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 | ... | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | ... | 41

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#793066 4-Apr-2013 12:01

1080p:
Once again, how will this amendment affect those bringing up children in heterosexual marriages?

The answer which you've refused to supply a half dozen times already is that it will not. At all.

Its a question that I have been giving a lot of thought. And I have been pondering whether I should try and answer it or not. I had chosen not to because of what it relates to. But here is my answer it anyway.

Not sure if you are familiar with the term "affirmative action"?

The affirmative action law tries to eliminate racial differences between applicants for jobs, uni entrances, etc... but guess what! It creates a new target for discrimination, white males. (There are many white South Africans who emigrate to New Zealand. I wonder why?)

This law is trying to eliminate the so called discrimination against gay couples but it will at the same time open discrimination to those people who oppose it. The proof is actually in this thread. The so called Bigot racists!!!!!

People are different. We all have different views about different things. The law is trying to force people to be the same and just accepting of everyone and everyone sharing the same views. The natural differences between people is huge, yet some people are insisting that there should be no differences at all. No law can change that.

With regards to adoption. in the name of fairness, children will be distributed to same sex couples. How will that affect hetrosexual marriages? I think it will have an affect on hetrosexual married couples who are wishing to adopt.

In the name of fairness, Churches may be forced to marry gay couples.

How will this law affect current traditional marriages? You right not by much. But long term I think it will.

I have tried answering your question. Would you mind answering mine?

Back on the subject of Gay being a choice. As said earlier its what I believe. Why is there no such thing as a "gay gene"? We have genes for our hair colour, everything else. But none for being gay. Science has not proved that there is such a thing.

This is why I believe being gay is a lifestyle choice. Until somebody can find that "gay gene" I will continue to believe that. And as long as I beleive that its a choice we going to be bumping heads continuously on this thread.

NordVPN

Protect your online activity with NordVPN (affiliate link).

tardtasticx

3050 posts

Uber Geek

#793071 4-Apr-2013 12:07

Klipspringer:
freitasm: I would have no problems with children being raised by gay couples (as I said before I have first hand knowledge of one girl being raised by two dads).

On the other hand I have problems with this kind of straight scumbag people raising and having access to kids.

Agreed. Unfortunately this is human nature. Some people are sick

Just like this gay paedophile scumbag

Aaron Ellmers, 41, appeared in Hastings District Court this morning and pleaded guilty to a raft of child sex offences, including one in which involved Ellmers travelling to Christchurch and offering a man $500 for "sexual gratification" with the man's 18-month-old boy.

You're not getting the point though. freitasm's article was about a straight male sexually assaulting HIS DAUGHTER where as your article was about a gay male trying to sexually assault SOMEONE ELSES SON.

VERY different scenarios, both are horrible, I'm not denying that, but not the same at all.

onebytemike

90 posts

Master Geek

#793081 4-Apr-2013 12:12

Klipspringer:
This is why I believe being gay is a lifestyle choice. Until somebody can find that "gay gene" I will continue to believe that. And as long as I beleive that its a choice we going to be bumping heads continuously on this thread.

For that matter, I'm going to start campaigning to have marriage removed entirely until we find a hetrosexual gene!

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#793084 4-Apr-2013 12:13

onebytemike:
Klipspringer:
This is why I believe being gay is a lifestyle choice. Until somebody can find that "gay gene" I will continue to believe that. And as long as I beleive that its a choice we going to be bumping heads continuously on this thread.

For that matter, I'm going to start campaigning to have marriage removed entirely until we find a hetrosexual gene!

If you find the hetrosexual gene then you have found its opposite! The gay gene!

Forget finding either of them

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#793086 4-Apr-2013 12:15

tardtasticx:
You're not getting the point though. freitasm's article was about a straight male sexually assaulting HIS DAUGHTER where as your article was about a gay male trying to sexually assault SOMEONE ELSES SON.

VERY different scenarios, both are horrible, I'm not denying that, but not the same at all.

I got your point. Thank goodness this gay paedophile did not have a small son.

tardtasticx

3050 posts

Uber Geek

#793087 4-Apr-2013 12:16

Klipspringer:
1080p:
Once again, how will this amendment affect those bringing up children in heterosexual marriages?

