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 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 26

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#665990 2-Aug-2012 11:06

BraaiGuy:
kyhwana2:

+1
"wont someone think of the children" arguments don't belong in most debates, including this one!

I'm incensed that people keep bringing it up!

You see this is where the debate falls flat on its face ... It has to be discussed.

Marriage is all about settling down, having a family, and bringing up kids. Sure it does not always work out like that for some, but having kids is one of the primary objectives of a marriage.

I think your position has some truths in it.

Not all heterosexual couples enter into marriage with the intention of having children - in fact, a significant proportion of the heterosexual population who marry may a) have already had children, or b) do not intend to have children at all. I got married as a symbol of my love and dedication to my partner, and as a way to celebrate our relationship with our closest family and friends - not to legitamise any children we may or may not have had.

"Having kids is one of the primary objectives of a marriage" - if for the moment we consider this to be the truth (which, as I've stated I'm not sure is the case), then the ability to have children and raise a family should be equally important to gay and lesbian marriages, as it is to heterosexual marriages. This is why the current situation of civil unions isn't quite good enough.

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#665992 2-Aug-2012 11:07

surfisup1000:
Quoted ...
"Marriage, in principle, involves the two elements by which the human race reproduces itself, namely, men and women. But it does not require that particular couples reproduce. For each married couple to be required to reproduce would essentially require people to prove themselves capable of producing offspring before allowing them to marry. This is absurdly unrealistic. Many couples have difficulty getting pregnant at first, but are able to after a while. So they would fail such a test, even though they would be capable of producing offspring. And as for people who choose not to have children, well, they may change their mind later. Again, the perpetuation of the human race requires men and women to reproduce, and the family is the best setting for this reproduction to take place in, but it does not depend upon particular couples reproducing."

Point being, it is impractical for people to prove fertility and/or intentions to have children before marrying. Medical technology is always evolving allowing once infertile couples to produce children. And, people change their minds all the time.

Irrelevant. Marriage and raising of children are mutually exclusive. While it may be true that the 'best case scenario' on paper for children is to be brought up by their biological mother and biological father, and for those parents to be in a committed relationship, it can be argued what the statistics show is just that children are raised best by two parents who are both in a committed relationship - the fact the parents are married or not doesn't change if they good parents, it just so happens that many men and women who are in a long term committed relationship choose to have that recognised formally in law and possibly by a faith based organisation as well (if they choose).

The fact that same sex couples can't currently marry means that they are by default excluded from the statistics about child raising in marriage.

Not to mention the 10's of thousands of children who are not brought up in this ideal scenario you describe - why don't you go and fight for them?

Final point from your passage above:
"And as for people who choose not to have children, well, they may change their mind later."

Why can't they just choose to get married later then - at the point they change their mind about having children?

Twitter: ajobbins

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#665993 2-Aug-2012 11:10

kyhwana2:
"wont someone think of the children" arguments don't belong in most debates, including this one!

I'm incensed that people keep bringing it up!

You're incensed that someone may have a different view to yourself?

You need to understand that all through your life there will be be people with different opinions and beliefs. No need to get incensed about it. It's part of the diversity of belief and you should welcome this otherwise the world would be pretty boring.

You should be more incensed with those who try to censor the opinions of others, as you appear to be trying to do.

menabassily

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#665994 2-Aug-2012 11:11

BraaiGuy:
KevinL:

I think in that situation shared/joint custody would be the answer - it would be a significant breach of human rights if the court ruled solely on the basis of parental sexuality.

There is no such thing as custody in New Zealand. Let me guess. You not a parent either?

Ok BraaiGuy, I understand your point and I agree that being a parent surly changes a lot of one's perspective towards the subject, and even the concept of being a good parent is a bit undefined, but I also know that many many kids has been brought up with no father, no mother or both, and they are doing fine. Kids would probably use an extra parent in their family.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#665996 2-Aug-2012 11:11

KevinL:
"Having kids is one of the primary objectives of a marriage" - if for the moment we consider this to be the truth (which, as I've stated I'm not sure is the case), then the ability to have children and raise a family should be equally important to gay and lesbian marriages, as it is to heterosexual marriages. This is why the current situation of civil unions isn't quite good enough.

So then why are we fighting for a law change in NZ to redifine the meaning of the word "marriage".

Surely we should be fighting for equal rights so that gay and lesbian couples can legally adopt children?

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#665997 2-Aug-2012 11:12

BraaiGuy:
KevinL:

I think in that situation shared/joint custody would be the answer - it would be a significant breach of human rights if the court ruled solely on the basis of parental sexuality.

There is no such thing as custody in New Zealand. Let me guess. You not a parent either?

Fine, if you want to argue semantics, then the answer is that in a parenting order where the day to day care of the child is shared equally.

http://justice.govt.nz/courts/family-court/what-family-court-does/care-of-children/parenting-orders

Many different options are possible for the day-to-day care of a child. These can vary from parents or caregivers sharing day-to-day care equally, to one of them having day-to-day care most of the time, to one of them having day-to-day care all of the time. The Court will decide this based on the child's best interests, along with other relevant factors.

I am not a parent, but as stated, I have been a child and I have had parents, and thus find myself in the position where I can form my own individual opinion on what it's like to be a child.

