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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 17

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#398354 1-Nov-2010 09:05

I know this will sound cliche and old fashioned but its about the welfare of the child and that is paramount in these cases.

Statistically defacto relationships are less stable than the "traditional" marriage. Now I don't necessary agree with that, but when making a decision the authorities must make an informed decision based on historical information, the presented couple and the welfare of the child. The later will be and always will be the governing decider.

Teeps

501 posts

Ultimate Geek

#398360 1-Nov-2010 09:14

It's not just NZ, I think you will find there are only a handful of countries that do! The problem is laws are too closely tied to religious beliefs to actually make sense and they'd prefer to deny a child a good, stable, loving home rather than upset people who believe a family can only be made of a couple of the opposite sex, and even then only when married according to gods law! I'm not saying anyone should be allowed to adopt but there should at least be an even starting point, and that starts with a couple who are in a loving, stable relationship, not just because they're straight and married.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#398363 1-Nov-2010 09:18

tardtasticx: I only found out yesterday that 2 gay partners cant adopt a child as a couple and that we don't allow gay marriage. I know we have civil unions but thats just not the same. Canada has no laws against gay people what so every, same with South Africa! South Africa has more rights than our country! Why doesn't our government do something? This is so unfair.

Enough voters don't feel comfortable with it for any government to move in that direction...or it would have happened.

Especially the fundi religious groups which typically attract and harbour the more ignorant and unthinking people in society at the best of times.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Teeps

501 posts

Ultimate Geek

#398364 1-Nov-2010 09:19

KiwiNZ: I know this will sound cliche and old fashioned but its about the welfare of the child and that is paramount in these cases.

Statistically defacto relationships are less stable than the "traditional" marriage. Now I don't necessary agree with that, but when making a?decision?the?authorities must make an informed decision based on historical information, the presented couple and the welfare of the child. The later will be and always will be the governing decider.??

Which is why it shouldn't discriminate against same sex couples or couples who are in a stable defacto relationship. Being married doesn't mean a relationship is stable. The legal status of the partnership shouldn't be looked at, the only thing that should be an issue is the suitability of the parents to look after and care for a child, not that they're married or not.

vinnieg

2260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#398368 1-Nov-2010 09:25

There could be a loop hole in this, which is why they should change it!

If you are a heterosexual couple and in a civil union and then want to adopt. You can just get it converted to a marriage. Then convert back once the adoption process is finished. That's just so foolish!

I reckon cut the crap out of marriage(the religious connotations...man and woman joined together by the bible, the man owns the woman, taking the last name) and open it up to all. It feels like we are living in the 60s with all this nonsense!

I think adoptions should be based on:
- The financial stability of the carers
- The amount of time the carers have been together
- The working hours of the carers and the amount of time they can spend towards looking after the child.

These 3 above are much more important than todays definition of "marriage"

I have moved across the ditch. Now residing in Melbourne as a VOIP/Video Technical Trainer/Engineer.

vinnieg

2260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#398371 1-Nov-2010 09:26

Teeps:
KiwiNZ: I know this will sound cliche and old fashioned but its about the welfare of the child and that is paramount in these cases.

Statistically defacto relationships are less stable than the "traditional" marriage. Now I don't necessary agree with that, but when making a?decision?the?authorities must make an informed decision based on historical information, the presented couple and the welfare of the child. The later will be and always will be the governing decider.??

Which is why it shouldn't discriminate against same sex couples or couples who are in a stable defacto relationship. Being married doesn't mean a relationship is stable. The legal status of the partnership shouldn't be looked at, the only thing that should be an issue is the suitability of the parents to look after and care for a child, not that they're married or not.

Whoops, totally agree!!!
i was writing up my reply when you posted :)

I have moved across the ditch. Now residing in Melbourne as a VOIP/Video Technical Trainer/Engineer.

geekiegeek

2513 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#398413 1-Nov-2010 10:46

I'm sorry but I dont think it is natural for a child to grow up with same sex parents. I am not a homophobe and have now problem at all with same sex marriage.

I'm also not a Christian and would actually consider myself very liberal. Its just that this does not sit right with me. I have close friends that are gay and want to go down this path and I just cant support them.

I'll now duck down behind my desk while the haters jump all over this post.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Teeps

501 posts

Ultimate Geek

#398419 1-Nov-2010 10:58

geekiegeek: I'm sorry but I dont think it is natural for a child to grow up with same sex parents. I am not a homophobe and have now problem at all with same sex marriage.

I'm also not a Christian and would actually consider myself very liberal. Its just that this does not sit right with me. I have close friends that are gay and want to go down this path and I just cant support them.

I'll now duck down behind my desk while the haters jump all over this post.

I'd go further than just ducking under your desk, how about moving to an island and have no contact with other people and the outside world!?

Bigotted comments like that should never be spoken in public

coffeebaron

6231 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#398429 1-Nov-2010 11:18

It takes a man + woman to make a baby, so doesn't that tell you something about the way it should be??

Rural IT and Broadband support.

Broadband troubleshooting and master filter installs.
Starlink installer - one month free: https://www.starlink.com/?referral=RC-32845-88860-71
Wi-Fi and networking
Cel-Fi supply and installer - boost your mobile phone coverage legally

Need help in Auckland, Waikato or BoP? Click my email button, or email me direct: [my user name] at geekzonemail dot com

Ragnor

8219 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#398437 1-Nov-2010 11:24

Oh oh he went there!

Teeps

501 posts

Ultimate Geek

#398439 1-Nov-2010 11:25

coffeebaron: It takes a man + woman to make a baby, so doesn't that tell you something about the way it should be??

Lol, it takes a woman to breast feed a child too, does that mean any man should never feed a child either? Would you like everyone to keep to stict to gender specific roles? Do you consider a woman to just be a baby machine and not be allowed to work outside them home as her 'place' is to look after children? Should heterosexual men not be allowed to look after children? Think what you're saying!

DeroyBoy

262 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#398449 1-Nov-2010 11:48

Teeps:
coffeebaron: It takes a man + woman to make a baby, so doesn't that tell you something about the way it should be??

Lol, it takes a woman to breast feed a child too, does that mean any man should never feed a child either? Would you like everyone to keep to stict to gender specific roles? Do you consider a woman to just be a baby machine and not be allowed to work outside them home as her 'place' is to look after children? Should heterosexual men not be allowed to look after children? Think what you're saying!

Lol, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Attacking other peoples opinions will get you nowhere

Teeps

501 posts

Ultimate Geek

#398455 1-Nov-2010 11:54

DeroyBoy: Lol, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Attacking other peoples opinions will get you nowhere

I totally agree, which is why I sort clarification, it wasn't an attack, they were questions.

Benjip

943 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#398458 1-Nov-2010 11:58

coffeebaron: It takes a man + woman to make a baby, so doesn't that tell you something about the way it should be??

Totally agree. There's no way a woman should be allowed to raise a child by herself. If she's widowed, she should be required to forfeit the child into the care of state agencies such as CYFS.

'rolleyes'

gehenna

8499 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#398459 1-Nov-2010 11:59

KiwiNZ: I know this will sound cliche and old fashioned but its about the welfare of the child and that is paramount in these cases.

Statistically defacto relationships are less stable than the "traditional" marriage.

That doesn't stop them treating defacto relationships as equal to marriage in terms of financial equality. And if the welfare of the child is paramount then children across the country would be removed from the care of single mothers, and single fathers for that matter too.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 17