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 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 41

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#787825 27-Mar-2013 12:22

da5id: 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.

You can't marry your sister or your cousin because sexual relations (An element common to almost all marriage-like relationships) can cause physical harm (problems with biological offspring as a result of inbreeding). You can't marry a child (or your dog) because they are not legally able to provide consent. The issue here is with the relationship itself, marriage is a flow on.

In the case of same-sex relationships, you can only use the above argument if you fundamentally this homosexual relationships are wrong and should be illegal - in which case you are not only fighting the wrong law, you are on the wrong side of history.

Twitter: ajobbins

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#787826 27-Mar-2013 12:22

Klipspringer:
networkn:

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

Spot on.

+ Spot on.

And repeating myself, that for myself, for reasons I have explained regarding how many hold the word marriage as representing a special type of relationship that they have and I believe that they have a right to have that protected and respected by others. Instead gays (the public face of them anyway) deny them that right and are just totally dismissive of it without consideration.

Along the same lines, and adding to what I posted before, some modern dictionaries give a warning about use of the word "gay". In my Oxford Dictionary of English it says "The word gay cannot be readily used unselfconsciously today in these older senses (my note: referring to all the other meanings and pre-existing meanings of gay) without raising a sense of double entendre."

What gives gays the right to usurp control of this word and for them to get upset if people use gay in other senses in interviews, etc? Furthermore, I assume that their adoption of the word gay (my understanding is that homosexuals themselves promoted the calling of themselves as gays) was because of the positive connotations all of the existing meanings of gay has. Now they are telling us we can't use those other useful meanings without their being offended (and in the case of gay leaders, telling us that our doing so will cause gays to commit suicide (e.g. ref. Interviews with gay movement leaders regarding the gay shirt quotation incident, and in which "jumping off bridges" were also mentioned).

So gays (the public face anyway, because I know many individuals are different) are intent on usurping the rights of others, not just gaining them.

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#787831 27-Mar-2013 12:24

da5id: 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.

My point is, you can't use the 'dictionary definition' to support the argument against SSM, as several people in this thread have tried to.

"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."

'Morals' are individually subjective. What you think is 'morally' wrong I may not, and there is no authority on 'morals'.

Twitter: ajobbins

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#787838 27-Mar-2013 12:29

John2010:And repeating myself, that for myself, for reasons I have explained regarding how many hold the word marriage as representing a special type of relationship that they have and I believe that they have a right to have that protected and respected by others.

You can hold whatever view of a word you like. What you can't do is try suppress the rights of others who don't conform to your personal view or believe about what a word means.

Twitter: ajobbins

sittingduckz

680 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#787846 27-Mar-2013 12:33

John2010:
Klipspringer:
networkn:

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

Spot on.

+ Spot on.

And repeating myself, that for myself, for reasons I have explained regarding how many hold the word marriage as representing a special type of relationship that they have and I believe that they have a right to have that protected and respected by others. Instead gays (the public face of them anyway) deny them that right and are just totally dismissive of it without consideration.

Along the same lines, and adding to what I posted before, some modern dictionaries give a warning about use of the word "gay". In my Oxford Dictionary of English it says "The word gay cannot be readily used unselfconsciously today in these older senses (my note: referring to all the other meanings and pre-existing meanings of gay) without raising a sense of double entendre."

What gives gays the right to usurp control of this word and for them to get upset if people use gay in other senses in interviews, etc? Furthermore, I assume that their adoption of the word gay (my understanding is that homosexuals themselves promoted the calling of themselves as gays) was because of the positive connotations all of the existing meanings of gay has. Now they are telling us we can't use those other useful meanings without their being offended (and in the case of gay leaders, telling us that our doing so will cause gays to commit suicide (e.g. ref. Interviews with gay movement leaders regarding the gay shirt quotation incident, and in which "jumping off bridges" were also mentioned).

So gays (the public face anyway, because I know many individuals are different) are intent on usurping the rights of others, not just gaining them.

