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 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#667183 3-Aug-2012 18:44

mattRSK: Ok so I am a bigot for wanting to keep the definition of marriage to between a male and a female while giving same sex couples the same rights under civil unions.

This is a valid position, provided you can justify there being a reason for marriage to be between a male and female only.

Given that the concept of marriage predates recorded history and most likely organised religion and that marriage is not entered into solely for the purposes of procreation what valid reason is there that it is a contract only people of opposite sexes may enter into?

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#667247 3-Aug-2012 21:46

crackrdbycracku:
In effect you are trying to force your definition of marriage on others.

Hold on a minute, isn't that what this law change will do?
That's one of my main objections to it!

gzt

16882 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#667250 3-Aug-2012 21:50

crackrdbycracku: In effect you are trying to force your definition of marriage on others.

Skolink: Hold on a minute, isn't that what this law change will do?
That's one of my main objections to it!

I don't understand this objection. How will it change your circumstances? The change will make no difference to anyone at all except gay people.

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#667268 3-Aug-2012 22:27

gzt:
crackrdbycracku: In effect you are trying to force your definition of marriage on others.

Skolink: Hold on a minute, isn't that what this law change will do?
That's one of my main objections to it!

I don't understand this objection. How will it change your circumstances? The change will make no difference to anyone at all except gay people.

My objections are not really about how it will impinge on me personally, but I certainly think this law change is forcing a different definition of marriage on those who believe it should stay as it is.

After all, we all have to live by the laws of the country whether we agree with them or not. In any situation which requires consideration to the married status of someone, everyone will be obliged to treat a same sex marriage as if it were a male-female couple. This would affect anyone dealing with the estate of a deceased relative, or an employer or authority giving certain benefits to a married couple. As a tax payer I will be funding fertility treatments for same-sex couples even though it is something I strongly object to.

Many groups hold dear certain titles or terms and are very incensed by the misuse of term by others, because of the meaning that title has to them.

To me this law change is the gay community saying 'you *will* acknowledge our relationship as legitimate'.

As I said, the loss of the exclusive use of the term 'marriage' is not my main objection. As previously debated, there are more important factors.

kyhwana2

2563 posts

Uber Geek

#667281 3-Aug-2012 23:01

nate: Just hidden a post and warned a user for a personal attack.

We are getting very close to the wire on some of these posts, if you feel someone has stepped over the FUG please PM me so I can check it out.

I'm very keen for this discussion to continue, however if we keep this up, the thread will be locked again in no time and not re-opened.

Thank-you.

So it's fine to slag off a group of people as "not normal/natural" but you can't slag off individuals?

Alright.

These people seem to want to force their belief's onto everyone else. Equal marriage DOES NOT affect them, except they believe it does, except IT ACTUALLY DOESN'T.

kyhwana2

2563 posts

Uber Geek

#667282 3-Aug-2012 23:03

mattRSK: Ok so I am a bigot for wanting to keep the definition of marriage to between a male and a female while giving same sex couples the same rights under civil unions.

Yes. The group of people that you belong to are Bad People and are Wrong.

In my Opinion of course.

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#667283 3-Aug-2012 23:04

Skolink: My objections are not really about how it will impinge on me personally, but I certainly think this law change is forcing a different definition of marriage on those who believe it should stay as it is.

After all, we all have to live by the laws of the country whether we agree with them or not. In any situation which requires consideration to the married status of someone, everyone will be obliged to treat a same sex marriage as if it were a male-female couple. This would affect anyone dealing with the estate of a deceased relative, or an employer or authority giving certain benefits to a married couple. As a tax payer I will be funding fertility treatments for same-sex couples even though it is something I strongly object to.

Many groups hold dear certain titles or terms and are very incensed by the misuse of term by others, because of the meaning that title has to them.

To me this law change is the gay community saying 'you *will* acknowledge our relationship as legitimate'.

As I said, the loss of the exclusive use of the term 'marriage' is not my main objection. As previously debated, there are more important factors.

I'm afraid to inform you that you are already funding fertility treatments for same-sex couples - the law change has nothing to do with that. http://www.fertilityassociates.co.nz/paying-for-treatment/public-funding-and-eligibility.aspx

kyhwana2

2563 posts

Uber Geek

#667284 3-Aug-2012 23:06

Skolink:
crackrdbycracku:
In effect you are trying to force your definition of marriage on others.

Hold on a minute, isn't that what this law change will do?
That's one of my main objections to it!

Why exactly are you objecting to it? Are you simply objecting because it's something Different and it's Change and you're scared of Change?

Sorry, I mean, your group of people are afraid of change..

kyhwana2

2563 posts

Uber Geek

#667287 3-Aug-2012 23:07

Skolink:
gzt:
crackrdbycracku: In effect you are trying to force your definition of marriage on others.

Skolink: Hold on a minute, isn't that what this law change will do?
That's one of my main objections to it!

I don't understand this objection. How will it change your circumstances? The change will make no difference to anyone at all except gay people.

