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 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 41

675 posts

Ultimate Geek

#787936 27-Mar-2013 13:35

Klipspringer:
ajobbins:
Klipspringer: So you happy that gay brothers can get married but not heterosexual brothers and sisters.

Hang on... Slippery slope approaching...

If what you are saying is that the biological reason preventing a brother and sister for marrying doesn't apply to two brothers, then you are right.

HOWEVER. This is not what we are taking about changing the law to accommodate now. If and when that ever was on the table, you can debate the merits of that then.

Until that time, it's just a slippery slope argument - which as we should all know by now is a logical fallacy and is an invalid argument.

OK.

This is all about the right for 2 people who "love" each other to marry? Right?

If so then what has sex got to do with it?

You implying that marriage should not be allowed because of sex. Thats 2 different things.

By your statement I can only presume that you would be happy that a brother and sister get married just as long as they don't have sex? Or there was some way of insuring it would not happen?

This needs to be debated.

Hang on... Slippery slope number 2 approaching...

I'm sorry, but the more you say the less respect I seem to have for you. This is not meant as a personal attack, it's just how you are making me feel.

I look back on how I used to be (a little like yourself) and I'm embarrassed. Now my best friend is a lesbian, in fact she was the best man at my hetro wedding, and I was hers at her civil "marriage" union. I am welcomed by all her friends who are all awesome people who are all just struggling for acceptance from people like you.

And you wonder why the suicide rate is so high, It's because walking down the street people stare and some make rude comments. The suicide is NOT because of who they are, but how they are treated in this world by others.

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

Mighty Ape

Shop Mighty Ape for electronics, games, computers books and more (affiliate link).

NZtechfreak

4649 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#787938 27-Mar-2013 13:37

I have to laugh at people talking about higher rates of suicidality/depression amongst gay people as if that is an inherent problem of homosexuality. I rather suspect those are more attributable to being part of a persecuted, misunderstood, and frequently excluded minority in society. That seems a fairly rudimentary conclusion to draw there, given a direct and obvious line of causality.

Twitter: @nztechfreak
Blogs: HeadphoNZ.org

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#787939 27-Mar-2013 13:39

NZtechfreak: It fascinates me to see several posts to the effect that somehow gay people are "Usurping the rights of others", or that gay people being accorded a right somehow impugns anothers equivalent right.

Interesting that so many appear to believe that there are some rights that should be reserved for some people and not others.

The rights of concern for protection or the giving of equality are here the rights of a relationship. Speaking for myself I have made it very clear that I have no objection to those being the same whatsoever (and as I see it, that view not being through a red haze of anger, I don't see many others here objecting to those either).

It is the usage of the word "marriage" which I am saying has a pre-existing meaning (being between a man and a woman) that many believe is a right. I do not see that it is of any harm at all that it be protected for them.

As another example - Usage of the word Maori (or that of any other ethnic group) is a right that Maori (or the those of another particular ethnic group) have, we should not decide that everyone should have the right to be called Maori (i.e. "usurp its usage) in the interests of equal rights. It is a right that most consider that Maori (or another ethnic group) have and are entitled to keep for themselves. It is not taking away the rights of others - they have a right to the name of their own ethnic group and there is no sensible movement to make them share that.

So, if a name was created (by homosexuals, just as they created the name "gay" for themselves) that described a relationship that delivered the same rights to them as marriage does to heterosexuals, then they would have a right to that (which right heterosexuals would not have). That could be delivered into law.

But, I am afraid that the difficulty will come mostly from the homosexuals themselves in that they claim that the pre-existing definition of "marriage" must be expunged, just as they claim that now they are called gays that all pre-existing uses of the word gay must now be expunged ( and indeed they abuse publically people who do not do so)

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#787941 27-Mar-2013 13:40

sittingduckz:

I'm sorry, but the more you say the less respect I seem to have for you. This is not meant as a personal attack, it's just how you are making me feel.

I look back on how I used to be (a little like yourself) and I'm embarrassed. Now my best friend is a lesbian, in fact she was the best man at my hetro wedding, and I was hers at her civil "marriage" union. I am welcomed by all her friends who are all awesome people who are all just struggling for acceptance from people like you.

