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

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#865339 24-Jul-2013 19:45

kyhwana2: I added "where it impacts you" because, as an example, hospital staff recognising next of kin/spouse in a end of life/accident situation at a hospital.
What would it cost you personally if you disagree'd with gay marriage to let a same sex spouse see their dying partner?

What happens if I have a near fatal accident tomorrow? Will they just leave me to die on my own because I'm not married and therefore noone cares that I'm about to die?

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#865354 24-Jul-2013 20:06

Klipspringer:
kyhwana2:
Klipspringer:
kyhwana2:You'll be first against the wall, buddy.

That sounds like a scene from Brokeback Mountain

What, you're worried about that?
You should be me worried about being shot!

Is that a threat?

Not sure why you so highly strung?

Are you threatening to take society backwards and more conservative? (Lets say, like russia, for example. From my point of view, you're arguing that you want that)

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#865375 24-Jul-2013 21:16

kyhwana2:

Are you threatening to take society backwards and more conservative? (Lets say, like russia, for example. From my point of view, you're arguing that you want that)

WOW so much wrong with your statement.

There is no backwards and forwards for a society. Society moves in the direction that a democracy takes it.

If a democracy takes us back to being more conservative well that's the way it can and WILL go. There is no backwards.

rossmnz

507 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 31

#865913 25-Jul-2013 14:30

kyhwana2:
Klipspringer:
ajobbins:

I'm pleased you're not serious about the above list, but the question had to be asked. Unfortunately (IMHO), there are still plenty of people out there in the world who would wholeheartedly agree with the list above.

In life there are jobs which are better suited for men, jobs better suited for woman. I don't want to get into a debate about what these jobs are, its just the way the world is.

Some examples
Rugby coach
Mens sexual adviser

The same can be said about women jobs. Its the way the world works.

Now keeping the above in mind. The same can apply to families. There are certain tasks in a family structure that are better suited to the man of the house, and some better suited for the women. As I said earlier, there is no way that any man in this world would be able to be a better Mom to my kids than my wife.

The simple fact that the kids in a "gay family" are already living without at least one biological parent is not ideal. (yes they can turn out OK and sometimes better than maybe the average)

The same can be said for remarried parents. Or when one spouse dies. I am not denying that, all I am saying is that the absolute best family setup for kids would be biological parents, in a happy loving family.

And thats what the yard stick should be in all of these type of surveys. Not "New Zealand average". Heck if my kids turn out "New Zealand average" I will probably look back at myself one day and say that I have failed as a parent.

So, you're saying that women can't/"don't know how" to play rugby? Good work there.
As for a "men's sexual adviser", who do you think most men are having sex with?

Lets unwind this and look at it in a different context.

New Zealand supplies multiple coaches and star players to Japanese rugby, as do Australia, South Africa etc etc.

Is this racism or is it more a case of employment due to suitability to role?

No its not racist - its simply a market recognition of the fact that NZers etc are better and more knowledgeable at rugby than japanese are. Thats not to say that all NZers etc are better/more knowedgeable than all Japanese at rugby but in general they are. This is shown in market demand.

Now replace NZer etc with man, and Japanese with woman, racism with sexism and coaching/playing with "teaching kids about".

Its not racist, its not sexist, it just is!

Re: the general discussion - disagreeing with SSM does not make people raving homophobes.

I dont really care about who anyone sleeps with or whatever but morally and conceptually I think that giving Civil Unions the same status as marriages is the thing to do here.

I wouldnt dream of trying to force a mosque or temple or anything to marry me - as I do not follow that faith and do not propose to live by that faiths conceptual views of marriage.

What appears to be happening is that same sex couples want acknowledgement of their unions by the wider society by hijacking the term "marriage" which in the Anglosphere generally is synonomous with "holy matrimony".

Why anyone considers what anyone else thinks about their private business is beyond me - as long as its legally equal isnt that whats important?

Whats next? Will Terry and Joan and Andy down the road demand that society acknowledge them as "married" as they have been living together for 20 years and all love each other?

If their request to be able to be married is any less relevant than any same sex couples is then please tell me why?

The force is strong with this one!

BurningBeard

1030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 100

Trusted

#865924 25-Jul-2013 14:41

rossmnz:

What appears to be happening is that same sex couples want acknowledgement of their unions by the wider society by hijacking the term "marriage"...

Hijacking?

Are they taking it away from you?

My very metal Doctor Who theme

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#865930 25-Jul-2013 14:50

BurningBeard:
rossmnz:

What appears to be happening is that same sex couples want acknowledgement of their unions by the wider society by hijacking the term "marriage"...

Hijacking?

Are they taking it away from you?

I got what he was meaning as i think you did.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

Samsung

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

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#866230 25-Jul-2013 22:13

rossmnz: What appears to be happening is that same sex couples want acknowledgement of their unions by the wider society by hijacking the term "marriage" which in the Anglosphere generally is synonomous with "holy matrimony".

I think a lot of liberals are hoping that legislating for same sex marriage is going to change wider public perceptions in their favour, but I have my doubts about this. Those who oppose SSM are still flogging a dead horse long after the legislation has passed, and in a wider sense I think it would be detrimental for people to use legislation to guide their philosophical views or major decisions.

BurningBeard

1030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 100

Trusted

#866428 26-Jul-2013 10:47

jeffnz: I got what he was meaning as i think you did.

Nope.

"Hijacking", to me, suggests it's going to somehow affect, or take something away from marriage for straight people too.

My very metal Doctor Who theme

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#866467 26-Jul-2013 11:31

BurningBeard:
jeffnz: I got what he was meaning as i think you did.

Nope.

"Hijacking", to me, suggests it's going to somehow affect, or take something away from marriage for straight people too.

"Hijacking" was probably a bad choice of words, but I think what he was getting at is that there's an attempt to change the generally accepted dictionary definition of a word rather than introducing fresh terminology. People often remind me that language is always evolving, but to my mind we should resist that because language cannot fulfil its primary purpose unless there are consistently understood definitions and conventions around it.

The fact that I don't know what a "straight person" is in this context demonstrates why language should be used correctly in order to facilitate clear communication across different sectors of society.

BurningBeard

1030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 100

Trusted

#866505 26-Jul-2013 12:00

alasta: "Hijacking" was probably a bad choice of words, but I think what he was getting at is that there's an attempt to change the generally accepted dictionary definition of a word rather than introducing fresh terminology.

Dictionary.com tells me:
"a legally, religiously, or socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond"

Gender isn't mentioned. Though I'm sure there's other dictionaries that do mention it.

I just can't see it making any waves or rocking the boat that much. I find the resistance to it baffling (not that it makes a lick of a difference; it's here now.)

alasta:The fact that I don't know what a "straight person" is in this context...

Should that even matter? What major hiccups would this cause you?

My very metal Doctor Who theme

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#866506 26-Jul-2013 12:07

BurningBeard:
alasta: The fact that I don't know what a "straight person" is in this context...

Should that even matter? What major hiccups would this cause you?

It doesn't matter to me, but if you want to debate this issue then you're wasting your time unless you use language that your opponents (i.e. social conservatives) can understand.