My objections are not really about how it will impinge on me personally,

I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post, since it's not relevant.

If it doesn't impinge on you personally, then what logical reason do you have to objecting to it?

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#667291 3-Aug-2012 23:13

KevinL:
I'm afraid to inform you that you are already funding fertility treatments for same-sex couples - the law change has nothing to do with that. http://www.fertilityassociates.co.nz/paying-for-treatment/public-funding-and-eligibility.aspx

I didn't realise that was the case, was that always so? I see even single women are eligible.

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#667293 3-Aug-2012 23:17

Skolink:
KevinL:
I'm afraid to inform you that you are already funding fertility treatments for same-sex couples - the law change has nothing to do with that. http://www.fertilityassociates.co.nz/paying-for-treatment/public-funding-and-eligibility.aspx

I didn't realise that was the case, was that always so? I see even single women are eligible.

I'm pretty sure, on the basis that it's not legal to discriminate in terms of gender or sexuality!

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#667295 3-Aug-2012 23:18

KevinL:
Skolink:
KevinL:
I'm afraid to inform you that you are already funding fertility treatments for same-sex couples - the law change has nothing to do with that. http://www.fertilityassociates.co.nz/paying-for-treatment/public-funding-and-eligibility.aspx

I didn't realise that was the case, was that always so? I see even single women are eligible.

I'm pretty sure, on the basis that it's not legal to discriminate in terms of gender or sexuality!

Nor on the basis of age...

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#667315 4-Aug-2012 00:12

Skolink:
gzt:
crackrdbycracku: In effect you are trying to force your definition of marriage on others.

Skolink: Hold on a minute, isn't that what this law change will do?
That's one of my main objections to it!

I don't understand this objection. How will it change your circumstances? The change will make no difference to anyone at all except gay people.

My objections are not really about how it will impinge on me personally, but I certainly think this law change is forcing a different definition of marriage on those who believe it should stay as it is.

After all, we all have to live by the laws of the country whether we agree with them or not. In any situation which requires consideration to the married status of someone, everyone will be obliged to treat a same sex marriage as if it were a male-female couple. This would affect anyone dealing with the estate of a deceased relative, or an employer or authority giving certain benefits to a married couple. As a tax payer I will be funding fertility treatments for same-sex couples even though it is something I strongly object to.

Many groups hold dear certain titles or terms and are very incensed by the misuse of term by others, because of the meaning that title has to them.

To me this law change is the gay community saying 'you *will* acknowledge our relationship as legitimate'.

As I said, the loss of the exclusive use of the term 'marriage' is not my main objection. As previously debated, there are more important factors.

If those are your objections, well. I have nothing good to say about that. Leaving aside the funding argument (it actually does impact upon you as a taxpayer so I think we can all accept that your view there has merit to you), that you are arguing that we should not let same sex couples marry because it would affect their legal status when one partner dies... I cannot believe you actually said that. And to also argue that employers or whatever should not be required to treat those couples as what they are - married couples - I cannot see how this impacts upon you at all. I am honestly curious as to what your fundamental reasons are for claiming that.

mattRSK

822 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#667317 4-Aug-2012 00:18

There has been some really good discussion on here. I've been doing a lot of reading and I've realized something. My opinion that there should be civil unions for same-sex couples and marriages for man-women couples is actually degrading to the same sex couples. When I think about it at a purely political level it is right that anyone should have the right to be defined as married on that level.

The thing I am confused about is you can make exactly the same argument for couples that are related and polygamy. Why do we have the right to tell them what to do?

Anyway probably the most interesting discussion I've ever had. Bit tough on the brain.

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#667318 4-Aug-2012 00:34

mattRSK: There has been some really good discussion on here. I've been doing a lot of reading and I've realized something. My opinion that there should be civil unions for same-sex couples and marriages for man-women couples is actually degrading to the same sex couples. When I think about it at a purely political level it is right that anyone should have the right to be defined as married on that level.

The thing I am confused about is you can make exactly the same argument for couples that are related and polygamy. Why do we have the right to tell them what to do?

Anyway probably the most interesting discussion I've ever had. Bit tough on the brain.

Bravo for reaching your own conclusion - after all, the point of all this discussion is to make us all think a bit more about the issues.

I don't think the "slippery slope" argument is something you really need to worry about.

There's reasonable genetic reasons not to allow related people to marry (well, not allowing them to procreate is more the intention). The rules are just an extension of the (separate) laws regarding incest.

Polygamy suffers from a bit of societal stigma from (and I'm generalising a bit) the same groups that oppose same-sex marriage and also due to bad publicity regarding polygamist religious fringe groups and/or child abuse. I suspect there are probably slightly more people opposed to polygamy than same-sex marriage though - however it wouldn't surprise me if eventually polygamy was legalised (but probably not in our lifetimes). It's generally less of a rights issue as the two legally married people in a threesome would have the same rights as any other married couple (person number three misses out a bit under current law, obviously).

1 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26