And you wonder why the suicide rate is so high, It's because walking down the street people stare and some make rude comments. The suicide is NOT because of who they are, but how they are treated in this world by others.

You are presuming that I am not friends with any gays or lesbians?

Im not welcoming? Treat gays badly?

Quiet an assumption mate. You don’t know me at all.

ajobbins

5050 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#787943 27-Mar-2013 13:42

Klipspringer: OK then can you answer me please about your statement about not allowing brothers and sisters to marry. Everybody that supports the sames sex marriage bill talks says that 2 people who love each other have a right to marry.

If you allow a brother and sister to marry (on the condition they don't have sex), how can you control it? What happens if they do? Given that probably 99%+ of marriage type relationships involve sex - I think you will struggle to find anyone who is advocating for brother-sister non-sexual marriages. If that's ever on the table, we can argue the case for and against it then. Until then...still an invalid slippery slope argument.

You're really grasping at straws now. Let's move on.

Twitter: ajobbins

sittingduckz

675 posts

Ultimate Geek

#787945 27-Mar-2013 13:44

Klipspringer:
ajobbins:
Klipspringer: Hang on... Slippery slope number 2 approaching...

Sigh. Slippery Slope is not an argument against something.

Allowing same-sex marriage will not allow what you are suggesting. Just as Civil Unions didn't allow Same Sex Marriage.

Things change over time and as they come up there is an opportunity to discuss and debate them before the law is changed. Exactly what is happening right now.

At some point in the future, regardless of whether this law is passed or not, some people may push for sibling marriages. We can't know for sure and the outcome of this law does not dictate the outcome of that argument.

Unless you have any proof to the contrary, this is just another invalid slippery slope argument.

OK then can you answer me please about your statement about not allowing brothers and sisters to marry. Everybody that supports the sames sex marriage bill says that 2 people who love each other have a right to marry.

Klipspringer:
This is all about the right for 2 people who "love" each other to marry? Right?

If so then what has sex got to do with it?

You implying that marriage should not be allowed because of sex. Thats 2 different things.

By your statement I can only presume that you would be happy that a brother and sister get married just as long as they don't have sex? Or there was some way of insuring it would not happen?

This needs to be debated.

Unbelievable, do you have anything other than idiotic arguments!!

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

networkn

Networkn
30228 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#787946 27-Mar-2013 13:44

John2010:
NZtechfreak: It fascinates me to see several posts to the effect that somehow gay people are "Usurping the rights of others", or that gay people being accorded a right somehow impugns anothers equivalent right.

Interesting that so many appear to believe that there are some rights that should be reserved for some people and not others.

The rights of concern for protection or the giving of equality are here the rights of a relationship. Speaking for myself I have made it very clear that I have no objection to those being the same whatsoever (and as I see it, that view not being through a red haze of anger, I don't see many others here objecting to those either).

It is the usage of the word "marriage" which I am saying has a pre-existing meaning (being between a man and a woman) that many believe is a right. I do not see that it is of any harm at all that it be protected for them.

As another example - Usage of the word Maori (or that of any other ethnic group) is a right that Maori (or the those of another particular ethnic group) have, we should not decide that everyone should have the right to be called Maori (i.e. "usurp its usage) in the interests of equal rights. It is a right that most consider that Maori (or another ethnic group) have and are entitled to keep for themselves. It is not taking away the rights of others - they have a right to the name of their own ethnic group and there is no sensible movement to make them share that.

So, if a name was created (by homosexuals, just as they created the name "gay" for themselves) that described a relationship that delivered the same rights to them as marriage does to heterosexuals, then they would have a right to that (which right heterosexuals would not have). That could be delivered into law.

But, I am afraid that the difficulty will come mostly from the homosexuals themselves in that they claim that the pre-existing definition of "marriage" must be expunged, just as they claim that now they are called gays that all pre-existing uses of the word gay must now be expunged ( and indeed they abuse publically people who do not do so)

I love reading what you write, this is a great way to have described the issue for many of us that describe marriage as between a man and woman and for whom they want this to remain. It's why we label things, so we know they are different. (And before I get jumped all over, being different isn't automatically wrong, or right)

networkn

Networkn
30228 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#787947 27-Mar-2013 13:45

Unbelievable, do you have anything other than idiotic arguments!!

