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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 26

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#665338 1-Aug-2012 12:52

ajobbins:

My view is that the vast majority of arguments against marriage equality I have seen appear to be (poorly disguised) fronts for peoples prejudices and religious agendas.

Exactly right.

richms

29099 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10214

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#665342 1-Aug-2012 12:53

The civil union bill also came with a lot of other baggage attached that eroded peoples rights to decide when they were in a relationship or not, so IMO it was correct to oppose it. The gays were just totally focused on the rights that they gained from it and made the most noise about it.

Richard rich.ms

nate

6473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 458

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#665344 1-Aug-2012 12:58

With churches being one of the main opponents of this change, and if this change does get passed into law, could a gay/lesbian couple argue that a church refusing to marry them would be discriminating against their human rights, and force them into performing the ceremony?

/thinking out loud.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28

#665347 1-Aug-2012 13:00

I don't care one way or the other myself as doesn't affect me in any way at all, but I do wonder about the reliability of those who dismiss the claims of others along the lines of "the vast majority of arguments against marriage equality I have seen appear to be (poorly disguised) fronts for peoples prejudices and religious agendas."

Not mentioned is that gay marriage may lead to the extinction of gays, or at least their becoming rarer, through evolution. If, as they claim, homosexuality is genetic rather than learnt then apart from cases of artificial insemination from outside the relationship, gay marriage will end up with fewer gays in accidental mixed gender marriages where they can procreate their own genes.

Bit of a bugger really if that turns out to be so and gays disappear as that famous extinct bird, which I think was called the dildo or something sounding much like that did (I'm not into birds of the feathered kind so exuse any confusion there).

richms

29099 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10214

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#665348 1-Aug-2012 13:01

nate: With churches being one of the main opponents of this change, and if this change does get passed into law, could a gay/lesbian couple argue that a church refusing to marry them would be discriminating against their human rights, and force them into performing the ceremony?

/thinking out loud.

I hope not because as much as I dislike churches I respect that they should have the right to choose who they offer services to.

The problem with "human rights" issues is that when you give one person more rights, inevitably someone else is losing rights in the process.

Richard rich.ms

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#665349 1-Aug-2012 13:01

stevenz: I also think that atheists who get married in a "traditional" Christian fashion are somewhat hypocritical. Just sign the piece of paper and go have a party.

I agree to an extent. I think that there is some tradition to marraige that has been well engrained as a result of us living for a long time in a culture with high exposure to christianity. It's established some marraige 'traditions' that have merit in their own right, without having to be tied to faith.

I don't see marriage in a 'holy' way. I consider myself agnostic, and when I get married it will likley borrow some ceremonial structure from "traditional" Christian marriages, but without any faith based components. I wont use a religious celebrant, or have any references to a deity in vows.

I see it as an opportunity to stand up in front of our friends and family, proclaim our love and commitment to one another, and they celebrate by partying with our friends.

Twitter: ajobbins

Geekzone support

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

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#665351 1-Aug-2012 13:05

Can we not involve The Children this time?
Thanks.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 68

#665353 1-Aug-2012 13:05

nate: With churches being one of the main opponents of this change, and if this change does get passed into law, could a gay/lesbian couple argue that a church refusing to marry them would be discriminating against their human rights, and force them into performing the ceremony?

/thinking out loud.

I don't think so as churches are like private clubs, they don't have to admit anybody. If something is a private organisation doing things on private property they can pretty much refuse anybody on any grounds they like. I think some churches won't let other denominations or people outside the congregation marry there, for example.

It is like saying a pub is discriminating against you not letting you in if you don't meet the dress code as you have a human right to drink beer in their bar.

Getting married is a human right but any private venue can pretty much refuse anybody for any reason.

I'm OK with that.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#665355 1-Aug-2012 13:07

My View: Marriage is between man and woman. Husband and wife. However I do believe Gay and Lesbian couples should have equal rights.

I also don’t believe gay marriages are normal, and if this comes into effect here in NZ I certainly won’t be bringing up my kids into believing it is.

