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 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | ... | 41

1304 posts

Uber Geek

#789990 31-Mar-2013 17:24

kyhwana2:
Elpie:
I could do so if I were so inclined. And, unlike you, I have spent considerable time in such countries. Do you seriously want to get into religious arguments, especially religious arguments that have absolutely no bearing on the proposed law change in NZ? If you do, then start a new topic as this is so totally off-topic for this thread that its plain silly.

So we're agreed that religion shouldn't get involved in equal marriage then? That means we can get rid of most of the posts in this thread! (For AND against)

We aren't agreed. I fully support gender-neutral marriage law, just as I support everyone's right to hold their own opinions and to voice them - as long as their opinions don't denigrate others just to make a point.

Lenovo

Lenovo computer and accessories deals (affiliate link).

kyhwana2

2553 posts

Uber Geek

#790000 31-Mar-2013 17:29

Elpie:
We aren't agreed. I fully support gender-neutral marriage law, just as I support everyone's right to hold their own opinions and to voice them - as long as their opinions don't denigrate others just to make a point.

Then I guess we disagree on that, because religious belief's are crazy and it's my opinion they don't belong in a mature and civilised society.

Religious people are allowed to voice their opinions, just as i'm allowed to voice my opinion that they're crazy!

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek

#790003 31-Mar-2013 17:39

kyhwana2:
Elpie:
We aren't agreed. I fully support gender-neutral marriage law, just as I support everyone's right to hold their own opinions and to voice them - as long as their opinions don't denigrate others just to make a point.

Then I guess we disagree on that, because religious belief's are crazy and it's my opinion they don't belong in a mature and civilised society.

Religious people are allowed to voice their opinions, just as i'm allowed to voice my opinion that they're crazy!

I think your view is here overly simplistic.

We could agree that certain parts of most/all religions are nonsensical. However, that doesn't mean religious beliefs are crazy or don't have a place in modern society.

Certainly some people use region as an excuse to do some messed up things, but for most people it is simply a bunch of moral beliefs they hold and they practice their religion to be better people. Some people may practice because they think they will go to heaven or whatever, and that belief is based on little or no scientific fact which you think is silly.

But for that person, is it a bad thing? Would the people who believe in this way be better off if they didn't believe in religion? Do you honestly think everyone who practices a religion believes the literal translation of everything in every religious text?

kyhwana2

2553 posts

Uber Geek

#790016 31-Mar-2013 18:08

blair003:

Certainly some people use region as an excuse to do some messed up things, but for most people it is simply a bunch of moral beliefs they hold and they practice their religion to be better people.

I guess we all have a different definition of "better" then. ;)

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#790069 31-Mar-2013 22:34

da5id: To be honest, one of the main reasons I don't believe in SSM is that I think marriage is largely about children, and children haven't been considered in the whole select committee process; in fact, they slipped in legislation regarding adoption that wasn't even mentioned the whole time, and while quite a few people are in favour of SSM, the issue of adoption by gay parents is another matter entirely (or, should be).

The whole thing has a feel of something that is being rushed through.

So what exactly is the deal with children and homosexual marriage? Why is it bad to allow homosexual couples to marry in the same way heterosexual couples marry? They will not magically begin to procreate but why should this mean they are ineligible to marry? I would understand if marriage was the sole reason for marriage to exist but it is not so why should they be excluded?

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#790070 31-Mar-2013 22:36

1080p: 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.

I am still yet to see any reason outside the three invalid ones in this post.

nate

6469 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#790185 1-Apr-2013 12:56

I've warned two people and hidden two posts.

Please refrain from the following:

1. Asking someone to summarise what's been covered- your mum doesn't participate here, stop being lazy and read. If you don't want to read, leave.

2. Don't ask if Godwin's law has been invoked yet. You're not helping.

We'd done very well thus far (far exceeded my expectations) - lets try and continue please.

Mark

1615 posts

Uber Geek

#790281 1-Apr-2013 20:00

Yes mum.

:-)

Hammerer

2444 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#790658 2-Apr-2013 13:29

1080p:

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.

It is not true that it is "generally accepted that religion has zero place in political discussion."

Why are you trying so hard to privilege your own viewpoint on this issue? It looks like you are trying to establish guidelines for political correctness. The same sort of reasoning leads to hegemonies of the like seen in oppressive political regimes.

Here's an example to illustrate the weakness of your stance. It seems to be widely accepted that communist ideas have little political currency in NZ. Even so, it would be absurd to say in a discussion that "Your reason(s) may not include communist ideas because not every married heterosexual couple are communist and the generally accepted idea that communism has zero place in political discussion."

kyhwana2

2553 posts

Uber Geek

#790661 2-Apr-2013 13:32

Hammerer:
1080p:

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.

Why are you trying so hard to privilege your own viewpoint on this issue? It looks like you are trying to establish guidelines for political correctness. The same sort of reasoning leads to hegemonies of the like seen in oppressive political regimes.

