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 | ... | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | ... | 41

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#794225 6-Apr-2013 11:41

1080p: In my mind, the consideration of children is no reason to deny homosexual couples the ability to marry. Especially given that there are a number of other reasons why couples desire marriage and that the phenomenon of children being raised within heterosexual marriages is unlikely to ever change or shift to abnormality.

I don't have any personal views to add to this, but just as an observation I find it interesting that you refer to 'homosexual' marriages. Previous posters have suggested - quite rightly in my view - that in a political or legislative context marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between two individuals and hence I would argue that there is no such thing as "homosexual" marriage. In light of that, I prefer the terms "same sex marriage" and "opposite sex marriage".

Yes, I know, this is all just semantics, but this debate does seem to have a tendency to drift into irrelevant territory when certain language is used.

Cloudmelon

186 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 5

#794226 6-Apr-2013 11:43

alasta: this debate does seem to have a tendency to drift into irrelevant territory

Hit the nail on the head.

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#794227 6-Apr-2013 11:45

Cloudmelon: Had been staying out of this thread on purpose... then curiosity got the better of me.

Even though Geekzone is generally used by open minded intelligent beings, I had expected some questionable ideas to be put forth in here....

Some of the 'ideas' are just embarrassing

Always a wonder how people can get so belligerent and unrationale/unreasonable over something that is likely to unaffect them.

I agree, but I'm seeing that attitude from both sides of the argument. In fact, the more this debate evolves the more people seem to be gravitating towards arguments that "SSM should be refused because there is no good reason to do it" versus "SSM should be implemented because there is no good reason not to".

I get the impression that this is going to turn out to be one of those issues that a lot of people make a lot of noise about, but the outcome will have little or no impact regardless of whether it passes or fails. It's a shame given that the country has much bigger things to worry about.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user

#794416 6-Apr-2013 22:34

alasta:
1080p: In my mind, the consideration of children is no reason to deny homosexual couples the ability to marry. Especially given that there are a number of other reasons why couples desire marriage and that the phenomenon of children being raised within heterosexual marriages is unlikely to ever change or shift to abnormality.

I don't have any personal views to add to this, but just as an observation I find it interesting that you refer to 'homosexual' marriages. Previous posters have suggested - quite rightly in my view - that in a political or legislative context marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between two individuals and hence I would argue that there is no such thing as "homosexual" marriage. In light of that, I prefer the terms "same sex marriage" and "opposite sex marriage".

Yes, I know, this is all just semantics, but this debate does seem to have a tendency to drift into irrelevant territory when certain language is used.

Well, the phrase 'homosexual marriage' is identical to 'same sex marriage'. The language is no less precise. I can't see the issue with using either phrase; any semantic problem is likely a result of assumption of a negative connotation to the word homosexual or the assumption that the word homosexual implies romantic feelings. Which is absurd.

I refuse to change my choice of words - more so when they are perfectly precise - to pander to the whims of avoiding potential offence.

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#794570 7-Apr-2013 12:48

1080p:
alasta: I don't have any personal views to add to this, but just as an observation I find it interesting that you refer to 'homosexual' marriages. Previous posters have suggested - quite rightly in my view - that in a political or legislative context marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between two individuals and hence I would argue that there is no such thing as "homosexual" marriage. In light of that, I prefer the terms "same sex marriage" and "opposite sex marriage".

Well, the phrase 'homosexual marriage' is identical to 'same sex marriage'. The language is no less precise. I can't see the issue with using either phrase; any semantic problem is likely a result of assumption of a negative connotation to the word homosexual or the assumption that the word homosexual implies romantic feelings. Which is absurd.

The term "same sex marriage" is more general as it does not imply anything about the sexual or romantic activities of the two parties. The term "homosexual marriage", on the other hand, specifically implies sexual activity.

To me the term "homosexual" is defined as people of the same gender regularly or actively engaging in sexual activity, or alternatively we could use the definition more widely accepted by liberals whereby the term refers to people of the same gender who are predisposed to such sexual behaviours. Either way the use of the term "homosexual" in this debate incorrectly implies that the state should have an interest in the sexual activities undertaken by consenting adults.

I refuse to change my choice of words - more so when they are perfectly precise - to pander to the whims of avoiding potential offence.

Causing offence isn't the issue. However if you're going to continue to refer to "homosexual marriage" in the context of a political debate then you should withdraw your earlier statement whereby you suggested that marriage is nothing more than a contractual arrangement between two individuals.

Cloudmelon

186 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 5

#794655 7-Apr-2013 16:43

alasta:

To me the term "homosexual" is defined as people of the same gender regularly or actively engaging in sexual activity, or alternatively we could use the definition more widely accepted by liberals whereby the term refers to people of the same gender who are predisposed to such sexual behaviours.

