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

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#864623 23-Jul-2013 20:35

Klipspringer:
tardtasticx:
alasta:
Klipspringer: Now why on earth would ZM go and stir the pot like this? All its doing is creating hatred and widening the gap between groups of people.

I agree. Why would someone want to be married in a church that is philosophically opposed to the nature of that marriage? The only motivation I can think of is an antagonistic one.

Thats just silly and you know it. Everyone wants to do their wedding in their own way, some in a church and some not.

Are you going to say that my parents have antagonistic motifs for wanting to marry into a church? My mum was married once before and divorced, she conceived me before she was married to my father (though was not born), yet they still wanted to marry in a church. The church said no because of these reasons.

Now because my parents and many other couples who were in a similar situation are straight, you don't think that its antagonistic for them to do this? But the moment a gay couple wants to get married in a church, and have a beautiful wedding with all their friends and family, just like everyone else can, you think they're trying to get one over on religion and bring down the church. Sounds pretty logical to me.

I cant get married in a Catholic church because I am not catholic.

Are u saying that gay couples should be able to marry in Catholic churches despite their religion?

To add to this: I would not want to get married in a Catholic church simply because the church does not share the same faith as me. Is that discrimination? Not at all.

But obviously the "gay agenda" would think otherwise.

I'm not saying that at all, you're not reading my posts entirely.
I was trying to get the point across that some gay couples want to get married in a church, just like some straight couples do.
I said nowhere in there that churches should be forced to marry couples that don't agree to it, but you seem to think that if a couple wants what everyone else has, they must be antagonistic.

OMG can you quit with the gay agenda thing? Its not funny the first few years the homophobe used it, drop it. What do you think we do? Have a big list on google docs where all the gays have a special login, and we just think of things and go add to the list whenever we feel we want 'extra rights'? It must be a pretty long list now.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#864638 23-Jul-2013 20:45

well that just about sums up Alasta's post. Anyone else feeling the need to vent or make a point about nothing much.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#864639 23-Jul-2013 20:47

I cannot for the life of me understand why people are against two men or two women wanting to commit in a legal, publicly acknowledged relationship and present themselves openly and freely as a couple. It has no affect on anyone else, it will not cause our society collapse, I believe it strengthens our society.

It is something should have always been.

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

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#864641 23-Jul-2013 20:50

jeffnz: well that just about sums up Alasta's post. Anyone else feeling the need to vent or make a point about nothing much.

Exactly what I was thinking!

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#864643 23-Jul-2013 20:51

KiwiNZ: I cannot for the life of me understand why people are against two men or two women wanting to commit in a legal, publicly acknowledged relationship and present themselves openly and freely as a couple.

Neither can I. The role or involvement of the state is what's in question.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#864645 23-Jul-2013 20:57

alasta:
KiwiNZ: I cannot for the life of me understand why people are against two men or two women wanting to commit in a legal, publicly acknowledged relationship and present themselves openly and freely as a couple.

Neither can I. The role or involvement of the state is what's in question.

The is needed due to the legal matters concerning marriage. It would be better if the state had no involvement in marriage period.

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

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#864653 23-Jul-2013 21:10

KiwiNZ:
alasta: Neither can I. The role or involvement of the state is what's in question.

The is needed due to the legal matters concerning marriage. It would be better if the state had no involvement in marriage period.

I agree with you, and I think getting the state out of the business of marriage is the ideal that we should be pursuing.

When you think about it the legal concept of marriage does nothing more than conveniently package up a small collection of contractual rights and obligations which could be established through other means such as family trusts.

As long as we have the state involved in marriage we are going to have this never ending bunfight over who it should be available to, under what conditions does it apply, what contractual elements should it include, etc.

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#864656 23-Jul-2013 21:11

alasta:
tardtasticx: Are you going to say that my parents have antagonistic motifs for wanting to marry into a church? My mum was married once before and divorced, she conceived me before she was married to my father (though was not born), yet they still wanted to marry in a church. The church said no because of these reasons.

So did they move on and do it elsewhere, or did they whine and moan about the church making a decision that it was well within its rights to make? If the latter then yes, that would be antagonistic.

