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 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | ... | 41

2563 posts

Uber Geek

#789072 29-Mar-2013 01:30

da5id: Sorry, kyhwana2, but I don't agree.
Marriage is very much about family and the raising of children.
If marriage were just about the love and romance aspect then Government wouldn't have any interest in it at all. People could be free to love whoever they wanted and however many persons they wanted. Government doesn't care about romance.

As it is, the State does take an interest in marriage for the ONLY reason that a married couple or family is the best place to raise the next generation. Marriage is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship do

Marriage is not a prize or a trophy that means you've crossed the finish line of romance and that you've made it. That isn't it's main purpose.

So, why not allow poly marriages then? Surely more than two parents are better than just two.

As for the government being involved, lets just do away with marriage all together and simply have civil unions, where celebrants aren't allowed to do "marriages".

You seem to be unaware of defacto couples (and defacto relationship laws) raising children. Are you implying that the government should force them to be MARRIED?

What about children that are abused by parents who are married?

If marriage is about children, how come infertile people are allowed to get married?

kyhwana2

2563 posts

Uber Geek

#789073 29-Mar-2013 01:34

da5id: Sorry, kyhwana2, but I don't agree.

An author over at The Heritage Foundation puts it -

Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. Government recognition of marriage protects children by incentivizing men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children.

Social science confirms the importance of marriage for children. According to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every examined indicator when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes do best on educational achievement, emotional health, familial and sexual development, and delinquency and incarceration

Whoops, neglected to address this one. (Lol heritage foundation).
Marriage between two (or more) people would "incentivise" the people to commit to each other to look after children.

A stable household is more important to children than about what you call the people raising them. (Which I suppose you could read as for and/or against equal marriage, but there you go)

kyhwana2

2563 posts

Uber Geek

#789074 29-Mar-2013 01:39

Obvious Solution is obvious. Repeal all law mentioning "marriage". Only allow civil unions/partnerships.
People that solemnise these things become "civil union celebrants". If you wanted to get "married", go dance on a beach after getting your civil union certificate.

Done. *wipes hands*

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#789076 29-Mar-2013 02:16

I agree with kyhwana2 and others' posts regarding the dissolution of the legal concept of marriage completely. It would be ideal and solve all of the 'issues' we seem to have.

The central debate I have extracted from this thread revolves around the definition of the word marriage.

For those against the proposed amendment, what reason(s) are there that the definition of marriage must remain as defining a heterosexual relationship? A few conditions apply to this question, they follow:

- Your reason(s) may not include religious ideas because not every married heterosexual couple are religious and the generally accepted idea that religion has zero place in political discussion.

- Your reason(s) may not include those based upon what 'marriage has always meant' because it is true that marriage used to permit men to take multiple wives and force rape victims to marry their rapists and still does in certain places. Both things current supporters of heterosexual marriage are unwilling to also agree to. Defining marriage historically is a flawed reasoning because the definition of marriage has changed so much throughout time and English, as a living language, is constantly evolving and changing.

- Your reason(s) may not include considerations of child rearing because having children is not something that is guaranteed to those who marry currently. It is not the only manner in which a child may be raised. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest a homosexual couple would raise a child in an inferior manner to a heterosexual couple and would likely do a better job than a single parent or social services.

I think it is time for someone to actually make an argument against this idea that has some real substance. Everything I have read up till now has relied on at least one of the above dis-proven points in at least some small manner and repeatedly shot down by many commenters here. I'd like some fresh reasoning.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#789089 29-Mar-2013 08:42

kyhwana2: I've expressed my views on this before and it's resulted in threads being locked, but here we go again...

I find your arguments to be combative and extremely inflammatory, so this doesn't surprise me. You probably haven't said anything worthy of a warning or banning, but I'm choosing to step away from this thread because of your contribution.

@everyone else: thanks for your extremely thought provoking comments, and for the respect that you've shown. Hopefully I've managed to reciprocate.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79158 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#789102 29-Mar-2013 09:08

kyhwana2: I've expressed my views on this before and it's resulted in threads being locked, but here we go again:

You might have a good argument in your posts, but the way the post comes along is, simply put, offensive to some.

