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 | ... | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | ... | 41

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#789238 29-Mar-2013 13:38

MaxLV:
tardtasticx:
MaxLV:
tardtasticx: ...

...

...

Yes you are a bigot.

You are going round trying to fight against other peoples human rights to have different/opposing opinions to you.

So you object to their definition of marriage? What's your point? Why do you demand they change their definition of marriage to match yours?

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.

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.

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

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?

It sounds like you didnt read my last post at all.

My main reason was because their view of marriage directly affects my life. It prevents me from marrying the person I love. At the end of the day, my view does not affect them at all. They can still get married, they can still do everything they could before.

Okay so if it is JUST about the legal definition then why is it not legal? Because the way youre saying it, all personal arguments should be left out, and personal arguments are the only thing preventing this happening years ago.

And to be honest, I actually wouldnt have a problem with multipartner relationships. What impact at all does that have on my life? Its not going to force me to get married to two other people. You think that their relationship is less valued than yours? Tough man.

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#789244 29-Mar-2013 13:44

mm1352000:
tardtasticx: I'm sorry but when someone starts denying people the right to freedom of religion and the right to live how they want to, it stops being free speech and becomes hate.

Do all people that have a differing opinion to you automatically hate you?
If not, what evidence do you have that the people that oppose your opinion in this case genuinely hate you?

A phrase that often comes up in Christian discussions on controversial topics like this is "love the sinner, hate the sin". Sometimes it is difficult to convey this position.

I personally don't hate you. Far from it: I respect you as a human being, equal to any other person.

I see your point. Not everyone who disagrees with SSM hates me, but I'd say the majority do. I've had my fair share of homophobic abuse, even from family member who I no longer talk to. Most of those people I'd say don't agree with SSM. I've never met a person who disagrees with SSM but still wants to be my friend that I know of.

I try not to hate because it is a strong word, but the only time I could see myself hating someone is if they've affected someone elses life directly without any consideration for how others feel. And yes, I do still respect everyone as a human, regardless of how nasty they could be.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#789275 29-Mar-2013 14:38

I actually hate no one, I dislike a few but not hate them. I disagree with SSM but don't hate you tard and would think you would have a hard time proving the majority do so don't get so offended, most of it is perceived.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80682 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41136

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#789297 29-Mar-2013 15:59

da5id: Here's a snippet from a guest post from The Irish Daily Mail written by a gay blogger as to why he does not support SSM, and thinks that other gays should not either.

What that amounts to is the kind of marriage that puts adults before children. That, in my opinion, is ultimately selfish, and far too high a price to pay simply for the token gesture of treating opposite-sex relationships and same-sex relationships identically. And it is a token gesture.

And yet, when I wrote about "think of the kids" line of thought I was replied to with "Its got absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and Im shocked really that you mentioned it."

Just to show that I knew where this was heading to. People are predictable.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

onebytemike

90 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 21

#789303 29-Mar-2013 16:18

da5id:
(which has always been the same throughout history and across cultures)

You've got to be kidding, right? The institution of marriage differs wildly across cultural groups and history.

alasta

6896 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3376

Trusted

Subscriber

#789318 29-Mar-2013 17:35

tardtasticx: I see your point. Not everyone who disagrees with SSM hates me, but I'd say the majority do. I've had my fair share of homophobic abuse, even from family member who I no longer talk to. Most of those people I'd say don't agree with SSM. I've never met a person who disagrees with SSM but still wants to be my friend that I know of.

I have homosexual friends and fully support their right - and yours - to live their lives as they see fit. The only reason I oppose this legislation is that I don't believe it's appropriate for the state to define marriage one way or the other.

Marriage is an abstract concept that has no political relevance and whilst this is probably a healthy debate I would really like to see it moved outside of the political sphere.

Dell

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

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#789323 29-Mar-2013 17:41

alasta:
tardtasticx: I see your point. Not everyone who disagrees with SSM hates me, but I'd say the majority do. I've had my fair share of homophobic abuse, even from family member who I no longer talk to. Most of those people I'd say don't agree with SSM. I've never met a person who disagrees with SSM but still wants to be my friend that I know of.

I have homosexual friends and fully support their right - and yours - to live their lives as they see fit. The only reason I oppose this legislation is that I don't believe it's appropriate for the state to define marriage one way or the other.

Marriage is an abstract concept that has no political relevance and whilst this is probably a healthy debate I would really like to see it moved outside of the political sphere.