Those tend to only allow discussion from/involving the One Right Religion, usually.

As it turns out, there are some christians/churches are are FOR gay marriage. So I guess they cancel out the the ones against, if you want to look at it another way.

Hammerer

2444 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#790684 2-Apr-2013 13:55

kyhwana2:
Hammerer:
1080p:

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.

Why are you trying so hard to privilege your own viewpoint on this issue? It looks like you are trying to establish guidelines for political correctness. The same sort of reasoning leads to hegemonies of the like seen in oppressive political regimes.

Those tend to only allow discussion from/involving the One Right Religion, usually.

As it turns out, there are some christians/churches are are FOR gay marriage. So I guess they cancel out the the ones against, if you want to look at it another way.

I don't understand your first comment. What is "Those": do you mean "hegemonies" or "oppressive political regimes"? To clarify, examples of political regimes that established oppressive political hegemonies are communist USSR and China and Nazi Germany. None of these regimes would be considered religious in the common use of the term and the way it has been used here.

I'm not sure if your joking in your second comment. Why would one position cancel out the other? Here's an example using a different set of people. If "thare are some NZers against gay marriaage" then it is hardly helpful to say "I guess they cancel out the ones for".

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#790725 2-Apr-2013 14:41

Hammerer:
1080p:

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.

It is not true that it is "generally accepted that religion has zero place in political discussion."

Why are you trying so hard to privilege your own viewpoint on this issue? It looks like you are trying to establish guidelines for political correctness. The same sort of reasoning leads to hegemonies of the like seen in oppressive political regimes.

Here's an example to illustrate the weakness of your stance. It seems to be widely accepted that communist ideas have little political currency in NZ. Even so, it would be absurd to say in a discussion that "Your reason(s) may not include communist ideas because not every married heterosexual couple are communist and the generally accepted idea that communism has zero place in political discussion."

How can you know I am privileging my own point of view if you do not know what that is.

It is an objective fact that basing political discussion on religious belief is a bad thing. A state has no right to enforce particular beliefs or morals on a citizen and if it were to base legislation on a religion or ideas a religion holds true for no other reason than "god said so" it would be.

Consider how you would feel if the government decided to base new legislation on meat production around Islamic beliefs (halal) and forced all meat in New Zealand to be produced to standards from the Quran. It might not be a big deal to most people but some would definitely take offense to meat slaughtered in the name of Allah. This is why it is a generally accepted fact that political discussion cannot take religion seriously as a sound form of reason.

Saying marriage must only be between a man and a woman is akin to saying meat must be prepared in Allah's name or that you must kill your adulterous wife. The argument is based on nothing more substantial than if I were to base my views on Greek mythology.

My post is not intended to belittle religious views but to convey the weight they hold on issues that concern every New Zealand citizen, Christian or not.

Once again, I ask for a reason homosexual marriage is a bad idea that is not based in religion.

da5id

550 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#790763 2-Apr-2013 15:20

1080p:

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

Actually, the discussion doesn't have to have religious arguments in it at all in order to question the idea of marriage being redefined to include same-sex couples.
The questions you have to ask are: what is marriage? And why does the Govt have an interest in it?

Marriage is one of either two things -

Marriage is the public recognition of a committed relationship between two adults solely for their individual fulfillment.
Marriage unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union.

I tend to believe it is the second. Ryan Anderson from the Heritage Foundation writes -

In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view of marriage that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. This view reduces marriage primarily to emotional bonds or legal privileges. Redefining marriage represents the culmination of this revisionism and would leave emotional intensity as the only thing that sets marriage apart from other bonds.

However, if marriage were just intense emotional regard, marital norms would make no sense as a principled matter. There is no reason of principle that requires an emotional union to be permanent. Or limited to two persons. Or sexual, much less sexually exclusive. Or inherently oriented to family life and shaped by its demands. Couples might live out these norms where temperament or taste motivated them, but there would be no reason of principle for them to do so and no basis for the law to encourage them to do so.

In other words, if sexual complementarity is optional for marriage, present only where preferred, then almost every other norm that sets marriage apart is optional.

Government is not in the business of affirming our love. Rather, it leaves consenting adults free to live and love as they choose. Contrary to what some say, there is no ban on same-sex marriage. Nothing about it is illegal. In all 50 states, two people of the same sex may choose to live together, choose to join a religious community that blesses their relationship, and choose a workplace offering joint benefits. There is nothing illegal about this.

What is at issue is whether the government will recognize such relationships as marriages—and then force every citizen, house of worship, and business to do so as well. At issue is whether policy will coerce and compel others to recognize and affirm same-sex relationships as marriages. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

Beccara

1467 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#790777 2-Apr-2013 15:46

This sums it up pretty well

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#790805 2-Apr-2013 16:07

@beccara

it was posted 2 pages back and only sums it up for those that agree with that stance and like calling others bigots that don't agree with them.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

1 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | ... | 41