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 | ... | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41

BDFL - Memuneh
80662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41087

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#864406 23-Jul-2013 16:18

Klipspringer:
bradstewart:
Klipspringer:
ajobbins:

Is it OK to have a opinion about someone's private/sex life? No, as long as no one is at risk from harm. If you want to have such an opinion, keep it to yourself. Using it as a reason to try and justify withholding a right to a person is wrong.

Is it OK to have an opinion on on war, smacking etc? Yes, because where peoples rights are being violated, as a good human being you should try and stand up for them.

Why are you bringing sex into this discussion?

Because that's what this entire argument is about at its root. Also you brought it up 2 pages ago.

No I never. Quote me

The root of this argument is "gay parenting", thats got nothing to do with sex.

Its similar to you implying that sex between me and my wife is the root of how I bring up my kids.

Quote for you then:

Klipspringer: I disagree with people who "swing" in their marriages. I disagree with the "swinging lifestyle" just as much as I disagree with the "gay lifestyle.

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.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 95
Inactive user

#864412 23-Jul-2013 16:20

bradstewart: Because that's what this entire argument is about at its root.

Hmmm, that's not what I've been debating.

ajobbins:Is it OK to have a opinion about someone's private/sex life? No, as long as no one is at risk from harm. If you want to have such an opinion, keep it to yourself. Using it as a reason to try and justify withholding a right to a person is wrong.

In my opinion this is closer to the root of the debate: on what basis does a person have a right to marry, and who confers that right on them?

When anybody starts to argue about rights and says that it has no impact on me it immediately gets my hackles up. To me granting a right implies a corresponding responsibility. In this case, if homosexual people are granted the right to marry then I (as a member of the society that granted the right) have a responsibility to respect and recognise the marriage. As such, I believe I have the right to hold an opinion...

bradstewart

4338 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 166

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#864425 23-Jul-2013 16:28

freitasm:
Klipspringer:
bradstewart:
Klipspringer:
ajobbins:

Is it OK to have a opinion about someone's private/sex life? No, as long as no one is at risk from harm. If you want to have such an opinion, keep it to yourself. Using it as a reason to try and justify withholding a right to a person is wrong.

Is it OK to have an opinion on on war, smacking etc? Yes, because where peoples rights are being violated, as a good human being you should try and stand up for them.

Why are you bringing sex into this discussion?

Because that's what this entire argument is about at its root. Also you brought it up 2 pages ago.

No I never. Quote me

The root of this argument is "gay parenting", thats got nothing to do with sex.

Its similar to you implying that sex between me and my wife is the root of how I bring up my kids.

Quote for you then:

Klipspringer: I disagree with people who "swing" in their marriages. I disagree with the "swinging lifestyle" just as much as I disagree with the "gay lifestyle.

What the big guy quoted...

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#864480 23-Jul-2013 17:07

freitasm: Quote for you then:

Klipspringer: I disagree with people who "swing" in their marriages. I disagree with the "swinging lifestyle" just as much as I disagree with the "gay lifestyle.

Exactly. Swinging involves sex, hence the reference to sex that you brought up. Your response is a deflection from what was being discussed. My point was simply that what people choose to do consensually, privately and safely in their own lives and has does not change any outcome for you is really none of your business.

If you want to have an 'opinion' or a 'moral position' on it, that's up to you - but it does not give you a right to use that opinion or moral position to try and deny rights to that group.

Twitter: ajobbins

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user

#864499 23-Jul-2013 17:35

Klipspringer:
1080p:
Klipspringer: Well said. But hetrosexual families can supply love too.A point Urzila seems to be missing.

She didn't say that heterosexual families cannot supply love. You're putting
words in her mouth.

No I'm not

"I" said hetrosexual families can supply love too. I did not say she thinks hetrosexual couples can't supply love. I said she misses that point. How is that putting words in her mouth?

Well her statement was: "...the most important element to a good family is love." which does not specify or imply any particular type of marriage or family. You then went on to say she missed the point that families involving marriage between males and females can supply love too which is clearly not what her statement conveyed. You put words in her mouth.

Q.E.D.

Klipspringer:
1080p:

rossmnz: However I still maintain that a child from a strong, mature, financially-sound heterosexual family unit is inherantly healthier and better off than one from a strong, mature, financially-sound homosexual family unit.

It appears that your contention is incorrect given the evidence. Do you have any evidence to counter?

Yes given that already

Interesting. I have read each of the 37 pages in this thread and not seen one shred of evidence that this is true. Additionally, my own research has demonstrated that this is not true. What compelling facts do you have that I have missed? Hint: they aren't in this thread yet.

Klipspringer:
1080p:
Klipspringer: Some things are better left for the woman of the house. And some things a man can simply do better.

What are those things, precisely?

WOW. Really. You want me to list the things.

You obviously not a parent yet.

I'd really like you to actually articulate to one of my friends who happened to be raised by homosexual parents that he was raised in sub-optimal conditions and would probably have been better off being raised by heterosexual parents because much of his upbringing would have been better left to someone of the opposite gender. He is probably the most successful, well-adjusted, and confident people I know.

