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

tardtasticx

3075 posts

Uber Geek

#106840 1-Aug-2012 10:38

Since the last one was locked, lets try this again, but without that 'forbidden law' being invoked.?

Here was the Original Post from before:
So, last year I asked a similar thing, I'm wondering what the general view people on Geeekzone have on Equal Marriage in NZ.??
This is a hot topic now given that a bill was recently drawn that aims to legalise equal marriage in NZ. Some people think this is going to affect their own marriage in some way, others think this destroys marriage all together, and then others think its just going to give people who love each other the ability to marry, which is what I view also, (given that I'm gay myself).??

So, lets keep this polite please, no name calling and such.?

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. It wasn't that long ago that women got the right to vote. That didn't destroy the country now did it? Whats the worst that could happen if two people who love each other get to marry each other? ?That wont void your marriage in any way, its just another happy couple who can spend the rest of their lives together. If you want to say it destroys the values of marriage, then why not get abortions and divorce made illegal too? Just saying. Divorce is what destroys marriage here, not love.??

-Sam.?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 26

BDFL - Memuneh
79133 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#665235 1-Aug-2012 10:40

Stay nice this time folks. Next one to invoke Godwin's Law (Google is your friend) or call names will be banned without warning this time.

This is your warning.

Hatch

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

wallop

367 posts

Ultimate Geek

#665243 1-Aug-2012 10:47

I must admit a year ago I would have said "No, marriage is between a man and a women", now I say go ahead. Like you say love is love.

The only thing I do say is that a church/religion should have the right to refuse to marry same sex couples. The reason being that their believes are just as important as anybody elses.

tardtasticx

3075 posts

Uber Geek

#665251 1-Aug-2012 10:50

wallop: I must admit a year ago I would have said "No, marriage is between a man and a women", now I say go ahead. Like you say love is love.

The only thing I do say is that a church/religion should have the right to refuse to marry same sex couples. The reason being that their believes are just as important as anybody elses.

Yeh exactly, and I think most same sex couple will just refuse to get married in a church that has a stance like that anyway. A few hetro couples may do the same too in support for their same sex coupled friends, I know of people, not sure if its through this forum, I think it may have been, but they refused to marry because same sex couples here could not do so as well, so they got a civil union instead as a way of protest.

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#665254 1-Aug-2012 10:51

I have no problem with it. We know a lot of gay couples. There is no reason it should destroy anything as all it doing is changing the status of the people in a civil ceremony - exactly the same as it does with a hetrosexual couple. If it affects any existing marriage, then I would suggest that there was a problem there already and sooner or later something was going to happen.

The biggest issue is that society tends to strongly tie marriage to religion... rightly or wrongly. (I don't know but I suspect the concept of marriage pre-dated our mainstream religions?) And that is all I am going to say about that!

vinnieg

2260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#665261 1-Aug-2012 10:59

keewee01:
The biggest issue is that society tends to strongly tie marriage to religion... rightly or wrongly. (I don't know but I suspect the concept of marriage pre-dated our mainstream religions?) And that is all I am going to say about that!

It did indeed pre-date religion. So hopefully it'll break down barriers even more. I totally support it! As said in the other thread.

I do find it a bit flaky how John Key was so opposed to the Civil Union bill, but then changed his mind as soon as this one came through. It's sort of like the Blair/Bush situation. Where Bush being the big bully said something, and Blair came from behind his back and agree. As soon as Obama told the world he supported gay marriage, John Key suddenly changed his mind.

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

pageweon

393 posts

Ultimate Geek

#665270 1-Aug-2012 11:12

well Id love to give my two cents here, personaly I am all for equal marriage, every couple deserves the same rights. however I can understand that some religious folks would take offense, after all marriage is itself a religious institution.

maybe a nice compromise would be to make all "marriages" civil unions with equal legal rights and make weddings a purely religious ceremony

this is where a signature goes

BlueShift

1692 posts

Uber Geek

#665272 1-Aug-2012 11:20

maybe a nice compromise would be to make all "marriages" civil unions with equal legal rights and make weddings a purely religious ceremony

Good news! This is already (almost) the case. The civil marriage ceremony is basically filling out the paperwork under supervision of an authorised person, with appropriate witnesses. All the frock and speeches bits are entirely optional and purely ceremonial.

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#665282 1-Aug-2012 11:33

pageweon: well Id love to give my two cents here, personaly I am all for equal marriage, every couple deserves the same rights. however I can understand that some religious folks would take offense, after all marriage is itself a religious institution.

maybe a nice compromise would be to make all "marriages" civil unions with equal legal rights and make weddings a purely religious ceremony

Part of the trouble is many countries overseas don't recognise civil unions (even if between a man and a woman). You could potentially make civil unions and marriage completely identical in the eyes of the law (and hence allow civil union partners to adopt) - but you probably still would have issues with overseas recognition. Until they are both one and the same, civil unions will always be the lesser of the two in terms of benefits and recognition.

I believe marriage pre-dates recorded history (and thus most likely predates organised religion, or at least the modern organised religion that we know of). I appreciate that marriage is considered sacrosant by certain religions, but those beliefs are generally only held by those who are active in those particular groups. It's appropriate for them to maintain the sanctity of marriage as they define it within their own community, but it seems foolish for them to impose their beliefs on the rest of the population at the detriment of civil rights which ought to be inalienable.