Until now I think everyone made a good effort to put forward their thoughts without going into (too much) personal attacks.

The main players in this thread have done a good job of exposing both sides of the debate without going into calling the other side's view "a fairy tale".

I will leave the post there because it's your view and I won't censor it (and it wasn't personal), but this is not to repeated.

Pushing your views like that will more likely just get some people to ignore your other arguments in this discussion.

alasta

6687 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#789117 29-Mar-2013 09:46

kyhwana2: Obvious Solution is obvious. Repeal all law mentioning "marriage". Only allow civil unions/partnerships.
People that solemnise these things become "civil union celebrants". If you wanted to get "married", go dance on a beach after getting your civil union certificate.

Done. *wipes hands*

This probably sounds naive, but frankly I can't understand why it can't just be that simple. It seems to me that it would address the concerns of both sides of this argument, and as long as we have marriage defined in law we are probably going to end up revisiting this political circus every 20 years or so as new ideas emerge around how the state should define marriage.

Contrary to what some people might think I don't actually have an opinion on whether or not same sex couples should get married. However I recognise that society is, and will remain, divided on this issue and I strongly believe that it is not the role of the state to make a determination either way.

In my view neither the status quo, or the proposed legislation allow the state to take a neutral position. So instead of rushing through this legislation we should be putting it on ice in favour of a broader reform of the marriage act.

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).

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#789118 29-Mar-2013 09:47

The only problem I can see with dissolving the legal concept of marriage, is that I am uncertain whether our Civil Union concept is recognised by other governments (including even Commonwealth governments). I'm inclined to believe they aren't, which means that we'd probably have to pass another law redefining Civil Union as a form of marriage, completely defeating the purpose.

da5id

550 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#789177 29-Mar-2013 11:26

alasta:
kyhwana2: Obvious Solution is obvious. Repeal all law mentioning "marriage". Only allow civil unions/partnerships.
People that solemnise these things become "civil union celebrants". If you wanted to get "married", go dance on a beach after getting your civil union certificate.

Done. *wipes hands*

This probably sounds naive, but frankly I can't understand why it can't just be that simple. It seems to me that it would address the concerns of both sides of this argument, and as long as we have marriage defined in law we are probably going to end up revisiting this political circus every 20 years or so as new ideas emerge around how the state should define marriage.

Contrary to what some people might think I don't actually have an opinion on whether or not same sex couples should get married. However I recognise that society is, and will remain, divided on this issue and I strongly believe that it is not the role of the state to make a determination either way.

In my view neither the status quo, or the proposed legislation allow the state to take a neutral position. So instead of rushing through this legislation we should be putting it on ice in favour of a broader reform of the marriage act.

Because I don't believe that Government created 'marriage' and as such cannot just do away with it or change it's definition to be anything other than a union of a man and a woman. Government recognizes and confirms marriage because it has a vested interest in the welfare of children and women as part of a stable union. Yes, you could have a similar union and call it a 'civil union' but (and this is hard to explain) I believe marriage is different. Civil Union is decaf that wants to be full coffee. If marriage weren't important and unique then same-sex couples would be happy with civil unions, but they're not (although I believe part of it is a desire for their relationships to be affirmed by society).

A question though: why should society do away or change the definition of the institution of marriage (which has always been the same throughout history and across cultures) and take up civil unions instead. Just because 1% - 3% (at most) of the population feel left out? Why should a small number of people dictate to the rest of society (and not just in this country) and tell us we must redefine an institution that has lasted (pretty much) as long as there have been humans.

People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.

Greaver

117 posts

Master Geek

#789179 29-Mar-2013 11:31

Yet again, lets just do away with marriage from a legal standpoint, make it a purely religious affair.

alasta

6687 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#789186 29-Mar-2013 11:45

da5id: Government recognizes and confirms marriage because it has a vested interest in the welfare of children and women as part of a stable union.

I don't see how marriage provides any sort of effective tool for the state to intervene in the welfare of women and children. Plenty of women and children get abused both inside and outside of marital environments, and strategies for dealing with that problem remain the same either way.

A question though: why should society do away or change the definition of the institution of marriage (which has always been the same throughout history and across cultures) and take up civil unions instead. Just because 1% - 3% (at most) of the population feel left out?

