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 | 8 | ... | 26

2802 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 125

#665371 1-Aug-2012 13:19

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 may be barking up the wrong tree, but isn't part of the deal that they pretty much _do_ have to admit anybody? Not from a legal standpoint, but from a as-instructed-by-the-Church (capital C) standpoint?

@KnightNZ

menabassily

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 3
Inactive user

#665372 1-Aug-2012 13:20

Ok, this is the first time I hear about "Godwin's Law" but surprisingly enough, it turns out that explaining "Godwin's Law" in fact invokes Godwin's Law lol.

Anyway, I have probably posted my thoughts regarding that matter in the other banned topic, it seems that people keep pointing at it but no body wants to argue with it so, I will take that as a "Yes we agree" statement.

It was very interesting what my flatmate thought of the subject, he said

"The government wants to help tourism to help the country's economy after Christchurch by allowing gay marriage, not every gay couple in Australasia and the Americas will come here to get married"

Sounds like a good plan John, nevertheless, it still is the right thing to do IMO

menabassily

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 3
Inactive user

#665376 1-Aug-2012 13:25

stevenz:
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 may be barking up the wrong tree, but isn't part of the deal that they pretty much _do_ have to admit anybody? Not from a legal standpoint, but from a as-instructed-by-the-Church (capital C) standpoint?

I agree with you Steve, even the bible says so:
http://bible.cc/mark/2-17.htm

And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” -Mark 2:17

I know this because I myself was born in a Christian family, used to teach the bible in the church for kids. That's of course before I started studying science, philosophy, history and arts. I guess I don't need to explain further.

chiefie

I iz your trusted friend
5877 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 151

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#665377 1-Aug-2012 13:26

menabassily: "The government wants to help tourism to help the country's economy after Christchurch by allowing gay marriage, not every gay couple in Australasia and the Americas will come here to get married"

We know of a couple from Australia, came over to NZ for their Civil Union.

Internet is my backyard...

«Geekzone blog: Tech 'n Chips Takeaway» «Personal blog: And then...»

Please read the Geekzone's FUG

menabassily

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 3
Inactive user

#665384 1-Aug-2012 13:27

chiefie:
menabassily: "The government wants to help tourism to help the country's economy after Christchurch by allowing gay marriage, not every gay couple in Australasia and the Americas will come here to get married"

We know of a couple from Australia, came over to NZ for their Civil Union.

Well, there you go... that point seems to be very valid indeed.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28

#665385 1-Aug-2012 13:27

KevinL:
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!

Errr, a

or similar is supposed to lead to others understanding that it is not a troll.

And before you blast off again I suggest that you do things:

First, think what my post was really saying and doing (the

, bird names, etc are hints).

Treat yourself to an understanding of evolution before trying to teach others about it (and I suggest also that you do not try a Godwin's Law on me over the genetic bit

Samsung

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

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

#665387 1-Aug-2012 13:29

stevenz:
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 may be barking up the wrong tree, but isn't part of the deal that they pretty much _do_ have to admit anybody? Not from a legal standpoint, but from a as-instructed-by-the-Church (capital C) standpoint?

I agree that as a private organisation with generally no public funding (other than a tax break, which is itself arguably controversial) I suspect they're well within their right to refuse to marry people.

Looking at it from another perspective though, if you were a gay or lesbian couple (with no affiliation to a church), would you want to get married by an organisation that is openly against your sexual orientation and beliefs?

nate

6473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 458

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#665389 1-Aug-2012 13:32

KevinL: 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).

I wonder now if this is even a valid argument.

I wasn't able to find any decent sites with up-to-date stats for adoption levels, however this one site says there's an average of 14 adoptions in just Auckland per year (of a population of 1.4million). Surely it's too small a number to be giving such prominence to?

edit: Even thinking of my own group of family/friends I know of only one person who is adopted (also a Geekzone user)

(I spose the counter-argument is this could/would increase?)

menabassily

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 3
Inactive user

#665390 1-Aug-2012 13:33

I am very sure this particular church won't say no

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

#665391 1-Aug-2012 13:36

John2010:
KevinL:
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!