I think the separate of church and state is important - and hence this should be a discussion about civil rights, and not about religious interpretations of legal constructs.

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#665283 1-Aug-2012 11:35

KevinL:
pageweon: well Id love to give my two cents here, personaly I am all for equal marriage, every couple deserves the same rights. however I can understand that some religious folks would take offense, after all marriage is itself a religious institution.

maybe a nice compromise would be to make all "marriages" civil unions with equal legal rights and make weddings a purely religious ceremony

Part of the trouble is many countries overseas don't recognise civil unions (even if between a man and a woman). You could potentially make civil unions and marriage completely identical in the eyes of the law (and hence allow civil union partners to adopt) - but you probably still would have issues with overseas recognition. Until they are both one and the same, civil unions will always be the lesser of the two in terms of benefits and recognition.

I believe marriage pre-dates recorded history (and thus most likely predates organised religion, or at least the modern organised religion that we know of). I appreciate that marriage is considered sacrosant by certain religions, but those beliefs are generally only held by those who are active in those particular groups. It's appropriate for them to maintain the sanctity of marriage as they define it within their own community, but it seems foolish for them to impose their beliefs on the rest of the population at the detriment of civil rights which ought to be inalienable.

I think the separate of church and state is important - and hence this should be a discussion about civil rights, and not about religious interpretations of legal constructs.

This!

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#665310 1-Aug-2012 12:16

As far as I am concerned anybody (sure, consenting adult and all that) who wants to get married should be able to too, simple as that.

I am interested in asking the forum about the difference between civil unions and marriages. My understanding was that the Civil Union Act was basically the Marriage Act with 'marriage' changed to 'civil union'. This meant that all the legal aspects regarding property separation and so were the same. Is that not the case or is it seen differently overseas?

I think the religious angle is well covered here in NZ with the sensible laws that allow women only gyms and such. Basically private places, such as churches, can restrict access based on whatever they like. I'm comfortable with that.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#665324 1-Aug-2012 12:38

crackrdbycracku: As far as I am concerned anybody (sure, consenting adult and all that) who wants to get married should be able to too, simple as that.

I am interested in asking the forum about the difference between civil unions and marriages. My understanding was that the Civil Union Act was basically the Marriage Act with 'marriage' changed to 'civil union'. This meant that all the legal aspects regarding property separation and so were the same. Is that not the case or is it seen differently overseas?

I think the religious angle is well covered here in NZ with the sensible laws that allow women only gyms and such. Basically private places, such as churches, can restrict access based on whatever they like. I'm comfortable with that.

More or less - the Relationships bill covered most of the legal aspects that separated marriages, civil unions and de fact relationships. The main trouble is they didn't change the wording of the Adoption Act - that's the primary point of difference between marriage and civil unions (civil union partners cannot apply to adopt as a couple, only one partner can apply - the other can apply for guardianship retrospectively, but that doesn't have the same legal implications as parenthood has).

The other trouble is civil unions aren't universally recognised - for example, NZ only recognises a handful of equivalent partnerships from overseas countries. This may cause potential issues if a civil union couple decided to move overseas, or even if they were on holiday and suddenly found they had no right to see their partner in hospital.

There's some good reading in this article: http://salient.org.nz/features/hollow-vows

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#665328 1-Aug-2012 12:44

KevinL:

More or less ...

Thanks for that.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#665331 1-Aug-2012 12:46

Totally agree. I've seen so many arguments agaisnt based on the religious (typically Christian) stance on Marriage, however that is not what the law is trying to change. We live in a secular society which seperates church and state (and should do).

The other big argument against is around procreation, but I consider that argument irrelevant to the discussion. If poeple want to apply that logic, they must apply it to heterosexual couples as well. There is nothing in the law at present to suggest procreation is an expected or required outcome of marriage, nor has anything been proposed to change that.

My view is that the vast majority of arguments against marriage equality I have seen appear to be (poorly disguised) fronts for peoples prejudices and religious agendas.

Twitter: ajobbins

stevenz

2802 posts

Uber Geek

#665333 1-Aug-2012 12:47

Given that about the only legal difference between a defacto partnership and a "marriage" is the ability to have final say about turning off the switch, I find the whole concept to be completely redundant, so I see no reason why people shouldn't be able to marry whomever, or whatever they feel like.

I also think that atheists who get married in a "traditional" Christian fashion are somewhat hypocritical. Just sign the piece of paper and go have a party.

@KnightNZ

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#665336 1-Aug-2012 12:51

I would also like to point out that there is a stigma attached to the term Civil Union that, even if in the eyes of the law held equal rights to marriage, it is still seen as a 'second class' recognition. Also, if they hold the same legal powers, calling them different things become irrelevant and still wouldn't solve all problems (Like overseas recognition).

I think the Salient article linked above sums it up well:

"Symbolically, civil unions remain the second choice option, languishing on a lower social tier than the ?gold standard? that is marriage. Gay couples are a part of society, and naturally want access to the same institutions and ceremonies that their heterosexual siblings freely enjoy. Arguing that civil unions?and by implication, gay people?are separate but equal ?sends the message that somehow same-sex relationships are not as deserving of recognition."

Twitter: ajobbins

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 26