The answer which you've refused to supply a half dozen times already is that it will not. At all.

Its a question that I have been giving a lot of thought. And I have been pondering whether I should try and answer it or not. I had chosen not to because of what it relates to. But here is my answer it anyway.

Not sure if you are familiar with the term "affirmative action"?

The affirmative action law tries to eliminate racial differences between applicants for jobs, uni entrances, etc... but guess what! It creates a new target for discrimination, white males. (There are many white South Africans who emigrate to New Zealand. I wonder why?)

This law is trying to eliminate the so called discrimination against gay couples but it will at the same time open discrimination to those people who oppose it. The proof is actually in this thread. The so called Bigot racists!!!!!

People are different. The law is trying to force people to be the same and just accepting of everyone. The natural differences between people is huge, yet some people are insisting that there should be no differences at all. No law can change that.

With regards to adoption. in the name of fairness, children will be distributed to same sex couples. How will that affect hetrosexual marriages? I think it will have an affect on hetrosexual married couples who are wishing to adopt.

In the name of fairness, Churches may be forced to marry gay couples.

How will this law affect current traditional marriages? You right not by much. But long term I think it will.

I have tried answering your question. Would you mind answering mine?

Back on the subject of Gay being a choice. As said earlier its what I believe. Why is there no such thing as a "gay gene"? We have genes for our hair colour, everything else. But none for being gay. Science has not proved that there is such a thing.

This is why I believe being gay is a lifestyle choice. Until somebody can find that "gay gene" I will continue to believe that. And as long as I beleive that its a choice we going to be bumping heads continuously on this thread.

The law isn't trying to force people to be the same, its giving everyone the same RIGHTS. You dont have to think we're the same, and I dont care because I know we arent, everyone is different, no two straight males are the same either. Being equal in the eye of the law is not the same as being the same.

How will children be 'distributed' to same sex couples? Sign a form and they send one out via express courier the next working day? It going to be just as tough for gay couples as it is for straight couples, but atleast now gay couples have a fighting chance where they didnt before.

No, it has been said time and time again, churches will not be forced to marry gay couples if they choose not to. Simple

How will this affect straight marriages in the long term? I dont see how it will make them any different. You may think that it means less, then so what, thats your view, but it doesnt mean that everyone else feels the same. You'll still be married at the end of the day, you can still divorce, call eachother husband and wife etc. Gays wont take that away at all.

And you're confusing two things, the choice of sexual orientation and the choice of expression.
We dont choose our sexual orientation, we do choose however if we want to express that. My family thought I was straight for the first 16 years of my life. I didn't wake up one day and decide I was gay, I did however decide that i wanted people to know something huge about my life I'd been hiding. Massive differences. You can go around saying you're gay, because you choose to express yourself that way, but it doesn't necessarily mean you are gay.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#793089 4-Apr-2013 12:20

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#793098 4-Apr-2013 12:27

1080p: Even if you're correct (there is no evidence I have seen to support this yet) and an environment with a biological mother and father is the best environment for a child to be raised in. Why does it matter?

Is the burden of proof (if there is one) is on proponents of SSM to prove that raising a child in a SSM family is not harmful, or is it the other way around? I've seen anecdotal evidence from both sides presented, but not scientific evidence. Although I think the question of the best environment is somewhat irrelevant (things are never ideal/perfect anyway), the question of "is an SSM family environment harmful to the childrent?" is definitely relevant.

Once again, how will this amendment affect those bringing up children in heterosexual marriages?

If you ask me, that is a leading question and not entirely fair.

The change doesn't have to affect me or a particular societal group that I am a member of for me to have an opinion on it (or indeed to object to it). I think a change (such as this) that is more likely to have an impact at a wider societal level should be considered as such. To me your question is like saying to a non-drinker that they can't have an opinion about alcohol reform because they choose not to drink, but of course that position ignores the wider societal impacts of alcohol (the binge drinking culture etc. etc. etc.). Admittedly the impacts of SSM on society are comparatively much harder to quantify than those of alcohol, and there is much less of a consensus on what is positive and what is negative (because it is more subjective)... but that doesn't mean that there won't be (or aren't already) effects or that people are not entitled to believe SSM has a wider impact (either for good or ill).