But then if marriage shouldn't be up to the state, then it should be gone completely from law, and replaced with Civil Union. And people who want to have a wedding can have on privately at a church or something. I heard about another country doing this, think it may have been France but I could be wrong. But as long as the state keeps dishing out marriage licences, they should be doing it fairly.

alasta

6896 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3376

Trusted

Subscriber

#789332 29-Mar-2013 17:47

tardtasticx: But then if marriage shouldn't be up to the state, then it should be gone completely from law, and replaced with Civil Union. And people who want to have a wedding can have on privately at a church or something. I heard about another country doing this, think it may have been France but I could be wrong.

I agree, but I've covered this in my previous posts so I won't bore everyone with a repeat.

A couple of people have raised some legitimate issues with implementing this concept, but I think we can work through those issues to ultimately get the state into a position of neutrality.

But as long as the state keeps dishing out marriage licences, they should be doing it fairly.

I agree, but I'm personally not willing to accept the idea of the state continuing to dish out marriage licenses. I don't see that as the way forward.

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 19

#789336 29-Mar-2013 17:54

alasta:
tardtasticx: I see your point. Not everyone who disagrees with SSM hates me, but I'd say the majority do. I've had my fair share of homophobic abuse, even from family member who I no longer talk to. Most of those people I'd say don't agree with SSM. I've never met a person who disagrees with SSM but still wants to be my friend that I know of.

I have homosexual friends and fully support their right - and yours - to live their lives as they see fit. The only reason I oppose this legislation is that I don't believe it's appropriate for the state to define marriage one way or the other.

Marriage is an abstract concept that has no political relevance and whilst this is probably a healthy debate I would really like to see it moved outside of the political sphere.

I find it strange to say this is not relevant politically. What do you think politics is about? Our political system is meant to be about representing the views of the people is it not? Any issue that provokes discussion with such a large number of people in the manor in which this issue has is likely to be very relevant politically, whether we like it or not.

You say that you only oppose SSM because its not appropriate for the state to define marriage one way or another. But the state is already doing just that.

Given your thoughts that SSM should mean whatever the people want it to mean, wouldn't it make more sense for you to support SSM as the lesser evil? (because it gives a broader definition of the term, which is more closely aligned to your stated view).

onebytemike

90 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 21

#789337 29-Mar-2013 17:54

alasta: I have homosexual friends and fully support their right - and yours - to live their lives as they see fit. The only reason I oppose this legislation is that I don't believe it's appropriate for the state to define marriage one way or the other.

Marriage is an abstract concept that has no political relevance and whilst this is probably a healthy debate I would really like to see it moved outside of the political sphere.

Whilst I agree that it's not the business of the state to decide who is and isn't married, I also recognize that they do. So long as this is the status quo, i'd like to ensure that they do it in a way that is accommodating to those who it applies to.

alasta

6896 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3376

Trusted

Subscriber

#789341 29-Mar-2013 18:42

blair003:
alasta: The only reason I oppose this legislation is that I don't believe it's appropriate for the state to define marriage one way or the other.

Marriage is an abstract concept that has no political relevance and whilst this is probably a healthy debate I would really like to see it moved outside of the political sphere.

I find it strange to say this is not relevant politically. What do you think politics is about? Our political system is meant to be about representing the views of the people is it not? Any issue that provokes discussion with such a large number of people in the manor in which this issue has is likely to be very relevant politically, whether we like it or not.

I have a somewhat libertarian attitude towards the function of government, so I believe that they should be focussed on core business such as the economy, law and order, defence, etc. Quite simply most of what the government touches turns to custard so I won't want them getting involved in moral or philosophical issues that our broader society can tackle ourselves.

You say that you only oppose SSM because its not appropriate for the state to define marriage one way or another. But the state is already doing just that.

Given your thoughts that SSM should mean whatever the people want it to mean, wouldn't it make more sense for you to support SSM as the lesser evil? (because it gives a broader definition of the term, which is more closely aligned to your stated view).

You could argue that, but I'm not prepared to support it on the basis of it being the 'lesser evil'. The only reason we're choosing between two evils is that our politicians have failed to offer up non-evil solutions.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#789366 29-Mar-2013 19:52

da5id:
kyhwana2: Obvious Solution is obvious. Repeal all law mentioning "marriage". Only allow civil unions/partnerships.
People that solemnise these things become "civil union celebrants". If you wanted to get "married", go dance on a beach after getting your civil union certificate.

Done. *wipes hands*

da5id:
Because I don't believe that Government created 'marriage' and as such cannot just do away with it or change it's definition to be anything other than a union of a man and a woman.