Just my 2cents.

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#665364 1-Aug-2012 13:10

John2010:
Not mentioned is that gay marriage may lead to the extinction of gays, or at least their becoming rarer, through evolution.

*Not sure if serious Fry Face image here*

In other news, LGBT people come from straight couples procreating! So no worries on that front.

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

#665365 1-Aug-2012 13:13

John2010: Not mentioned is that gay marriage may lead to the extinction of gays, or at least their becoming rarer, through evolution. If, as they claim, homosexuality is genetic rather than learnt then apart from cases of artificial insemination from outside the relationship, gay marriage will end up with fewer gays in accidental mixed gender marriages where they can procreate their own genes.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or not - amending the marriage act to allow for gay and lesbian couples to marry has clearly nothing to do with procreation/genetics/evolution.

The counterargument is that is if us humble heterosexual types stopped having homosexual children, then this wouldn't be an issue!

Dell

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

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#665366 1-Aug-2012 13:14

crackrdbycracku:

I don't think so as churches are like private clubs, they don't have to admit anybody. If something is a private organisation doing things on private property they can pretty much refuse anybody on any grounds they like. I think some churches won't let other denominations or people outside the congregation marry there, for example.

I'd agree with this EXCEPT that most churches get tax breaks and/or public funding. Since they're taking taxpayers money, they should have to accommodate ALL tax payers, in this instance, if a gay couple want to get married in their church.

Also, catholic run schools that get public funds shouldn't be allowed to ignore the Human Rights act and be allowed to discriminate. If they stopped accepting our money, then they can discriminate away. (Mostly)

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#665367 1-Aug-2012 13:15

KevinL: More or less - the Relationships bill covered most of the legal aspects that separated marriages, civil unions and de fact relationships. The main trouble is they didn't change the wording of the Adoption Act - that's the primary point of difference between marriage and civil unions (civil union partners cannot apply to adopt as a couple, only one partner can apply - the other can apply for guardianship retrospectively, but that doesn't have the same legal implications as parenthood has).

And this is where the other thread got unstuck. One of the major issues seems to be around adoption which is where the opponents pounce on the fact that gay couples can never procreate on their own, so they are somehow undeserving of raising children. I don't even know if it's worth discussing, since the linked article mentiones less than 200 non-family adoptions in NZ per year. Of those 200, how many would be likely to end up with gay parents? Are the birth parents allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation if and when they choose where their child would go?

I know it's not really part of this discussion but I brought it up in the last thread and I feel it's a legitimate question. Why can't we have polygamous marriages? Similarly why can't someone marry their sibling if they are in love? It also doesn't hurt anyone else. Would it make a difference if they were unable to have children? Personally, if two (or more) people want to get married I don't see why they shouldn't be able to.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 68

#665369 1-Aug-2012 13:18

kyhwana2:
crackrdbycracku:

I don't think so as churches are like private clubs, they don't have to admit anybody. If something is a private organisation doing things on private property they can pretty much refuse anybody on any grounds they like. I think some churches won't let other denominations or people outside the congregation marry there, for example.

I'd agree with this EXCEPT that most churches get tax breaks and/or public funding. Since they're taking taxpayers money, they should have to accommodate ALL tax payers, in this instance, if a gay couple want to get married in their church.

Also, catholic run schools that get public funds shouldn't be allowed to ignore the Human Rights act and be allowed to discriminate. If they stopped accepting our money, then they can discriminate away. (Mostly)

Agree, if you get public money (tax breaks included), you are public.

I'm not aware of church tax status or public funding.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#665370 1-Aug-2012 13:18

bazzer:

I know it's not really part of this discussion but I brought it up in the last thread and I feel it's a legitimate question. Why can't we have polygamous marriages?

Indeed, why CANT we have poly* relationships recognised? (They're traditional, it's in the bible!)
Moar mothers and fathers equals moar better, right?

*I'm not actually talking about the polygamy relationships you hear about out of Utah, with one man and the rest women that he then basically abuses, etc.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 26