There are people such as myself that think that the breakdown of the family unit and/or morality in society is responsible for the rise in violent and sicker crimes over the last 30 years. I was talking to my Grandma about this yesterday and she remembers when there was hardly a [high profile] murder per year in New Zealand. So I ask you what has changed? My answer to that question is that society's values have changed for the worse; more of a focus on consumerism and greed, less of a focus on family and morality. In some ways changes like legalising prostitution and legalising SSM seem to be more steps along that path.

How does one fight such a societal trend?

The step change is always small in legal terms, which makes it hard to say that it will have a measurable impact on society. For example, think of the arguments about decreasing the age of alcohol purchase several years back. It was hard to show that it would make a practical difference. My point is that the size of the change makes it hard to present any incontrovertible evidence to oppose the move... but that doesn't negate the validity of the opposition.

Beccara

1467 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#793103 4-Apr-2013 12:30

Klipspringer:

Lol, Someone should let the gay animals know

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

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#793107 4-Apr-2013 12:32

Beccara:
Klipspringer:

Lol, Someone should let the gay animals know

I dont believe there is such a thing as a "gay animal"
bisexual yes.

Beccara

1467 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#793116 4-Apr-2013 12:40

mm1352000:
1080p: Even if you're correct (there is no evidence I have seen to support this yet) and an environment with a biological mother and father is the best environment for a child to be raised in. Why does it matter?

Is the burden of proof (if there is one) is on proponents of SSM to prove that raising a child in a SSM family is not harmful, or is it the other way around? I've seen anecdotal evidence from both sides presented, but not scientific evidence. Although I think the question of the best environment is somewhat irrelevant (things are never ideal/perfect anyway), the question of "is an SSM family environment harmful to the childrent?" is definitely relevant.

Once again, how will this amendment affect those bringing up children in heterosexual marriages?

If you ask me, that is a leading question and not entirely fair.

The change doesn't have to affect me or a particular societal group that I am a member of for me to have an opinion on it (or indeed to object to it). I think a change (such as this) that is more likely to have an impact at a wider societal level should be considered as such. To me your question is like saying to a non-drinker that they can't have an opinion about alcohol reform because they choose not to drink, but of course that position ignores the wider societal impacts of alcohol (the binge drinking culture etc. etc. etc.). Admittedly the impacts of SSM on society are comparatively much harder to quantify than those of alcohol, and there is much less of a consensus on what is positive and what is negative (because it is more subjective)... but that doesn't mean that there won't be (or aren't already) effects or that people are not entitled to believe SSM has a wider impact (either for good or ill).

There are people such as myself that think that the breakdown of the family unit and/or morality in society is responsible for the rise in violent and sicker crimes over the last 30 years. I was talking to my Grandma about this yesterday and she remembers when there was hardly a [high profile] murder per year in New Zealand. So I ask you what has changed? My answer to that question is that society's values have changed for the worse; more of a focus on consumerism and greed, less of a focus on family and morality. In some ways changes like legalising prostitution and legalising SSM seem to be more steps along that path.

How does one fight such a societal trend?

The step change is always small in legal terms, which makes it hard to say that it will have a measurable impact on society. For example, think of the arguments about decreasing the age of alcohol purchase several years back. It was hard to show that it would make a practical difference. My point is that the size of the change makes it hard to present any incontrovertible evidence to oppose the move... but that doesn't negate the validity of the opposition.

Ah the old "Back in my day we were safer!" argument. Granny think's it's safer because news took longer to get around and it was more costly to do so, As such it had to be something of interest to get reported around.

The murder rate in NZ is actually lower today than it was in the late 80's and on par with those in the 70's. I don't have access to stats before the 70's right now tho, The murder rate in the USA is 1/2 that today of what it was on the 30's,40's,70's and 80's

Things weren't safe back in the day, they seemed safer because people weren't aware of the goings on in the world

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76418 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#793124 4-Apr-2013 12:53

Klipspringer:
tardtasticx:
You're not getting the point though. freitasm's article was about a straight male sexually assaulting HIS DAUGHTER where as your article was about a gay male trying to sexually assault SOMEONE ELSES SON.

VERY different scenarios, both are horrible, I'm not denying that, but not the same at all.