Actually, I think you'll find it has and it can. See the Marriage Act 1955. That's where they created it. So as such they can change what it "means".

da5id:
A question though: why should society do away or change the definition of the institution of marriage (which has always been the same throughout history and across cultures) and take up civil unions instead.

Been the same huh? Lets check out the bible, since that seems to be peoples favourite reason why we can't have equal marriage.
Genesis: 4:19 "And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.".

Screw it, have an image instead:

So you asseration that marriage has always been the same across cultures and history is simply incorrect. Try again.

bradstewart

4338 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 166

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#789401 29-Mar-2013 20:29

kyhwana2: Been the same huh? Lets check out the bible, since that seems to be peoples favourite reason why we can't have equal marriage.
Genesis: 4:19 "And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.".

This is disingenuous. You have pulled that verse way out of context. If you bother reading ones either side of it then you'll actually find it is part of a geneology. The fact that Lamech took two wives is neither condemned nor condoned. It is simply a part of a telling of a family lineage.

Stop using material in which you have shown to lack even a simplistic understanding of to base your arguments upon (I refer you back to your previous comments about Christians believing in different Gods).

I bet I could pick out a bunch of random verses, remove them from their surrounding context and also use them to make wildly inaccurate claims about their meaning too. But then that would just make me an idiot.

If you looked hard enough you might actually find something that you could build a case with but this just isn't it.

If you want to make a credible argument try harder.

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#789405 29-Mar-2013 20:45

bradstewart:
kyhwana2: Been the same huh? Lets check out the bible, since that seems to be peoples favourite reason why we can't have equal marriage.
Genesis: 4:19 "And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.".

This is disingenuous. You have pulled that verse way out of context. If you bother reading ones either side of it then you'll actually find it is part of a geneology. The fact that Lamech took two wives is neither condemned nor condoned. It is simply a part of a telling of a family lineage.

How so? I was pointing out that marriage hasn't always been the same as people keep claiming it has been. You said yourself it's part of geneology, so therefore those people are still wrong.

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 272

#789465 29-Mar-2013 23:52

One thing is clear in this thread - people don't agree on what the word, "marriage" means. I married a couple of weeks ago in Canada where marriage is entirely gender-neutral. The guys who filmed my ceremony have been married for years yet should they move here they would not have their relationship recognised. My marriage in Canada is recognised here so it seems unreasonable that theirs wouldn't be. Unless the law changes.

Marriage is a loaded word because it has two meanings - one religious and one secular. The meaning has been in flux for centuries but the idea of it being in any way related to love is reasonably new.

The legal side is not about relationships or emotions. It's about property and responsibility. A legal marriage confers obligations on two people, including the obligation to provide for any offspring should they have them. Society has its mores but cannot enforce legally-binding obligations.

Until relatively recent times, women were considered property of men, as were children of their union. This is still true in some countries. Even now, some people get married here with the father of the bride, "giving her away" and a man responding to, "do you take this woman" and a woman vowing to be subservient. Monogamy in marriage used to be something only expected of women (right down to the dark old days of chastity belts) because that was the only way a man could be certain his heir was his child. Again, all about property rights and inheritance. Marriage was an economic institution.

Marriage for love started really coming into prominence only last century. Some people argue that it is a relationship between only a man and a woman and therefore cannot be changed. The Marriage Act was written in 1950 and a lot has changed since then. Back then, divorces were messy and difficult - no such thing as a "no faults" divorce with a couple simply deciding to separate then legalising it. Many marital traditions — for eg. coverture, marital rape exemptions—have been unjust and have been changed. It used to be legally acceptable to hit kids too. Times change.

People are not going to agree on what marriage means. However, our government is not trying to redefine the word. They are looking at rewriting a law. Laws change as society changes.

If a gay or lesbian couple marry it doesn't affect the legal contract made by any other couples that marry. It just confers on them the same rights and responsibilities heterosexual couples have when they sign that piece of paper. Property becomes joint property, decisions over their spouses health or end-of-life care become theirs to make, joint income and circumstances are taken into account when applying for welfare, mortgages, custody and inheritance rights, and tax status. LBGT individuals can adopt children now - allowing legal marriage makes two people responsible for those children instead of the individual parent as it stands now. Surely that's a good thing? Marriage doesn't make adoption of children any more likely than it already is (and given the shortage of children available for adoption by ANYONE it's a spurious argument at best).

Many of the arguments I've seen here in this thread read like the arguments people in the States used when there were moves to allow inter-racial marriage. I'm all for passing legislation to make marriage gender-neutral. And, for me, people's sexuality is irrelevant.

1 | ... | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | ... | 41