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 | 10 | 11 | ... | 26

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#665882 2-Aug-2012 09:06

tardtasticx:
My view on this,??
Id like to see it brought into law, its time we move into the 21st century, and accept humans for what they are

Marriage has been the optimal arrangement for successfully bearing and raising children. For obvious reasons, this excludes gay people.

This guy explains it well...

http://richardtwaghorne.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/gay-marriage/

Interestingly there is some rather nasty name calling (thanks to the admin for cleaning it up), and it always seems to originate from those supporting gay-marriage. The above article addresses that point too.

reven

3748 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 874

Trusted

#665883 2-Aug-2012 09:08

just going to add this.

i fully support gay marriage. i say bring it into law.

thats it, my 2 cents.

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#665885 2-Aug-2012 09:16

surfisup1000:

Marriage has been the optimal arrangement for successfully bearing and raising children. For obvious reasons, this excludes gay people.

This guy explains it well...

http://richardtwaghorne.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/gay-marriage/

Interestingly there is some rather nasty name calling (thanks to the admin for cleaning it up), and it always seems to originate from those supporting gay-marriage. The above article addresses that point too.

Oh look, you brought the "bearing and raising children" BS into it after I asked everyone not to.

So why exactly should equal marriage remain illegal just because _supposedly_ marriage between a man and a woman is the "optimal arrangement"?

Not only that, even if it is "redifining" marriage, so what? Words change their meanings over time and society changes. If you people had your way, we'd still be stuck in the dark ages or wondering around deserts.

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 32

#665890 2-Aug-2012 09:27

kyhwana2: Oh look, you brought the "bearing and raising children" BS into it after I asked everyone not to.

So why exactly should equal marriage remain illegal just because _supposedly_ marriage between a man and a woman is the "optimal arrangement"?

Not only that, even if it is "redifining" marriage, so what? Words change their meanings over time and society changes. If you people had your way, we'd still be stuck in the dark ages or wondering around deserts.

I think the article itself answers your question.
Some further expansion on the discussion here, in case you didn't see it also
http://richardtwaghorne.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/gay-marriage-responses-to-responses/

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#665897 2-Aug-2012 09:39

Skolink:
kyhwana2: Oh look, you brought the "bearing and raising children" BS into it after I asked everyone not to.

So why exactly should equal marriage remain illegal just because _supposedly_ marriage between a man and a woman is the "optimal arrangement"?

Not only that, even if it is "redifining" marriage, so what? Words change their meanings over time and society changes. If you people had your way, we'd still be stuck in the dark ages or wondering around deserts.

I think the article itself answers your question.
Some further expansion on the discussion here, in case you didn't see it also
http://richardtwaghorne.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/gay-marriage-responses-to-responses/

I read the article, it infact does not answer my question and as above, there's no answer to my "so what if we redefine" the word "marriage".
If equal marriage isn't about children, why do people keep bringing it up all the time? It smacks of the "Won't someone think of the children!" BS.

Again, why can't we redefine what the word marriage means? (Note also that just including same sex couples as being able to be married in no diminishes the so called "best way to raise children" marriages that opposite sex couples get)
Please to be answering properly this time.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#665899 2-Aug-2012 09:40

kyhwana2:

Oh look, you brought the "bearing and raising children" BS into it after I asked everyone not to.

You asked everyone not to? On what basis do you claim such authority to censor debate?

And, why the swearing? I take it you did not read the linked article .

Rather than insult and swear or try to censor you, I will address your point.

One thing has not changed. Marriage is still the optimal structure for raising children. So, we should not change the rules around marriage until such time as it is no longer the optimal structure.

Lenovo

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

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#665901 2-Aug-2012 09:43

surfisup1000:
kyhwana2:

Oh look, you brought the "bearing and raising children" BS into it after I asked everyone not to.

You asked everyone not to? On what basis do you claim such authority to censor debate?

Because it's been done to death.

surfisup1000:

One thing has not changed. Marriage is still the optimal structure for raising children. So, we should not change the rules around marriage until such time as it is no longer the optimal structure.

As I said above, how is equal marriage destroying this so called "optimal structure for raising children"?

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#665903 2-Aug-2012 09:46

kyhwana2:

As I said above, how is equal marriage destroying this so called "optimal structure for raising children"?

Ummm.. 2 gay men bringing up young girls? I don't think so... Girls need their Moms, especially when they reach pubity. Can think of similar consequences for a boy being brought up by two lesbian women. Not saying it can’t be done, but its not in the child’s best interests. End of story.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#665907 2-Aug-2012 09:51

kyhwana2:
As I said above, how is equal marriage destroying this so called "optimal structure for raising children"?

Please quote where I said anything would be destroyed? You're the only one I've seen using the word 'destroyed'.

I just think it is useful to have a simple term which identifies the best arrangement for raising a family.

Otherwise, what word will we use?

Jaxson

8172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1332

Trusted

#665908 2-Aug-2012 09:54

Umm, I think religion has a weak link to what the modern state can now define as marriage.
I think a link to parenting is even weaker.

As mentioned by many others above, the situations being presented as reasons why gay marriage should not be allowed are eventuating right now, regardless of the current legal state definition of marriage.

Adoption perhaps being the only exception, in that I expect the current laws/procedures are similarly out of date and would need amending at the same time? I expect none of this would stand up to a human rights laws test but perhaps the civil union setup satisfies this?

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#665909 2-Aug-2012 09:55

surfisup1000: Marriage has been the optimal arrangement for successfully bearing and raising children. For obvious reasons, this excludes gay people.

What about couples who get married with either no intention to raise children, or knowing they can't (Eg. Infertility)? Should they be barred from getting married too, or do they get let off on a technicality?

Allowing same sex couples to marry doesn't change marriage being the 'optimal arrangement for raising children' anyway.

Twitter: ajobbins

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#665911 2-Aug-2012 09:56

ajobbins:
surfisup1000: Marriage has been the optimal arrangement for successfully bearing and raising children. For obvious reasons, this excludes gay people.

What about couples who get married with either no intention to raise children, or knowing they can't (Eg. Infertility)? Should they be barred from getting married too, or do they get let off on a technicality?

Allowing same sex couples to marry doesn't change marriage being the 'optimal arrangement for raising children' anyway.

Did you read the linked article above?

Perhaps not.

vinnieg

2260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#665916 2-Aug-2012 10:01

surfisup1000:
Did you read the linked article above?

Perhaps not.

I skipped it, like probably most others. As soon as I read Irish Daily Mail, it lost all credibility to me. It's almost as bad as The Guardian, ha ha

I'm married, yet I'm opposed to having children. Does that mean I shouldn't be married?

I have moved across the ditch. Now residing in Melbourne as a VOIP/Video Technical Trainer/Engineer.

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 32

#665921 2-Aug-2012 10:07

So the reasons for gay marriage rather than civil union are

1. Possibly better legal recognition of the relationship overseas
2. The ability to adopt
3. Having the same title/term as for a Male-Female relationship, (and therefore changing the perception of a 'lesser' relationship?)

Were there any others mentioned? Any other legal entitlements that civil union does not have, but marriage does?

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#665925 2-Aug-2012 10:10

surfisup1000: Did you read the linked article above?

Perhaps not.

Yep. I read it a a couple of days ago and just again now. It doesn't answer my question at all. I'd like your response anyway, not some foreign journalist.

Also, Please point out where in the NZ Legislation (Marriage Act 1955) it refers to Marriage being for procreative purposes? It is the law we are 'redefining' - and the law doesn't say it currently!

Twitter: ajobbins

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 26