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 95
Inactive user

#788771 28-Mar-2013 16:28

Hmmm, I'm finding your contributions consistently thought-provoking da5id. Thanks. :)

HP

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

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 95
Inactive user

#788786 28-Mar-2013 16:44

ajobbins: Yep, and that position is invalid and irrelevant to the debate on SSM for the following reasons:

1) Your belief homosexuality is a sin is a religious position. This law is about legal recognition of a relationship. Religion has nothing to do with it.

You make it seem so very cut and dried, and the language "invalid and irrelevant" is very strong. In reality, humans don't usually compartmentalise their beliefs. In other words, a moral belief about homosexuality has implications about how we approach the SSM debate. Why else are people getting so emotional? My answer: partly because they feel like their beliefs (religious or otherwise) are being challenged. You could claim that people are getting emotional because they don't understand the scope of the debate properly, and technically you may be right. My position is that we'd all be liars if we said our moral compasses didn't colour our position on the debate in same way or other. Either way, the debate has obviously strayed out of the scope of what the legal definition of marriage should be anyway.

2) People will continue being gay regardless of the outcome of this law. The success of this law won't cause any straight people to turn gay - nor would it's defeat cause any gay people to turn straight.

Short term, no.
Long term, I think it depends what you believe about whether homosexuality is a choice. Playing the devils advocate for a moment, if you believe homosexuality is a choice and that saying yes to gay marriage normalises homosexuality, then allowing gay marriage could be seen as increasing the choice's legitimacy.

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1365

Subscriber

#788791 28-Mar-2013 16:47

ajobbins:
Klipspringer: I believe being gay is sinful (IMO). You don't.

Yep, and that position is invalid and irrelevant to the debate on SSM for the following reasons:

1) Your belief homosexuality is a sin is a religious position. This law is about legal recognition of a relationship. Religion has nothing to do with it.

2) People will continue being gay regardless of the outcome of this law. The success of this law won't cause any straight people to turn gay - nor would it's defeat cause any gay people to turn straight.

This debate is going no where. If some one says that they are against gay marriage these day they are labeled as a red neck, religious bigot.

But gay marriage will happen because Obama and the liberals have said so. Remember the day after Obama said he supported it so did John Key..

Maybe it's time to lock the thread.

Regards,

Old3eyes

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 95
Inactive user

#788795 28-Mar-2013 16:57

old3eyes: This debate is going no where... Maybe it's time to lock the thread.

Most people are remaining respectful most of the time, and I'm still enjoying exploring what people think.

But gay marriage will happen because Obama and the liberals have said so. Remember the day after Obama said he supported it so did John Key..

You'd have no argument from me if you said homosexual rights was a popular issue. The idea that John Key is Obama's puppet might be a little bit too much of a stretch though.

To spark the conversation off on a different branch...
How do you think politicians should decide how to vote in a conscience vote such as this?
Party, historical precedent, their own conscience, electorate influence, lobby influence, perceptions of the national mood, perceptions of the international mood... ?

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1365

Subscriber

#788808 28-Mar-2013 17:04

mm1352000:

To spark the conversation off on a different branch...
How do you think politicians should decide how to vote in a conscience vote such as this?
Party, historical precedent, their own conscience, electorate influence, lobby influence, perceptions of the national mood, perceptions of the international mood... ?

We could have a referendum but as we know they are not binding if the politicians don't agree with the results..

Regards,

Old3eyes

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 41