I got your point. Thank goodness this gay paedophile did not have a small son.

Terrible that straight rapist dad had a daughter.

Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

gzt

15225 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#793126 4-Apr-2013 12:58

Klipspringer:
gzt:
Klipspringer:
gzt:
Klipspringer: And the answer to that one is simply that gay couples are putting themselves and their own selfish desires before the kids.

Since many people make a decision to get married as part of an effort/commitment to provide a stable home for their children - you are completely wrong about that.

Why is it you believe that a stable family life for a gay couple should be any different to that of a heterosexual couple?

Have a read of this: It will answer your question. Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View

It did not answer my question. The article makes very clear in the opening two paragraphs that it is not describing a stable family life. My question remains the same.

Same answer then:

Klipspringer:
Simply put. A gay couple raising children will stand out as being different.

Think back to your childhood. Is it nice growing up "different"? Children have no shame and I think the article above sums it up pretty well.

That’s my first point.

My second point is that in a healthy loving home with a Mom and a Dad there are certain parenting tasks that are best left to the Mom, and certain other tasks best left to Dad. Again I am not saying that doing these tasks is not possible for either parent to do.

I could bring up my daughters if need be on my own. It would be hard, but it would not be what’s best for my kids.

If thats not clear enough then ask yourself whats best for a child. Asking myself that question always diverts me back to opposing SSM.

Unsubscribing now...

I consider your behavior in this discussion to be a lot less than ideal. You publicly announced you would cease participating for reasons known only to yourself. Then you returned. It is obvious from your subsequent posts that you regard all gay people as morally deficient and ipso facto should be denied a marriage license on this basis alone.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#793139 4-Apr-2013 13:00

Beccara: Ah the old "Back in my day we were safer!" argument.

That was hardly my point. Again, my main point in that post was that small changes in policy are hard to oppose.

Granny think's it's safer because news took longer to get around and it was more costly to do so, As such it had to be something of interest to get reported around.

The murder rate in NZ is actually lower today than it was in the late 80's and on par with those in the 70's. I don't have access to stats before the 70's right now tho, The murder rate in the USA is 1/2 that today of what it was on the 30's,40's,70's and 80's

Things weren't safe back in the day, they seemed safer because people weren't aware of the goings on in the world

I purposely avoided presenting stats as I wasn't trying to make an argument from that perspective, and I know everyone can throw stats and scientific studies at eachother until the cows come home. Views here seem to be deeply entrenched, which makes me wonder what is the point of debating: just take the vote already!

Beccara

1467 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#793151 4-Apr-2013 13:14

mm1352000:
Beccara: Ah the old "Back in my day we were safer!" argument.

That was hardly my point. Again, my main point in that post was that small changes in policy are hard to oppose.

Granny think's it's safer because news took longer to get around and it was more costly to do so, As such it had to be something of interest to get reported around.

The murder rate in NZ is actually lower today than it was in the late 80's and on par with those in the 70's. I don't have access to stats before the 70's right now tho, The murder rate in the USA is 1/2 that today of what it was on the 30's,40's,70's and 80's

Things weren't safe back in the day, they seemed safer because people weren't aware of the goings on in the world

I purposely avoided presenting stats as I wasn't trying to make an argument from that perspective, and I know everyone can throw stats and scientific studies at eachother until the cows come home. Views here seem to be deeply entrenched, which makes me wonder what is the point of debating: just take the vote already!

Your argument centered around

"There are people such as myself that think that the breakdown of the family unit and/or morality in society is responsible for the rise in violent and sicker crimes over the last 30 years"

This is in every way provably false, The example I listed was simple on purpose, This isn't the stats of "muggings done per year while the offender was wearing pink" stat's this was cold,hard,basic stat's of bodies in the ground by the hand of another. You are right that some "science" that has bias in it can be thrown around, Like our other friend here listing pages and pages of studies "supporting" his position that gay parents == bad despite the studies not being done on this but these are some basic figures.

Your fighting a "social trend" that's in your head, The world seems scary now to you because you can't bury your head in the sand of ignorance.

I imagine a few people in here anti-gay would be spitting alot more hate if you were around other's like you privately, Which does sadden me as I had hoped we would have moved past this crap after segregation and slavery

1 | ... | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | ... | 41