Churches, like very other property owner, shouldn't have to justify what they do or don't allow under their watch even if their rules are irrational or ill conceived.

They held a wedding at a non-religious building, much to the disappointment of my grandparents I believe.

And no I don't believe churches should be forced to marry people they don't want, I don't think thats right.
But just because someone wants to be married in a church that wouldn't normally let them, it doesn't mean they're horrible people and antagonists. But theres no harm in trying or wanting to do so.

Thats like saying that I want the bank to give me a $1m mortgage right now so I can get a nice house. But being a 19year old student with no full-time income, it goes against what the bank wants would normally do. It doesn't stop me wanting it though, and if I went and tried to get it knowing full well I wouldn't be approved, it doesn't mean I have antagonistic motifs, I'm simply following what I want to do. Nothing wrong with that, though my credit rating may say otherwise after.

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#864663 23-Jul-2013 21:20

tardtasticx: And no I don't believe churches should be forced to marry people they don't want, I don't think thats right.
But just because someone wants to be married in a church that wouldn't normally let them, it doesn't mean they're horrible people and antagonists. But theres no harm in trying or wanting to do so.

I still don't understand why anyone would want to hold a ceremony at a church that fundamentally disagrees with the nature of the ceremony, but it sounds like you're proposing a scenario where you would ask the church to host the ceremony and respectfully accept if they refuse. That's entirely reasonable and I personally have no problem with it.

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#864669 23-Jul-2013 21:31

alasta:
tardtasticx: And no I don't believe churches should be forced to marry people they don't want, I don't think thats right.
But just because someone wants to be married in a church that wouldn't normally let them, it doesn't mean they're horrible people and antagonists. But theres no harm in trying or wanting to do so.

I still don't understand why anyone would want to hold a ceremony at a church that fundamentally disagrees with the nature of the ceremony, but it sounds like you're proposing a scenario where you would ask the church to host the ceremony and respectfully accept if they refuse. That's entirely reasonable and I personally have no problem with it.

Its just one of those things, some people have always grown up wanting to be married in a church because its just that thing you do I guess. I would want to get married in a church if I could, but I wouldn't be too unhappy if I couldn't because theres still other options out there, but I can see how others would be pretty annoyed if its what they've always had their mind set on doing.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 95
Inactive user

#864683 23-Jul-2013 21:50

tardtasticx: But just because someone wants to be married in a church that wouldn't normally let them, it doesn't mean they're horrible people...

True.

...and antagonists.

Debatable.

Genuine question: for a non-religious person, what is the attraction of getting married in a church? I honestly don't get it. Please can somebody help me understand...

[edit: I was writing this post while the previous two posts were written.]

But theres no harm in trying or wanting to do so.

Well, maybe not intended harm... but the trying in itself can be antagonistic even without the request itself being overtly antagonistic for any other reason. I'd liken such a request to asking a religious Jew to eat pork - if you understood and respected their beliefs you just wouldn't
do it.

Churches are not just pretty buildings or convenient auditoriums in their community's eyes. When you put yourself in the position of the church members who think of their building as a holy place of worship and think of homosexuality as being outside the design of their God, I don't think it is so hard to see why somebody asking to use the church for a homosexual marriage might be considered disrespectful.

Thats like saying that I want the bank to give me a $1m mortgage right now so I can get a nice house. But being a 19year old student with no full-time income, it goes against what the bank wants would normally do.

I don't think this analogy really captures the attitude and depth of feeling of the church towards their building or their perception of a homosexual couple. The bank might think of the student as cheeky for trying it on; the church might take deep-seated offence.

It doesn't stop me wanting it though, and if I went and tried to get it knowing full well I wouldn't be approved, it doesn't mean I have antagonistic motifs, I'm simply following what I want to do. Nothing wrong with that, though my credit rating may say otherwise after.

If you genuinely think this is an accurate analogy... well I don't know what to say except encourage you to get to know some religious people and ask them about their attitude towards their place of worship.

HP

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

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#864708 23-Jul-2013 22:09

mm1352000:
tardtasticx: But just because someone wants to be married in a church that wouldn't normally let them, it doesn't mean they're horrible people...

True.

...and antagonists.

Debatable.

