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 | 9 | ... | 26

I iz your trusted friend
5877 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 151

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#665407 1-Aug-2012 13:47

stevenz: 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.

Precisely... Just because a couple are homosexual, it doesn't make them athiest/agnostic.

Internet is my backyard...

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

Please read the Geekzone's FUG

stevenz

2802 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 125

#665409 1-Aug-2012 13:49

KevinL:
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).

Very true, I'd hope that someone in that situation would've taken their business elsewhere (as it were), you're bound to get the odd bloody-minded individual(s) though who are out to prove a point. Given the easy availability of alternatives, I'd have little sympathy in that scenario.

@KnightNZ

chiefie

I iz your trusted friend
5877 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 151

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#665410 1-Aug-2012 13:49

KevinL: 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).

Not so much so, if the couple (and their family members) of Christian belief aren't made welcome by certain Christian group, the very least they would want to be "married" in, is by Christian leader that is equal and friendly, and fully understand that God's primary teaching is about Love. Christian Bible is fundamentally book of Love.

Internet is my backyard...

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

Please read the Geekzone's FUG

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 68

#665421 1-Aug-2012 13:52

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.

Just because I choose not to punch myself in the face doesn't mean I don't enjoy the freedom to do so.

I don't think the 'they probably wouldn't want to, so the fact they can't isn't a problem' argument doesn't really hold water.

As far as what The Church says I don't really think there is a 'The Church', as far as I know Catholics are the biggest single Christian authority. But there isn't an authority which says "As a Christian church you must..." for the purposes of our argument accept people who want to get married.

As I remember some Christians were a bit unhappy about Brian Tamaki calling himself a 'Bishop' but the ruling was there isn't anything stopping anybody calling themselves a bishop or whatever as there is not trade make or equivalent. The State, understandably, doesn't want any part in policing this kind of thing.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

#665428 1-Aug-2012 14:01

chiefie:
KevinL: 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).

Not so much so, if the couple (and their family members) of Christian belief aren't made welcome by certain Christian group, the very least they would want to be "married" in, is by Christian leader that is equal and friendly, and fully understand that God's primary teaching is about Love. Christian Bible is fundamentally book of Love.

Exactly my point - if the Catholic church won't marry you, then the Presbyterians probably will: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/7382511/Head-to-head-Same-sex-marriage

stevenz

2802 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 125

#665429 1-Aug-2012 14:02

As far as Church authority, I think it's covered by various combinations of the bible and that Ratzinger chap over in Italy.

Obviously Christianity/Catholicism aren't the only games in town though.

@KnightNZ

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#665437 1-Aug-2012 14:14

For avoidance of doubt, the member who introduced this bill to parliament has already clarified that religious organisations will still be free to choose who they will perform a marriage ceremony for, and as they are now.

Edit: Quote from this article on the NZ Herald

"Ms Wall re-emphasised yesterday that her legislation would change the state's definition of marriage, not the church's definition, and religious institutions would be free to opt out of marrying same-sex couples."

Twitter: ajobbins

Jaxson

8172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1332

Trusted

#665480 1-Aug-2012 14:55

I used to think that the term Marriage had been secured already, probably mentally thinking church/state etc had/owned it. Therefore they had first call on what exactly constituted a marriage. Meaning then, if they had defined it as being between a man and a hot lady, then you were simply out of luck if you didn't fit that definition.

However, now I'm of the opinion that the churches can't claim the term Marriage as their own. Sort of like you're not allowed to copyright a term that's too generic. What's lead me to this way of thinking is pretty simply: I (a man) am Married, (to a hot woman), but I'm not religious in any way. So I don't consider my marriage (ceremony was not religious and was not held in a church) to be linked to religion, and therefore who are churches to define the meaning of the term?

My 'contract' is between my wife and I, and was officiated by an approved representative of the state. If the government modifies the definition of the word, then that's OK with me, and as previously mentioned by others, will have little impact (ie none) on my existing marriage.

menabassily

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 3
Inactive user

#665486 1-Aug-2012 15:02

Jaxson: I used to think that the term Marriage had been secured already, probably mentally thinking church/state etc had/owned it. Therefore they had first call on what exactly constituted a marriage. Meaning then, if they had defined it as being between a man and a hot lady, then you were simply out of luck if you didn't fit that definition.