I'm not suggesting that society should do away with marriage - I'm merely suggesting that the state should not be involved in it.

Why should a small number of people dictate to the rest of society (and not just in this country) and tell us we must redefine an institution that has lasted (pretty much) as long as there have been humans.

People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.

You've just argued that marriage was not conceived by the state, so to me that suggests that the church's definition of marriage overrules that of the state. The state approving a same sex marriage does not automatically mean that you or your church are compelled to recognise the legitimacy of that marriage, which is why the controversy and hostility around this issue will continue long after the bill has passed (and I personally believe that it probably will pass).

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#789191 29-Mar-2013 11:50

alasta:

You've just argued that marriage was not conceived by the state, so to me that suggests that the church's definition of marriage overrules that of the state. The state approving a same sex marriage does not automatically mean that you or your church are compelled to recognise the legitimacy of that marriage, which is why the controversy and hostility around this issue will continue long after the bill has passed (and I personally believe that it probably will pass).

History tells us that marriage wasn't conceived by the church either. In fact marriage was a purely material affair designed to tie two families together for economic gain - it didn't even require the consent of the married couple!

So with that in mind, what right does the church have to dictate to society - the originator of the concept - what marriage is?

billgates

4705 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#789192 29-Mar-2013 11:51

Sign number 60 says it all.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-absolute-best-signs-against-doma-and-prop-8-at-the-supre

Do whatever you want to do man.

zANavAShi

119 posts

Master Geek

#789221 29-Mar-2013 12:59

billgates: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-absolute-best-signs-against-doma-and-prop-8-at-the-supre

Hehehe, nice one. These is my fave...

and this one for the (((((cough))))) "believers"...

da5id

550 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#789226 29-Mar-2013 13:15

Here's a snippet from a guest post from The Irish Daily Mail written by a gay blogger as to why he does not support SSM, and thinks that other gays should not either.

Actually, gay people should defend the traditional understanding of marriage as strongly as everyone else. Given that it is being undermined in the name of gay people, with consequences for future generations, it is all the more important that gay people who are opposed to gay marriage speak up.

The support and status that marriage entails is not a societal bonus for falling in love and agreeing to make a relationship lasting. That is not, of course, to say that love and romance are not an important part of marriage. But they are not the reason it has special status. If romance were the reason for supporting marriage, there would be no grounds for differentiating which relationships should be included and which should not. But that is not and never has been the nature of marriage.

Marriage is vital as a framework within which children can be brought up by a man and woman. Not all marriages, of course, involve child-raising. And there are also, for that matter, same-sex couples already raising children. But the reality is that marriages tend towards child-raising and same-sex partnerships do not.

I am conscious of this when considering my own circle of friends, quite a few of whom have recently married or will soon do so in the future. Many, if not most or all of them, will raise children. If, however, I or gay friends form civil partnerships, those are much more unlikely to involve raising children. So the question that matters is this: Why should a gay relationship be treated the same way as a marriage, despite this fundamental difference?

A wealth of research demonstrates the marriage of a man and a woman provides children with the best life outcomes, that children raised in marriages that stay together do best across a whole range of measures. This is certainly not to cast aspersions on other families, but it does underscore the importance of marriage as an institution.

This is why the demand for gay marriage goes doubly wrong. It is not a demand for marriage to be extended to gay people – it is a demand for marriage to be redefined. The understanding of marriage as an institution that exists and is supported for the sake of strong families changes to an understanding of marriage as merely the end-point of romance. If gay couples are considered equally eligible for marriage, even though gay relationships do not tend towards child-raising and cannot by definition give a child a mother and a father, the crucial understanding of what marriage is actually mainly for has been discarded.

What that amounts to is the kind of marriage that puts adults before children. That, in my opinion, is ultimately selfish, and far too high a price to pay simply for the token gesture of treating opposite-sex relationships and same-sex relationships identically. And it is a token gesture. Isn’t it common sense, after all, to treat different situations differently? To put it personally, I do not feel in the least bit discriminated against by the fact that I cannot marry someone of the same-sex. I understand and accept that there are good reasons for this.

1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | ... | 41