Errr, a or similar is supposed to lead to others understanding that it is not a troll.

And before you blast off again I suggest that you do things:

First, think what my post was really saying and doing (the , bird names, etc are hints).

Treat yourself to an understanding of evolution before trying to teach others about it (and I suggest also that you do not try a Godwin's Law on me over the genetic bit ).

I'm not sure why you feel the need to attack me personally.

I'm also not sure what the point of your original post was.

If you are indeed "not a troll", then you are suggesting that the marriage amendment act will reduce the number of gay children born. Are you suggesting that gay children are only born to gay parents (or two parents with a recessive "gay" gene)? If homosexuality is genetic (which by no means is completely proven), then the sexuality of the parents has very little to do with the sexuality of the offspring. Perhaps you should treat yourself to an understanding of the difference between genotype and phenotype.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41071

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#665394 1-Aug-2012 13:39

I didn't think it was a personal attack, and the "extinct bird the dildo" reference made me think it was a joke from the start.

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.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

menabassily

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 3
Inactive user

#665395 1-Aug-2012 13:40

BlueShift:
maybe a nice compromise would be to make all "marriages" civil unions with equal legal rights and make weddings a purely religious ceremony

Good news! This is already (almost) the case. The civil marriage ceremony is basically filling out the paperwork under supervision of an authorised person, with appropriate witnesses. All the frock and speeches bits are entirely optional and purely ceremonial.

This is exactly what I am pointing at when I say that marriage is a contract. Between a man and a woman in NZ so far.

Just a contract saying who vows what to whom, etc etc etc... till death do you part.

Marriage 2.1 will include same sex couples, then the new update will be release and the number "2" is not going to be a limitation no more (checkout Vicky Cristina Barcelona for more information)

Being against marriage myself, but I don't see the need to deny people the right to sign that damn contract.

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

#665396 1-Aug-2012 13:42

nate:
KevinL: 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).

I wonder now if this is even a valid argument.

I wasn't able to find any decent sites with up-to-date stats for adoption levels, however this one site says there's an average of 14 adoptions in just Auckland per year (of a population of 1.4million). Surely it's too small a number to be giving such prominence to?

edit: Even thinking of my own group of family/friends I know of only one person who is adopted (also a Geekzone user)

(I spose the counter-argument is this could/would increase?)

Adoption levels have dropped significantly over the last 50 years or so - http://adoptionoption.org.nz/adoption/Adoption-in-New-Zealand/

According to their numbers, there are only about 100 adoptions a year (although that doesn't include whangai adoption where Maori children may be sent to be brought up with extended family). My understanding is that there is generally a much larger number of potential parents than parentless children born each year. I also note the current law also allows for the birth mother to have the final decision as to the adoptive parents.

Changing the definition of marriage to allow for gay and lesbian couples doesn't change any of these facts, but it does give them the same rights to adopt as heterosexual couples. It also would give current homosexual guardians the right to become legal parents, which is an important distinction. It may be small numbers, but there is still a substantial inequity.

stevenz

2802 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 125

#665398 1-Aug-2012 13:43

KevinL: Looking at it from another perspective though, if you were a gay or lesbian couple (with no affiliation to a church), would you want to get married by an organisation that is openly against your sexual orientation and beliefs?

Certainly not if I was athiest/agnostic, but if were both homosexual, and a practicing christian, then I might think differently as I'd be more likely to be approaching the concept of marriage from a religious rather than legal perspective, at least in part.

@KnightNZ

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

#665406 1-Aug-2012 13:46

stevenz:
KevinL: Looking at it from another perspective though, if you were a gay or lesbian couple (with no affiliation to a church), would you want to get married by an organisation that is openly against your sexual orientation and beliefs?

Certainly not if I was athiest/agnostic, but if were both homosexual, and a practicing christian, then I might think differently as I'd be more likely to be approaching the concept of marriage from a religious rather than legal perspective, at least in part.

Sure, but one would hope that if you were a practicing christian and homosexual, that the church/denomination you belonged to would be in support of your beliefs? I note that not all christian churches are opposed to the marriage amendment act (although admittedly many of them are).

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 26