So you are also fighting against people who use the word marriage incorrectly ie. Immigration purposes, Marriages of convienience, Gold digging?

Or is it just the Gays you are against?

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

da5id

550 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#787871 27-Mar-2013 12:44

ajobbins:
da5id: 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.

My point is, you can't use the 'dictionary definition' to support the argument against SSM, as several people in this thread have tried to.

"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."

'Morals' are individually subjective. What you think is 'morally' wrong I may not, and there is no authority on 'morals'.

That depends if you believe in God or not.

But in your case you're saying that you do not believe there is an objective Right and Wrong? It's just what each individual thinks is right and wrong?

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#787875 27-Mar-2013 12:46

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.

Not sure about that. I think within reason.

If you were given the right to shoot people ad hoc, would that be good? Possibly not.

I do look back and see rights that have been given which have been less than excellent. The right to drink at 18 has, I think, not been an unmitigated success.

I would also support removing the right of children to drive on public roads, which they presently have in NZ.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

da5id

550 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#787878 27-Mar-2013 12:49

ajobbins:
da5id: 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.

You can't marry your sister or your cousin because sexual relations (An element common to almost all marriage-like relationships) can cause physical harm (problems with biological offspring as a result of inbreeding). You can't marry a child (or your dog) because they are not legally able to provide consent. The issue here is with the relationship itself, marriage is a flow on.

In the case of same-sex relationships, you can only use the above argument if you fundamentally this homosexual relationships are wrong and should be illegal - in which case you are not only fighting the wrong law, you are on the wrong side of history.

ps, the "wrong side of history' is a Marxist idea.

You see the point. “Right side of history” is a claim deployed in political debate to delegitimate one’s opponents. It’s one thing to claim that events and social processes are moving in a particular direction, such that this or that goal is likely to be realized. It’s something very different to claim that History is a moral, even metaphysical, force that’s progressing towards a morally desirable conclusion. There’s no reason to believe this at all.

sittingduckz

680 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#787881 27-Mar-2013 12:52

Geektastic:
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.

Not sure about that. I think within reason.

If you were given the right to shoot people ad hoc, would that be good? Possibly not.

I do look back and see rights that have been given which have been less than excellent. The right to drink at 18 has, I think, not been an unmitigated success.

I would also support removing the right of children to drive on public roads, which they presently have in NZ.

Shooting people has a major negative effect on others especially the shotee

18yr olds drinking isn't great but, mostly only impacts on a small group

Children driving on public roads would endanger others greatly

If a gay couple marries you don't get shot, or vomited on by an 18yr old, or crashed into by a child driving... in fact it has no effect on you at all

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

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#787886 27-Mar-2013 12:54

sittingduckz:
Geektastic:
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.

Not sure about that. I think within reason.

If you were given the right to shoot people ad hoc, would that be good? Possibly not.

I do look back and see rights that have been given which have been less than excellent. The right to drink at 18 has, I think, not been an unmitigated success.

I would also support removing the right of children to drive on public roads, which they presently have in NZ.

Shooting people has a major negative effect on others especially the shotee

18yr olds drinking isn't great but, mostly only impacts on a small group

Children driving on public roads would endanger others greatly

If a gay couple marries you don't get shot, or vomited on by an 18yr old, or crashed into by a child driving... in fact it has no effect on you at all

I never claimed it did. I was responding to the concept that giving rights to human beings is always good. It isn't.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#787889 27-Mar-2013 12:57

ajobbins:

You can't marry your sister or your cousin because sexual relations (An element common to almost all marriage-like relationships) can cause physical harm (problems with biological offspring as a result of inbreeding). You can't marry a child (or your dog) because they are not legally able to provide consent. The issue here is with the relationship itself, marriage is a flow on.

So you happy that gay brothers can get married but not heterosexual brothers and sisters?

And what about brothers and sisters where the male is castrated? Your argument is flawed.

And PS: Who are you to tell me I can't marry my sister?

Hang on... Slippery slope approaching...

sittingduckz

680 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#787893 27-Mar-2013 13:00

Geektastic:
sittingduckz:
Geektastic:
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.