Settle pettle!

ajobbins

5050 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#787949 27-Mar-2013 13:46

John2010: But, I am afraid that the difficulty will come mostly from the homosexuals themselves in that they claim that the pre-existing definition of "marriage" must be expunged, just as they claim that now they are called gays that all pre-existing uses of the word gay must now be expunged ( and indeed they abuse publically people who do not do so)

You speak like the meaning of the word marriage has not changed over time (Or indeed between religious, cultures etc). Not all that long ago marriage meant a woman assigning all her property rights to her new husband. And that is just one example of how marriage has changed and evolved in very recent times.

Things change. Meanings change. And you can adapt, or you can be left behind.

Twitter: ajobbins

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#787950 27-Mar-2013 13:46

ajobbins:
Klipspringer: OK then can you answer me please about your statement about not allowing brothers and sisters to marry. Everybody that supports the sames sex marriage bill talks says that 2 people who love each other have a right to marry.

If you allow a brother and sister to marry (on the condition they don't have sex), how can you control it? What happens if they do? Given that probably 99%+ of marriage type relationships involve sex - I think you will struggle to find anyone who is advocating for brother-sister non-sexual marriages. If that's ever on the table, we can argue the case for and against it then. Until then...still an invalid slippery slope argument.

You're really grasping at straws now. Let's move on.

But you then saying that “not everybody that loves each other has the right to marry?”

And that’s the push from the gay community.

People talk about rights. Where is the right for me to marry my sister if I love her? We both adults? Why is it OK for me to marry my brother but not my sister? Its exactly the same argument all over again as what’s being pushed by the gay community.

Thinking of gay sex. Here is another spanner to throw in the works.

If the brother and sister did get married. But only practice gay sex it would be fine? Is it fine for me right now to practice gay sex with my sister?

WHere are my rights?

You have spoken yourself into a hole. Maybe you slipped on that slippery slope.

sittingduckz

675 posts

Ultimate Geek

#787955 27-Mar-2013 13:53

Klipspringer:
ajobbins:
Klipspringer: OK then can you answer me please about your statement about not allowing brothers and sisters to marry. Everybody that supports the sames sex marriage bill talks says that 2 people who love each other have a right to marry.

If you allow a brother and sister to marry (on the condition they don't have sex), how can you control it? What happens if they do? Given that probably 99%+ of marriage type relationships involve sex - I think you will struggle to find anyone who is advocating for brother-sister non-sexual marriages. If that's ever on the table, we can argue the case for and against it then. Until then...still an invalid slippery slope argument.

You're really grasping at straws now. Let's move on.

But you then saying that “not everybody that loves each other has the right to marry?”

And that’s the push from the gay community.

People talk about rights. Where is the right for me to marry my sister if I love her? We both adults? Why is it OK for me to marry my brother but not my sister? Its exactly the same argument all over again as what’s being pushed by the gay community.

Thinking of gay sex. Here is another spanner to throw in the works.

If the brother and sister did get married. But only practices gay sex it would be fine? Is it fine for me right now to practice gay sex with my sister?

WHere are my rights?

You have spoken yourself into a hole. Maybe you slipped on that slippery slope.

what the... I have no response to this... anyone?

"And I'm my own grampa" LOL

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

ajobbins

5050 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#787957 27-Mar-2013 13:55

Klipspringer: But you then saying that “not everybody that loves each other has the right to marry?" And that’s the push from the gay community.

I'm not, nor part of 'the gay community' and that's not my stance, nor did I say it was. We rightfully discriminate against many people marrying, for different reasons. My stances is that discriminating based on sexual orientation is a wrongful discrimination. That is truely what is being debated, whether the discrimination of homosexual people in marriage is right or wrong. There is nothing in the proposed law about any of these other scenarios you suggest, so they are not relevant.

People talk about rights. Where is the right for me to marry my sister if I love her? We both adults? Why is it OK for me to marry my brother but not my sister? Its exactly the same argument all over again as what’s being pushed by the gay community.

See previous answers

Thinking of gay sex. Here is another spanner to throw in the works. If the brother and sister did get married. But only practices gay sex it would be fine? Is it fine for me right now to practice gay sex with my sister?