That seems rather flawed, would I only be classed as straight if I regularly actively engaged in sexual activity with a female. Or would I be classed as straight even if I was attracted to males, but didn't actually have sex with males?

I would think the amount of sex you have is irrelevant. That it is defined by attraction instead. And being predisposed or not would seem irrelevant, the discussion isn't how or why homosexuals exist.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#794694 7-Apr-2013 19:16

Cloudmelon:
alasta:

To me the term "homosexual" is defined as people of the same gender regularly or actively engaging in sexual activity, or alternatively we could use the definition more widely accepted by liberals whereby the term refers to people of the same gender who are predisposed to such sexual behaviours.

That seems rather flawed, would I only be classed as straight if I regularly actively engaged in sexual activity with a female. Or would I be classed as straight even if I was attracted to males, but didn't actually have sex with males?

I wouldn't class you as 'straight' because the human body has curves, but your definition of the term obviously differs from mine.

I would think the amount of sex you have is irrelevant. That it is defined by attraction instead. And being predisposed or not would seem irrelevant, the discussion isn't how or why homosexuals exist.

I agree that the definition of the term 'homosexual' is out of the scope of this thread and we don't want to get sidetracked with it. I was merely pointing out that homosexuality has no political or legislative relevance regardless of which definition of the term you accept.

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#795591 9-Apr-2013 12:55

I suppose one argument AGAINST gay marriage is that you'd have to redo all the database design!
See http://qntm.org/gay

OTOH, if you're a DB/web dev, you should be FOR gay/poly marriage, since you'll get paid for sorting that out! (Except why didn't you design your database properly in the first place? boo! Bad dev ;)

Of course, the other issue being that people against equal marriage is that people against it are misogynist. A good read on THAT is http://nursingclio.org/2013/04/02/same-sex-marriage-does-threaten-traditional-marriage/

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 272

#797119 10-Apr-2013 12:47

Regardless of your personal views, this article makes sobering reading: http://orlandoweekly.com/39-til-death-do-us-part-1.1470451

NZ's civil unions give some protection against this happening here, but doesn't offer complete protection against it.

nate

6473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 458

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#799702 15-Apr-2013 16:05

Considering this is a very contentious topic, thank-you to everyone for not letting this discussion disintegrate like the previous ones. I have to admit, I didn't think it'd last this long.

Makes our jobs (mods) much easier.

Cheers everyone.

rossmnz

507 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 31

#801098 17-Apr-2013 16:49

so what do we think? Will the bill get passed?

Personally I dont really know what to think about it all, except the fact that it seems pretty rushed in terms of decision.

I dont think that allowing homosexual marriages will change the sanctity of my own marriage, i am not religious and dont care on that ground either.

My thoughts are that we need to nail down the domino-effect that this will have on other parts of our legislation and daily lives eg adoption, estates and deaths, welfares/benefits/child support etc before looking at this in isolation.

What I dont want is the law makers making a decision on this in isolation and then being forced to make other changes on this basis.

When you look at the larger picture sometimes things that are perfectly reasonable take on a far greater significance.

The force is strong with this one!

Dell

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

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#801100 17-Apr-2013 16:52

rossmnz: so what do we think? Will the bill get passed?

Personally I dont really know what to think about it all, except the fact that it seems pretty rushed in terms of decision.

I dont think that allowing homosexual marriages will change the sanctity of my own marriage, i am not religious and dont care on that ground either.

My thoughts are that we need to nail down the domino-effect that this will have on other parts of our legislation and daily lives eg adoption, estates and deaths, welfares/benefits/child support etc before looking at this in isolation.

What I dont want is the law makers making a decision on this in isolation and then being forced to make other changes on this basis.

When you look at the larger picture sometimes things that are perfectly reasonable take on a far greater significance.

I am hoping that it will pass and NZ makes another step towards social equality.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

AidanS

458 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 135

#801118 17-Apr-2013 17:20

Not sure if this was mentioned in the previous 31 pages of comments, but the Stuff.co.nz gay marriage poll is providing quite a different result than the NZ Herald one. I guess this relates to the sites' audience.

-Aidan

josephhinvest

1550 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 322

ID Verified

Trusted

#801191 17-Apr-2013 20:04

Interesting to see the Stuff poll is running about 64% in support tonight, where as the Campell Live poll was about 75% against.
All it proves to me is to not believe the polls!

Glad to see the bill should pass tonight, even though it doesn't affect me in any way.

Cheers,
Joseph

rossmnz

507 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 31

#801236 17-Apr-2013 22:41

Says to me there was no real consensus?

Well its passed now so its all history.

The force is strong with this one!

1 | ... | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | ... | 41