Genuine question: for a non-religious person, what is the attraction of getting married in a church? I honestly don't get it. Please can somebody help me understand...

[edit: I was writing this post while the previous two posts were written.]

But theres no harm in trying or wanting to do so.

Well, maybe not intended harm... but the trying in itself can be antagonistic even without the request itself being overtly antagonistic for any other reason. I'd liken such a request to asking a religious Jew to eat pork - if you understood and respected their beliefs you just wouldn't
do it.

Churches are not just pretty buildings or convenient auditoriums in their community's eyes. When you put yourself in the position of the church members who think of their building as a holy place of worship and think of homosexuality as being outside the design of their God, I don't think it is so hard to see why somebody asking to use the church for a homosexual marriage might be considered disrespectful.

Thats like saying that I want the bank to give me a $1m mortgage right now so I can get a nice house. But being a 19year old student with no full-time income, it goes against what the bank wants would normally do.

I don't think this analogy really captures the attitude and depth of feeling of the church towards their building or their perception of a homosexual couple. The bank might think of the student as cheeky for trying it on; the church might take deep-seated offence.

It doesn't stop me wanting it though, and if I went and tried to get it knowing full well I wouldn't be approved, it doesn't mean I have antagonistic motifs, I'm simply following what I want to do. Nothing wrong with that, though my credit rating may say otherwise after.

If you genuinely think this is an accurate analogy... well I don't know what to say except encourage you to get to know some religious people and ask them about their attitude towards their place of worship.

I see what you're getting at, and if I knew that something was offensive I wouldn't but sometimes its hard to see where a church stands until you ask.
There are some churches that do gay weddings and some that outright refuse, but most won't openly have it on a wall or something about what they do and don't like.

And yeah I guess thats not the best analogy I could have used but the idea behind it is similar.

If I knew a church didn't want me to be married there, then of course I wouldn't go ask because it'd just be taking the piss out of them and thats not something I'd do, but asking a legitimate question isn't something that should be frowned upon because how else would you know? You have to ask for permission to marry there anyway, just like if you'd be married before but the church didn't agree with that. Or if you didn't belong to their faith. People get turned down for that all the time so why is this any different if you didn't know?

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 95
Inactive user

#864719 23-Jul-2013 22:29

tardtasticx: People get turned down for that all the time so why is this any different if you didn't know?

Excellent question. :)
From a church perspective there would be an element of "assumed knowledge". In other words, the default answer/position has traditionally been "no". I would have thought it would still be quite exceptional for a church to permit or endorse homosexual weddings in their building, but maybe I'm out of touch. In very loose terms there is probably some kind of correlation between conservativeness, churches that would say no, and churches that would take offence... not that it is necessarily any easier to judge how conservative a church is! :)

rossmnz

507 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 31

#864732 23-Jul-2013 22:54

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?

The "evidence" is flawed due to measuring a cross-stratum of society socio-economically with a certain part of society ie more mature, well placed financially, older.

If you compared young maori parents vs older asian or white for example, the same trends would occur - and it wouldnt be as a result of ethnicity!

My point is that being queer or not is the smallest part of the evidence here.

1080p:
rossmnz: I contend that the study is not "comparing apples with apples". It should also be noted that the person doing the research is homosexual himself with two adopted kids - Im not saying that this makes the research invalid - just that it needs to be considered.

I'm not sure why the sexual orientation of the researcher would matter.

It would matter as the researchers position on the topic could cloud/shade views. Like Mr Klippspringers right wing researchers, lets just say Im not overly inclined to believe that their is no agenda here.

Look, I dont know about you Mr 1080p but I know that when I grew up there was certain things that my mother/father taught me about life that the other wasnt equipped to teach.

Then as the study in question actually points out - it does not consider emotional health ie bullying etc.

Personally I would not want my son to be raised by either gay or lesbians should I pass away as Id consider him to be a more rounded, well adjusted person if he were raised by a heterosexual family - all other things being equal - the same way in which Id prefer to stick around and raise him with my wife than have her raise him alone.

Its just common sense!

The force is strong with this one!

rossmnz

507 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 31

#864734 23-Jul-2013 22:57

Cuddling up in front of the fire on this....

The force is strong with this one!

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