Are you serious? Do I really even have to explain this to you? You can't have gay sex with a member of the opposite sex. No more than you can have straight sex with a member of the same sex.

Where are my rights?

You already have them. Nothing in this proposed law takes away or suppresses any of your current rights. It merely extends them to another group.

You have spoken yourself into a hole. Maybe you slipped on that slippery slope.

Not at all.

Twitter: ajobbins

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#787960 27-Mar-2013 14:02

ajobbins: You speak like the meaning of the word marriage has not changed over time (Or indeed between religious, cultures etc). Not all that long ago marriage meant a woman assigning all her property rights to her new husband. And that is just one example of how marriage has changed and evolved in very recent times.

Things change. Meanings change. And you can adapt, or you can be left behind.

I acknowledge it has changed in legal terms... [putting on a Christian hat for a moment]... but from a Christian perspective marriage is a concept created and defined by God that has not changed. It goes right back to Genesis and the creation story; Adam and Eve and all that (did I see anybody wince?!?

).

For a Christian, the idea that humans can define or change the meaning of something that God has instituted is somewhat ludicrous, or possibly tantamount to a rebellion against God.

Once again I say it is unfortunate that the term "marriage" encompasses multiple concepts, meanings and connotations.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with the idea of putting aside the legal concept of marriage and exchanging it for a concept of formal/recognised relationship that confers some of the practical legal privileges associated with marriage. And that could be a "polygamous" relationship to suit the Masha Gessen situation mentioned earlier.

da5id

550 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#787963 27-Mar-2013 14:06

And you wonder why the suicide rate is so high, It's because walking down the street people stare and some make rude comments. The suicide is NOT because of who they are, but how they are treated in this world by others.

I don't believe that. In places like San Francisco and the Netherlands where gay sex is normalized, the stats are worse, so I have difficulty with the theory that the cause of unhealthy stats is "homophobia".

And more people die in Canada from suicide than die from AIDS, where gay marriage has been legal since 2005.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#787964 27-Mar-2013 14:09

ajobbins:
Klipspringer: But you then saying that “not everybody that loves each other has the right to marry?" And that’s the push from the gay community.

I'm not, nor part of 'the gay community' and that's not my stance, nor did I say it was. We rightfully discriminate against many people marrying, for different reasons. My stances is that discriminating based on sexual orientation is a wrongful discrimination. That is truely what is being debated, whether the discrimination of homosexual people in marriage is right or wrong. There is nothing in the proposed law about any of these other scenarios you suggest, so they are not relevant.

So you disagree with the statement that everybody who loves each other has the right to marry? I am going to presume from here on you do. Just wanted to clear that one up.

ajobbins:
People talk about rights. Where is the right for me to marry my sister if I love her? We both adults? Why is it OK for me to marry my brother but not my sister? Its exactly the same argument all over again as what’s being pushed by the gay community.

See previous answers

If gay marriage is legalised then where are my rights to marry my sister whom lets say I love. This is not covered by your previous comments.

ajobbins:
Thinking of gay sex. Here is another spanner to throw in the works. If the brother and sister did get married. But only practices gay sex it would be fine? Is it fine for me right now to practice gay sex with my sister?

Are you serious? Do I really even have to explain this to you? You can't have gay sex with a member of the opposite sex. No more than you can have straight sex with a member of the same sex.

OK I jumped the gun with this statement. You mentioned that brothers and sisters should not get married because of the danger to their offspring. I said that sex has nothing to do with marriage. You seem to believe that sex has a lot to do with marriage which in a way shows me how different our definitions of the word are.

Sex happens in or out of marriage. Sex between brothers and sisters could still happen if they not married. People have sex before marriage. I did with my wife. You presuming its not going to be the same for incest couples?

Sex is a part of marriage yes, but there are other more important factors to marriage like unconditional love, commitment etc.. Both factors are more important to me than sex and thats why I don’t get your argument. Im still not understanding why you believe its wrong for brothers and sisters who love each other not to get married.

You basing sex between brothers and sisters as the most important factor as to why they should not get married.

Don’t get me wrong, I think its very wrong too and I agree. In my book incest is just as bad as being gay (my opinion). I cant say one is worse than the other.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 41