However, now I'm of the opinion that the churches can't claim the term Marriage as their own. Sort of like you're not allowed to copyright a term that's too generic. What's lead me to this way of thinking is pretty simply: I (a man) am Married, (to a hot woman), but I'm not religious in any way. So I don't consider my marriage (ceremony was not religious and was not held in a church) to be linked to religion, and therefore who are churches to define the meaning of the term?

My 'contract' is between my wife and I, and was officiated by an approved representative of the state. If the government modifies the definition of the word, then that's OK with me, and as previously mentioned by others, will have little impact (ie none) on my existing marriage.

Interesting thoughts. Let's not forget that Christianity is the not the only religion here, Islam for example is a religion and in Islam you're allowed to get married to up to 4 (yes FOUR) women at the same time

. Nobody can argue with that, because the religion allows it.

Anyway, all we need to do is make up a new church, something like this one here. Once it gets recognized by the govt, this church can have its OWN definition of marriage, and also authorised to authorise marriages

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#665492 1-Aug-2012 15:08

menabassily: Interesting thoughts. Let's not forget that Christianity is the not the only religion here, Islam for example is a religion and in Islam you're allowed to get married to up to 4 (yes FOUR) women at the same time . Nobody can argue with that, because the religion allows it.

Anyway, all we need to do is make up a new church, something like this one here. Once it gets recognized by the govt, this church can have its OWN definition of marriage, and also authorised to authorise marriages .

Just to clarify your point, under the current law, only one marriage would be recognised in law. If your religion is Islam, your church may allow you to have four wives, however the state only recognises one.

In the same way now that you can have a 'ceremony' as a same sex couple and call it a marriage, however the state would currently not recognise your marraige in law.

Twitter: ajobbins

Jaxson

8172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1332

Trusted

#665494 1-Aug-2012 15:11

Regardless of the countries heritage, we're now a country (whether all NZ'r are aware of this or not), populated with and open to a vast array of worldly cultures and religions. I'd have to check the stats but it would appear we're still Christian predominately but with decreasing numbers each census year.

At the end of the day though, I don't think there is a need to have a significant link between religion and state. (Don't get me started on the likes of the lack of union representation deals previously for the Exclusive Brethren etc). Religions, as mentioned above, are free to go about their business as they see fit. They don't however have exclusive rights to define marriage to the entire country.

I think the government can define it however they like, as in NZ you still need a state marriage license, regardless of where and how you get married. A religious ceremony (of any flavour as mentioned above) does not exclude you from that.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

menabassily

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 3
Inactive user

#665496 1-Aug-2012 15:14

ajobbins:
Just to clarify your point, under the current law, only one marriage would be recognised in law. If your religion is Islam, your church may allow you to have four wives, however the state only recognises one.

In the same way now that you can have a 'ceremony' as a same sex couple and call it a marriage, however the state would currently not recognise your marraige in law.

I see, interesting too, but I guess my point is, if you want to get married by 'A' church, just make one. They've done that in Sweden. Then you can have your church ceremony and hopefully that religion you created allows champaign.

chiefie

I iz your trusted friend
5877 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 151

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#665497 1-Aug-2012 15:15

Jaxson: At the end of the day though, I don't think there is a need between religion and state. Religions, as mentioned above, are free to go about their business as they see fit. They don't however have exclusive rights to define marriage to the entire country.

I think the government can define it however they like, as in NZ you still need a state marriage license, regardless of where and how you get married. A religious ceremony (of any flavour as mentioned above) does not exclude you from that.

Key thing is, NZ has no state religion. Anyone is free to have any belief (or not)... it is not compulsory.

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

#665498 1-Aug-2012 15:16

chiefie:

Key thing is, NZ has no state religion. Anyone is free to have any belief (or not)... it is not compulsory.

Mark

1653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 555

#665562 1-Aug-2012 16:52

menabassily:

I see, interesting too, but I guess my point is, if you want to get married by 'A' church, just make one. They've done that in Sweden. Then you can have your church ceremony and hopefully that religion you created allows champaign.

I've always wanted to start my own church/religion ... for purely humanitarian reasons of course, never to profit from the gullible ...

anyone want to join ? Just 10% of you salary annually for the rest of your life to me the church and your soul will be kept safe in a jar so you can go off sinning with risk of tarnishing it.

Disclaimers.
1) The jar may or may not protect your soul
2) Your soul may or may not be possible to extract and put in jar
3) Only 1 jar so souls may mix, soul returned may or may not be your original

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 26