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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 41

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#787746 27-Mar-2013 11:34

Klipspringer: This bill is NOT about my rights. This is about Gay rights. What extra rights will gay couples receive if the defenition of marriage is changed instead of the existing civil union

But yes. Totally over the moon about it. They just can't use the word "marriage". Because in my opinion marriage is between man and woman.

I already answered this back here. Civil Unions can never be extended to be equal to marriage.

Twitter: ajobbins

billgates

4705 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#787747 27-Mar-2013 11:35

I hope they change the defenition of marriage to allow gay couples to have the same right as a man and women. I along with any other inidividual out there has no right to stamp the meaning of word marriage only between man and a women.

Do whatever you want to do man.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#787748 27-Mar-2013 11:39

ajobbins:
I already answered this back here. Civil Unions can never be extended to be equal to marriage.

Its not meant to equal marriage and it never will because marriage is about man and woman.

Civil unions can be extended to apply the exact same rights to gay couples.

Are we talking about gay rights here? If so lets discuss what rights civil union couples cannot receive opposed to being legally married.

Im not gay. What rights will I not be entitled to if I had to have rather entered a cilvil union between my wife. Hetrosexual couples can also have a civil union. So tell me what would have been the difference for me?

Im confused. It all seems to be about gay rights! But nobody can tell me what rights civil union couples cannot receive opposed to being married.

da5id

550 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#787749 27-Mar-2013 11:40

Funny how people can bitch about a poll when the results aren't to their liking and try to downplay any meaning in it, yet if the poll had supported gay marriage it would have been promoted as proof of what the country wants (as other polls have been in the past).

I also think it's hypocritical when people bitch about lobbying by right-wing groups or conservatives, because lobbying is only supposed to be done by progressive liberals (and yes i am being sarcastic, but it seems to be the thought).

sittingduckz

680 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#787758 27-Mar-2013 11:46

Klipspringer:
networkn:

So again, you have no issue with what's happening you just don't want it called marriage?

Spot on.

That has got to be the worst argument against gay marriage I heard yet!! Are you serious?

This is also a definition of marriage:

Any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
Synonyms: blend, merger, unity,oneness; alliance, confederation.
Antonyms: separation,division, disunion, schism.

I'm not a complete idiot, I still have some parts missing.

da5id

550 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#787759 27-Mar-2013 11:46

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#787760 27-Mar-2013 11:47

billgates: I hope they change the defenition of marriage to allow gay couples to have the same right as a man and women. I along with any other inidividual out there has no right to stamp the meaning of word marriage only between man and a women.

Then that applies to every word in the English Dictionary!

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#787763 27-Mar-2013 11:50

sittingduckz:
Klipspringer:
networkn:

So again, you have no issue with what's happening you just don't want it called marriage?

Spot on.

That has got to be the worst argument against gay marriage I heard yet!! Are you serious?

This is also a definition of marriage:

Any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
Synonyms: blend, merger, unity,oneness; alliance, confederation.
Antonyms: separation,division, disunion, schism.

And my definition from the Oxford dictionary:

noun 1the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:she has three children from a previous marriage

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#787766 27-Mar-2013 11:53

Klipspringer:

What extra "rights" are gay couples going to receive if the definition of marriage is changed instead of the current civil union?

I thought of one LOL

Gay couples don't currently have the right to divorce.

The word divorce means to formally end a marriage.

Anything else?

sittingduckz

680 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#787769 27-Mar-2013 11:54

Klipspringer:
sittingduckz:
Klipspringer:
networkn:

So again, you have no issue with what's happening you just don't want it called marriage?

Spot on.

That has got to be the worst argument against gay marriage I heard yet!! Are you serious?

This is also a definition of marriage:

Any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
Synonyms: blend, merger, unity,oneness; alliance, confederation.
Antonyms: separation,division, disunion, schism.

And my definition from the Oxford dictionary:

noun 1the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:she has three children from a previous marriage

As I said 'this is also a definition', I did not say it was the only definition!!! Learn to read!!

Obviously the Oxford dictionary is a legal binding document in your eyes

I'm not a complete idiot, I still have some parts missing.

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#787772 27-Mar-2013 11:56

Klipspringer: Its not meant to equal marriage and it never will because marriage is about man and woman.

That's your opinion. The law can (and will) differ

Im not gay. What rights will I not be entitled to if I had to have rather entered a cilvil union between my wife. Hetrosexual couples can also have a civil union. So tell me what would have been the difference for me?

The post I linked to applies equally to heterosexual couples who choose a civil union over a marriage. The difference is that they can have a marriage if they want to.

Twitter: ajobbins

NZtechfreak

4649 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#787782 27-Mar-2013 12:04

Oh, slippery-slope arguments have made it back into the fray. I really like it when people make these, because it automatically outs their viewpoint as invalid. Very convenient time-saver knowing who to completely ignore.

Twitter: @nztechfreak
Blogs: HeadphoNZ.org

da5id

550 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#787786 27-Mar-2013 12:06

freitasm:
Klipspringer:
freitasm: What rights are being taken away from you if the definition of marriage is changed instead of the current civil union?

This bill is NOT about my rights. This is about Gay rights. What extra rights will gay couples receive if the defenition of marriage is changed instead of the existing civil union

Well, then. If it's not about your rights (or someone else's rights being taking away), I see no reason to be against it.

As I said, giving rights to human beings is always good.

Is it? What about the right of a man to marry his sister, or cousin? Or to marry someone under age? or to marry more than one person? or to marry his dog? 'Discrimination' does not always mean 'bad' and the State rightly discriminates against certain types of marriage, including (at the moment) gay marriage.

Proponents of same-sex marriage are fond of saying, "there should be no law against love". Well, "love" is not a criteria we use to decide who can marry. And if it's OK for gay couples to marry, why not multiple partners? Won't those who wish to marry more than one person still be discriminated against? Based on what? What is the difference?

If you think polygamy can't happen in this country; think again. There is already a push for it in Australia by a new group called the Polyamory Action Lobby who have started a petition at change.org that reads -

The House of Representatives For too long has Australia denied people the right to marry the ones they care about. We find this abhorrent. We believe that everyone should be allowed to marry their partners, and that the law should never be a barrier to love. And that’s why we demand nothing less than the full recognition of polyamorous families.

THIS is their Facebook page.

Last year in Australia at a debate taking place as part of a writers festival, one lesbian author, Russian-American journalist Masha Gessen, taking part in the debate said -

It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist [cheers from the audience].

That causes my brain some trouble. And part of why it causes me trouble is because fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago. I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally….

[After my divorce,] I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three…. And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality. And I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.

So, a little bit of honesty there.

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#787810 27-Mar-2013 12:13

Klipspringer:And my definition from the Oxford dictionary:

noun 1the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:she has three children from a previous marriage

If you are going to quote the dictionary definition, quote the whole thing not just the bit that suits your own argument.

Any by the way, we don't write laws based on 'what the dictionary says'.

Twitter: ajobbins

da5id

550 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#787821 27-Mar-2013 12:19

ajobbins:
Klipspringer:And my definition from the Oxford dictionary:

noun 1the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:she has three children from a previous marriage

If you are going to quote the dictionary definition, quote the whole thing not just the bit that suits your own argument.

Any by the way, we don't write laws based on 'what the dictionary says'.

Under the dictionary definition of 'Dinner' you could just as easily write, '(in some jurisdictions) the cannibalism or eating of one's enemies or other persons'. Just because some people are doing it, doesn't mean it's right. In fact, someone famously said - "Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right."

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 41