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 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ... | 41

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 161

#789031 28-Mar-2013 22:32

Kyanar:
alasta:
- Remove the provisions in the proposed legislation which prevents groups of people or blood relatives from marrying.

The state cannot assume a neutral position over the morality of homosexuality while it continues to make obstructive moral judgements about other harmless relationships between consenting adults.

You're being disingenuous there. Blood relatives are forbidden from entering relationships for valid health and safety reasons - the offspring from an such relationship would be genetically flawed as a result. To claim that it is "harmless" is to ignore medical science which has proven that it is indeed incredibly harmful.

Why groups of people can't marry though, if you were to ignore the moral aspect I suspect there are logistical issues to address - how does this work when one member of the unit wishes to divorce? How does the Relationship Property rules apply in this case? It would be an absolute nightmare and not one I suspect any government feels like addressing.

With regards to blood relatives health and safety reasons, there can be problems for offspring. It's not always a given. If it was human success at animal breeding would not have been anywhere as successful as it has been, what with blood lines being used to breed desired traits into the various species we depend on.

With groups of people marrying what 'moral aspect' are you referring to? After all Islam and many millions of moslems have been, and still do practise multi partner marriages. Admittedly just one man, many wives. But it doesn't have to be that way does it. It could be one woman, several husbands, several women, several husbands, etc...

As to the legal aspect, and separation/divorce, in the end it is a legal situation, and we can make laws to govern such circumstances, just like we are for SSM. There is no biological reason to prevent multi partner marriages, and we have already seen what happens when 'morality' is used as an argument to prevent people living the way they want to with whoever they want to...

da5id

550 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 65
Inactive user

#789033 28-Mar-2013 22:34

To be honest, one of the main reasons I don't believe in SSM is that I think marriage is largely about children, and children haven't been considered in the whole select committee process; in fact, they slipped in legislation regarding adoption that wasn't even mentioned the whole time, and while quite a few people are in favour of SSM, the issue of adoption by gay parents is another matter entirely (or, should be).

The whole thing has a feel of something that is being rushed through.

da5id

550 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 65
Inactive user

#789035 28-Mar-2013 22:39

For what it's worth, someone posted this quote on my Facebook today, which I tend to agree with -

Our culture has accepted two huge lies.

The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them.

The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do.

Both are nonsense.

You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate

Greaver

117 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12

#789037 28-Mar-2013 22:42

When my partner and I decide to tie the knot we are going to get a civil union

I know of a couple of people who have done a similar thing and I think it is the best tact to take here.

Religion should have no place in law imo

As for the SSM bill, pastors should not have to marry LGBT couples if they don't want to, but it should be a right for those who want it, in other words the bill as it currently stands is fine imo

As above good to see this thread hasn't descended into anarchy, the worst part of these threads isn't usually the millitant for/against posters but those who vehemently dissaprove or approve the argument but refuse to put any reasoning behinds their views and while that has certainly been seen in this thread (on the first page no less) things have remained relatively civil.

Good stuff

Check me out at GreaverTV for Australasian Team Fortress 2 coverage

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#789056 29-Mar-2013 00:28

Klipspringer:
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.

Except that you know, sin isn't an actual thing that exists or is real!

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#789058 29-Mar-2013 00:34

da5id: To be honest, one of the main reasons I don't believe in SSM is that I think marriage is largely about children,

Gay people can already adopt children and guess what? infertile straight couples can still get married. Try again!

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#789060 29-Mar-2013 00:48

The whole procreation thing about marriage is rubbish. The NOM pro-proposition 8 (banning gay marriage in California) people arguing to the Supreme Court in the US that a) marriage is about procreation and b) at the same time arguing that it's OK for infertile couples to get married because that's still "normal" and promoting the idea that marriage is just for breeders, somehow.

I've expressed my views on this before and it's resulted in threads being locked, but here we go again:

Religion is a bunch of fairy tales and should not enter into any kind of state regulations or laws.
Religion is stupid.
I fail to see how gay people getting married harms anyone. As for the children argument, it's better for children to have a stable family and "marriage" is part of that. As someone who's parents divorced when I was in my early teens, I know how that works. So a stable parent relationship is more important than the sex/gender of the parents!

(So, we're done with the children and religion argument. Also don't with the libertarian bit. Since anyone elses relationship doesn't effect you!)

Onto the slippery slope argument.

So if gay marriage leads to polyandrous relationships, so what? That goes back to the "How does this effect you" thing. Guess what, 3+ people in a relationship doesn't affect you! (Been there, done that. I entered into relationships with more than one person of my own will and everyone knew about each other and what was going on)..

Next up is Bestiality. This one's easy. Do you eat meat? If so, STFU. You're eating an animal that's been killed just so you can eat it.

Is there anything i've missed?

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#789062 29-Mar-2013 01:03

MaxLV:
They hold a different opinion to marriage than you and live their lives and marriages by their definition, NOT yours. Get over yourself already!

You have no more right to force them to change their opinion on marriage than they do you. And yet that is what you are insisting they do.

