da5id:  

1080p:

For those against the proposed amendment, what reason(s) are there that the definition of marriage must remain as defining a heterosexual relationship? A few conditions apply to this question, they follow:

- Your reason(s) may not include religious ideas because not every married heterosexual couple are religious and the generally accepted idea that religion has zero place in political discussion

Actually, the discussion doesn't have to have religious arguments in it at all in order to question the idea of marriage being redefined to include same-sex couples.
The questions you have to ask are: what is marriage? And why does the Govt have an interest in it?

Marriage is one of either two things - 

• Marriage is the public recognition of a committed relationship between two adults solely for their individual fulfillment. 
• Marriage unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union.

I tend to believe it is the second. Ryan Anderson from the Heritage Foundation writes - 

In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view of marriage that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. This view reduces marriage primarily to emotional bonds or legal privileges. Redefining marriage represents the culmination of this revisionism and would leave emotional intensity as the only thing that sets marriage apart from other bonds.

However, if marriage were just intense emotional regard, marital norms would make no sense as a principled matter. There is no reason of principle that requires an emotional union to be permanent. Or limited to two persons. Or sexual, much less sexually exclusive. Or inherently oriented to family life and shaped by its demands. Couples might live out these norms where temperament or taste motivated them, but there would be no reason of principle for them to do so and no basis for the law to encourage them to do so.

In other words, if sexual complementarity is optional for marriage, present only where preferred, then almost every other norm that sets marriage apart is optional.



Government is not in the business of affirming our love. Rather, it leaves consenting adults free to live and love as they choose. Contrary to what some say, there is no ban on same-sex marriage. Nothing about it is illegal. In all 50 states, two people of the same sex may choose to live together, choose to join a religious community that blesses their relationship, and choose a workplace offering joint benefits. There is nothing illegal about this.

What is at issue is whether the government will recognize such relationships as marriages—and then force every citizen, house of worship, and business to do so as well. At issue is whether policy will coerce and compel others to recognize and affirm same-sex relationships as marriages. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else. 

 

jeffnz: @beccara

it was posted 2 pages back and only sums it up for those that agree with that stance and like calling others bigots that don't agree with them.

1080p:

jeffnz: @beccara

it was posted 2 pages back and only sums it up for those that agree with that stance and like calling others bigots that don't agree with them.

I'm sure the same was said by those who chose to believe interracial marriage was an abomination.

Hammerer:
I'm not sure if your joking in your second comment. Why would one position cancel out the other? Here's an example using a different set of people. If "thare are some NZers against gay marriaage" then it is hardly helpful to say "I guess they cancel out the ones for".

da5id: 
Marriage is one of either two things - 

• Marriage is the public recognition of a committed relationship between two adults solely for their individual fulfillment. 
• Marriage unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union.

I tend to believe it is the second. Ryan Anderson from the Heritage Foundation writes - 
(snipped rubbish)

1080p:

Hammerer:

1080p:

For those against the proposed amendment, what reason(s) are there that the definition of marriage must remain as defining a heterosexual relationship? A few conditions apply to this question, they follow:

- Your reason(s) may not include religious ideas because not every married heterosexual couple are religious and the generally accepted idea that religion has zero place in political discussion.

It is not true that it is "generally accepted that religion has zero place in political discussion."

Why are you trying so hard to privilege your own viewpoint on this issue? It looks like you are trying to establish guidelines for political correctness. The same sort of reasoning leads to hegemonies of the like seen in oppressive political regimes.

Here's an example to illustrate the weakness of your stance. It seems to be widely accepted that communist ideas have little political currency in NZ. Even so, it would be absurd to say in a discussion that "Your reason(s) may not include communist ideas because not every married heterosexual couple are communist and the generally accepted idea that communism has zero place in political discussion."

How can you know I am privileging my own point of view if you do not know what that is.

This argument really boils back down to a 'for the kids' argument which has been disproven before. What, precisely, will change for heterosexual couples choosing to raise children if homosexual couple are also permitted to marry?

da5id:
I haven't seen it disproved. And yes, children are the only reason that Government gets involved in marriage at all. Otherwise, why should they? It's just another relationship otherwise. 

da5id:

This argument really boils back down to a 'for the kids' argument which has been disproven before. What, precisely, will change for heterosexual couples choosing to raise children if homosexual couple are also permitted to marry?

I haven't seen it disproved. And yes, children are the only reason that Government gets involved in marriage at all. Otherwise, why should they? It's just another relationship otherwise. 

Here's a useful video that tries to explain in simple language.

kyhwana2:

Since gay marriage doesn't effect those people against, given that the (religious) people against are cancelled out by the ones for, (or vice versa as you point out) and gives benefits to those who do get married, it's pretty obvious that it should be legal!

2) Best raises children.

- There is no evidence of this. Feel free to provide some.

1080p:
2) Best raises children.

- There is no evidence of this. Feel free to provide some.

Klipspringer:

1080p:
2) Best raises children.

- There is no evidence of this. Feel free to provide some.

The best way to answer this one is by asking ourselves what is the absolute best for a child?

And that answer is very simple.

Every kid deserves a Mom and a Dad...

One can argue all day and go around in circles about some families etc and bad upbringings of some kids in failed marriages with a Mom and a Dad. But simply put, nothing is better than bringing up a child in a healthy loving home with a Mom and a Dad.

So if nothing is better.. Then why settle on something than is worse than the absolute best for a child?

And the answer to that one is simply that gay couples are putting themselves and their own selfish desires before the kids.

Beccara:

By your argument divorce should be outlawed and single mothers too. It's just staggering that you apply this argument in such a limited view