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#665999 2-Aug-2012 11:15

BraaiGuy:
KevinL:
"Having kids is one of the primary objectives of a marriage" - if for the moment we consider this to be the truth (which, as I've stated I'm not sure is the case), then the ability to have children and raise a family should be equally important to gay and lesbian marriages, as it is to heterosexual marriages. This is why the current situation of civil unions isn't quite good enough.

So then why are we fighting for a law change in NZ to redifine the meaning of the word "marriage".

Surely we should be fighting for equal rights so that gay and lesbian couples can legally adopt children?

As stated previously, even if civil unions and marriages both had the right to adopt, unfortunately civil unions would always be considered the lesser of the two (particularly in the international community). Moreover, if they are both exactly the same in terms of rights, why not call them the same thing?

I think there is an important distinction between what the state defines as marriage, and what the church (of your choice) defines as marriage. They are two separate concepts and I fear this is something that isn't well understood.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#666000 2-Aug-2012 11:15

surfisup1000:

Legalising gay marriage will not destroy anything. But, it changes to meaning of marriage to something that it is not (based on my beliefs). So I do not see the point of changing it.

If the gays really feel so deeply about this (and I don't really care that much) then go ahead and change the law.

Quoted for truth!

"Changing" the meaning of marriage to something else doesn't hurt or harm you in anyway other than you don't like us changing the meaning.

And yes, we're going to go ahead and change the law (which is the right thing to do) because of what I just said.

menabassily

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#666001 2-Aug-2012 11:17

Ok, I lost track of what's happening here, can we adopt this technique to help clarify things again:

Gay Marriage, if you were to vote. Yay or Nay.

Points you are basing your decision on:
1-
2-
3-

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#666003 2-Aug-2012 11:17

BraaiGuy:
kyhwana2:

+1
"wont someone think of the children" arguments don't belong in most debates, including this one!

I'm incensed that people keep bringing it up!

You see this is where the debate falls flat on its face ... It has to be discussed.

Marriage is all about settling down, having a family, and bringing up kids. Sure it does not always work out like that for some, but having kids is one of the primary objectives of a marriage.

Some people forgo having a family/bringing up kids even after getting married, but others don't. So sure, under your definition that's what happens.

So why exactly shouldn't same sex couples not be allowed to get married so they can settle down, have a family and bring up kids?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79285 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#666004 2-Aug-2012 11:17

surfisup1000:
kyhwana2:
"wont someone think of the children" arguments don't belong in most debates, including this one!

I'm incensed that people keep bringing it up!

You're incensed that someone may have a different view to yourself?

No, he's worried that people are bringing irrelevant topics to the argument.

kyhwana2: You should be more incensed with those who try to censor the opinions of others, as you appear to be trying to do.

He's not censoring. If he had been censoring some posts would "magically" disappear. He's just giving his opinion.

Just because his opinion is different than yours it doesn't mean he's censoring.

tardtasticx

3075 posts

Uber Geek

#666006 2-Aug-2012 11:21

I made my own religion right now and I am god, so there fore I want equal marriage for all.

Now because I am a member of this religion, I say that my religions definition of marriage I the correct one, there fore everyone must obey it.

See how completely unreasonable that sounds? Who gets to decide what "definition" of marriage we get to use? And as far as I know, no one owns the copyright to the word marriage or married so why are we stopping anyone fron being legally able to use that?

menabassily

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#666008 2-Aug-2012 11:22

menabassily: Ok, I lost track of what's happening here, can we adopt this technique to help clarify things again:

Gay Marriage, if you were to vote. Yay or Nay.

Points you are basing your decision on:
1-
2-
3-

Cool, let me start:

I agree.

Why:

1. Gay couple will benefit from the "Possibly better legal recognition of the relationship overseas".
2. The ability to adopt, many kids need a loving family.
3. Having the same title/term as for a Male-Female relationship, (and therefore changing the perception of a 'lesser' relationship?)

Thanks to Skolink.

Skolink: 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?

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#666009 2-Aug-2012 11:23

surfisup1000:
kyhwana2:
"wont someone think of the children" arguments don't belong in most debates, including this one!

I'm incensed that people keep bringing it up!

.

I'm incensed because you're not answering my question in any kind of logical way that you know, actually has answers.

"I believe <x>" without any evidence is rubbish. WHY do you believe that? What proof do you have?

You say "It's best for the children if we don't legalise equal marriage" but you don't provide any evidence and ignore all the non-married people raising kids or married couples raising kids badly.

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#666011 2-Aug-2012 11:28

KevinL:
As stated previously, even if civil unions and marriages both had the right to adopt, unfortunately civil unions would always be considered the lesser of the two (particularly in the international community). Moreover, if they are both exactly the same in terms of rights, why not call them the same thing?

If they are exactly the same in terms of rights, but are different, why not call them different things? Why are some people insisting that a relationship between a gay couple is also called marriage?
You mention overseas perceptions, but from a legal perspective, a same-sex marriage won't be recognised in another country that does not have same-sex marriage(or civil union).

KevinL:
I think there is an important distinction between what the state defines as marriage, and what the church (of your choice) defines as marriage. They are two separate concepts and I fear this is something that isn't well understood.

I think calling Civil Unions the same thing as Marriage will reduce the understanding of these concepts even further.

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 26