So you're saying that gay people shouldn't have the right to live their lives and marriages by their own definition, but ONLY by yours? Please..

MaxLV:

You, like most gay rights advocates, choose to make your arguments for same sex marriage about religious beliefs, morality and how your arguments are right and theirs wrong, and then post bigoted hateful opinions about how you're right, and everyone disagrees with you is wrong.

You are in fact, wrong.

MaxLV:
The debate is not about religion, beliefs, or morality. It is about the legal definition of marriage, thats all.

No, the debate IS about religion, beliefs and morality! We can change legal definitions of things.
We could make Christianity illegal. I'd love to make religion as a whole illegal! Sadly that wouldn't work out too well for all involved, but hey, a person can dream, right?

MaxLV:
Today, those who believe in multipartner marriages are not allowed to practice their definition of marriage because it is illegal to do so. Once same sex marriage is legalised, let's change all the other currently illegal definitions of marriage as well and make them legal.
Any objection to that happening?

Nope. As I said, i've been in relationships with multiple people. I don't see any problem with poly* relationships as long as everyone consents.
Can you lay your some good logical rational reasons for why consensual poly* relationships shouldn't be legal? Please, be my guest.

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#789063 29-Mar-2013 01:06

Klipspringer:
So yes. I believe people "choose" to be gay. Life is all about choice and the way we end up is normally due to the choices we have taken in our lives.

Well, as other people have said, you're wrong. I didn't choose to be bisexual anymore than you chose to be straight or how you chose to be brainwashed into believing a bunch of bullcrap!

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#789064 29-Mar-2013 01:10

John2010:
And repeating myself, that for myself, for reasons I have explained regarding how many hold the word marriage as representing a special type of relationship that they have and I believe that they have a right to have that protected and respected by others. Instead gays (the public face of them anyway) deny them that right and are just totally dismissive of it without consideration.

Unsure how gay people getting married deny the right for straight people to get married, can you please elaborate?

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#789066 29-Mar-2013 01:11

MaxLV:
jayveeee:
ajw: This recent letter to Auckland MP Nikki Kay somes up my feelings on the matter.

blah blah ...more anti-gay propaganda!

Just like pro-gay propaganda.

Leave us alone and we'll leave you alone. Pick a fight and well..

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#789067 29-Mar-2013 01:13

Klipspringer:
Over 50% of kiwis are Christians so yes we really should be getting a Christian perspective.

I think you'll find that the majority of kiwi's are not longer christian. Or if they are, they aren't the SAME kind of christian. (That is, they believe in different gods).
We shall see when the census data is released!

bradstewart

4338 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 166

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#789068 29-Mar-2013 01:18

kyhwana2:
Klipspringer:
Over 50% of kiwis are Christians so yes we really should be getting a Christian perspective.

I think you'll find that the majority of kiwi's are not longer christian. Or if they are, they aren't the SAME kind of christian. (That is, they believe in different gods).

For someone who has just gone on a massive attack against religion, you clearly know nothing about that which you're attacking anyway. Maybe you could do with a quick trip over to Wikipedia.

This thread has actually kept a rather respectful and civil tone despite clear differences in opinion. But your posts are completely unnecessary and will only serve to derail the thread.

*points to the door*

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#789070 29-Mar-2013 01:22

bradstewart:
kyhwana2:
Klipspringer:
Over 50% of kiwis are Christians so yes we really should be getting a Christian perspective.

I think you'll find that the majority of kiwi's are not longer christian. Or if they are, they aren't the SAME kind of christian. (That is, they believe in different gods).

For someone who has just gone on a massive attack against religion, you clearly know nothing about that which you're attacking anyway. Maybe you could do with a quick trip over to Wikipedia.

This thread has actually kept a rather respectful and civil tone despite clear differences in opinion. But your posts are completely unnecessary and will only serve to derail the thread.

*points to the door*

Really? I think I understand religion pretty well. It's all about believing in fairy tales.

Besides that, why don't you go talk to Saint Matthews in the City in Auckland, ask them where their differing views about gay people that are religious gets them?
Oh right, it gets their billboards vandalised. So there's obviously religious people that disagree over this issue.

I don't see how i'm derailing the thread. My comments are relevant to the discussion given peoples belief's.

da5id

550 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 65
Inactive user

#789071 29-Mar-2013 01:23

Sorry, kyhwana2, but I don't agree.
Marriage is very much about family and the raising of children.
If marriage were just about the love and romance aspect then Government wouldn't have any interest in it at all. People could be free to love whoever they wanted and however many persons they wanted. Government doesn't care about romance.

As it is, the State does take an interest in marriage for the ONLY reason that a married couple or family is the best place to raise the next generation. Marriage is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does.

An author over at The Heritage Foundation puts it -

Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. Government recognition of marriage protects children by incentivizing men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children.

Social science confirms the importance of marriage for children. According to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every examined indicator when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes do best on educational achievement, emotional health, familial and sexual development, and delinquency and incarceration

Marriage is not a prize or a trophy that means you've crossed the finish line of romance and that you've made it. That isn't it's main purpose.

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ... | 41