Not sure about that. I think within reason.

If you were given the right to shoot people ad hoc, would that be good? Possibly not.

I do look back and see rights that have been given which have been less than excellent. The right to drink at 18 has, I think, not been an unmitigated success.

I would also support removing the right of children to drive on public roads, which they presently have in NZ.

Shooting people has a major negative effect on others especially the shotee

18yr olds drinking isn't great but, mostly only impacts on a small group

Children driving on public roads would endanger others greatly

If a gay couple marries you don't get shot, or vomited on by an 18yr old, or crashed into by a child driving... in fact it has no effect on you at all

I never claimed it did. I was responding to the concept that giving rights to human beings is always good. It isn't.

Well don't use bogus comparisons.

Nobody has yet come up with a decent convincing reason (IMO) why it is bad.

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

da5id

550 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#787894 27-Mar-2013 13:00

sittingduckz:
Geektastic:
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.

Not sure about that. I think within reason.

If you were given the right to shoot people ad hoc, would that be good? Possibly not.

I do look back and see rights that have been given which have been less than excellent. The right to drink at 18 has, I think, not been an unmitigated success.

I would also support removing the right of children to drive on public roads, which they presently have in NZ.

Shooting people has a major negative effect on others especially the shotee

18yr olds drinking isn't great but, mostly only impacts on a small group

Children driving on public roads would endanger others greatly

If a gay couple marries you don't get shot, or vomited on by an 18yr old, or crashed into by a child driving... in fact it has no effect on you at all

Maybe not on you, but what about your children and their children? Are there negatives to the homosexual lifestyle? There are actually many. I don't care what people do in their own bedrooms, but promoting this stuff in school to children as being normal is destructive. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005, so they have no problems now right? Wrong. Here's an excerpt from Canada's largest gay paper XTRA, from a story by Julia Garro, Tuesday, February 17, 2009.

Over the past 10 years [Government] have contracted with experts on gay, lesbian, bisexual health to produce studies ... issues affecting queer Canadians includes lower life expectancy than the average Canadian, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, inadequate access to care and HIV/AIDS... all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our community... higher rates of anal cancer in the gay male community, lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer ... more GLBT people in this country who die of suicide each year than die from AIDS, there are more who die early deaths from substance abuse than die of HIV/AIDS... now that we can get married everyone assumes that we don't have any issues ... A lot of the deaths that occur in our community are hidden ... Those of us who are working on the front lines see them and I'm tired of watching my community die."

So, we want to promote a lifestyle to children that has high rates of substance abuse, suicide, disease and dysfunction?

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#787898 27-Mar-2013 13:04

ajobbins:
Klipspringer: Im not gay. What rights will I not be entitled to if I had to have rather entered a cilvil union between my wife. Heterosexual 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.

But gay individuals can get married if they choose to. They can marry the opposite sex because that’s what marriage is.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#787901 27-Mar-2013 13:05

sittingduckz:
Geektastic:
sittingduckz:
Geektastic:
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.

Not sure about that. I think within reason.

If you were given the right to shoot people ad hoc, would that be good? Possibly not.

I do look back and see rights that have been given which have been less than excellent. The right to drink at 18 has, I think, not been an unmitigated success.

I would also support removing the right of children to drive on public roads, which they presently have in NZ.

Shooting people has a major negative effect on others especially the shotee

18yr olds drinking isn't great but, mostly only impacts on a small group

Children driving on public roads would endanger others greatly

If a gay couple marries you don't get shot, or vomited on by an 18yr old, or crashed into by a child driving... in fact it has no effect on you at all

I never claimed it did. I was responding to the concept that giving rights to human beings is always good. It isn't.

Well don't use bogus comparisons.

Nobody has yet come up with a decent convincing reason (IMO) why it is bad.

The comparisons are not bogus. They relate to the statement "giving rights to human beings is always good" not "gay marriage is good" or "gay marriage is bad".

Giving some rights to human beings would clearly be bad.

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 41