An argument that a set of heterosexual parents is the optimal environment to raise children in - especially one based on nothing more than your prejudices/religious belief - is resoundingly ignorant. To then use that argument as a base to attack the idea of marriage between to members of the same gender is despicable. Lately I have been waking up each morning thankful that I was born in a time that has seen the Church and State separated.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#864509 23-Jul-2013 17:53

Klipspringer:
1080p:
Klipspringer: Some things are better left for the woman of the house. And some things a man can simply do better.

What are those things, precisely?

WOW. Really. You want me to list the things.

I'd very much like to know what you are thinking here too. There are a number of different angles you could take on that subject, and I'm interested to know which one you are taking.

Twitter: ajobbins

Samsung

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

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41087

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#864525 23-Jul-2013 18:17

ajobbins: I'd very much like to know what you are thinking here too. There are a number of different angles you could take on that subject, and I'm interested to know which one you are taking.

You can search for "things man can do better than woman" and find some insightful Yahoo! Answers articles with lists such as:

1) Drinking
2) Keeping a Secret
3) We pee standing up
4) We are taller
5) We are easily amused
6) We are stronger
7) We get ready faster
8) We are better drivers
9) We are cheap
10) We can have facial hair

This is not a definitive list, and sure this is not to be taken seriously.

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.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#864527 23-Jul-2013 18:18

freitasm: This is not a definitive list, and sure this is not to be taken seriously.

Hehehe

Twitter: ajobbins

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#864537 23-Jul-2013 18:33

Interesting watching a wolf pack hunt

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41087

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#864574 23-Jul-2013 19:45

There are two wolf packs from what I see here. There's no "hunt".

There are arguments from both sides. Some convincing, some weak. At the end some may change their views, some may think it only strength their views.

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.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#864583 23-Jul-2013 19:51

its the behaviour of some that I find interesting, the wolf pack term was nicer that what I was thinking of putting.

I think you are right there has been some good points of view from both sides of the argument and think we reached an impasse when it finished last time, nothing really new is being brought to the table so what are people hoping to achieve or is it just some tribal ritual.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 95
Inactive user

#864585 23-Jul-2013 19:52

ajobbins: If you want to have an 'opinion' or a 'moral position' on it, that's up to you - but it does not give you a right to use that opinion or moral position to try and deny rights to that group.

Again with the "rights" word! If you're going to keep claiming that people have a right to marry please could you humour me and answer the previous questions (it was not rhetorical):

In my opinion this is closer to the root of the debate: on what basis does a person have a right to marry, and who confers that right on them?

I guess what I'm getting at is that the pro-SSM lobby imply that by opposing SSM, the anti-SSM lobby are denying or taking rights away from gay people. Sometimes (as I felt ajobbins hinted) they even go so far as to say that people can't reasonably hold an opposing viewpoint. Even if I agree that some SSM people are disadvantaged in certain situations because they are not married (and hence they must be given the opportunity to marry in order to have the opportunity not to be disadvantaged)... even if I accept that, I don't understand why it is not satisfactory to confer the legal protections and responsibilities associated with marriage without conferring the word. In other words, at times the pro-SSM argument feels just as empty, vindictive and divisive as some of the arguments made by some anti-SSM proponents.

jeffnz: Interesting watching a wolf pack hunt

Yes, it does feel like that a bit sometimes.

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#864591 23-Jul-2013 19:57

freitasm: There are arguments from both sides. Some convincing, some weak.

The problem is that the convincing arguments are only relevant in a moral or philosophical context - they have no political or legislative relevance.

This entire debate (in a general sense; not just referring to this forum) has been dysfunctional right from the start because it keeps coming back to peoples' views on homosexuality, but in reality homosexuality has got nothing to do with whether two people of the same gender should have shared property rights and power of attorney.

I personally believe that the whole debate would have been far more orderly and dignified if the same sex marriage campaign had been spearheaded by civil libertarians rather than moaning liberals who seem to be out to prove a point rather than actually pursue some sort of practical outcome.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#864601 23-Jul-2013 20:05

I think that was very well put Alasta and pretty much sums up my thoughts as well, not as articulate of course.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#864602 23-Jul-2013 20:06

mm1352000: Even if I agree that some SSM people are disadvantaged in certain situations because they are not married (and hence they must be given the opportunity to marry in order to have the opportunity not to be disadvantaged)... even if I accept that, I don't understand why it is not satisfactory to confer the legal protections and responsibilities associated with marriage without conferring the word.

This is the other thing that I find absurd about this whole debate - to a large degree it comes down to semantics.

We could make civil unions exactly the same as marriage and scrap the existing concept of marriage, and then that would satisfy the demands of everyone. The liberals would get their equal rights, and the conservatives would not have to worry about the state interfering in the institution of marriage.

Unfortunately liberals and conservatives enjoy fighting each other so much that neither party will accept a simple common sense solution like this.

1 | ... | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41