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 | ... | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | ... | 41

Networkn
30209 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#801475 18-Apr-2013 11:30

Kyanar:
networkn:

I had hoped this sarcasm and other such nonsense might stop once the bill was passed.

That's the last of it from me.

Ultimately, I still hold that I simply don't understand the point of the opposition. It has precisely zero effect on the existing institution with the sole exception of making it more inclusive, and I personally hold inclusiveness to be a value worth pursuing (having been a bit of a social outlier myself through my younger years, though not for that reason).

The whole debate, to me, is silly. I can't see why it was even an issue at all. Their relationships were legal, why should they not be legally recognised as well? Sure I've heard all the "for the children" arguments, but those fall flat in the face of evidence that single parents can raise children too.

Yes I think you have stated your opinion quite clearly many many times, I don't think anyone here doesn't understand your position. What I don't understand is why you are continuing to state your position now that the law has passed.

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

3874 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#801480 18-Apr-2013 11:35

networkn:

Yes I think you have stated your opinion quite clearly many many times, I don't think anyone here doesn't understand your position. What I don't understand is why you are continuing to state your position now that the law has passed.

And what I don't understand is why you don't similarly challenge other people raising similar points even after the bill has passed.

Whatever, I don't care.

MikeB4

18125 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#801482 18-Apr-2013 11:37

networkn:
Kyanar:
networkn:

I had hoped this sarcasm and other such nonsense might stop once the bill was passed.

That's the last of it from me.

Ultimately, I still hold that I simply don't understand the point of the opposition. It has precisely zero effect on the existing institution with the sole exception of making it more inclusive, and I personally hold inclusiveness to be a value worth pursuing (having been a bit of a social outlier myself through my younger years, though not for that reason).

The whole debate, to me, is silly. I can't see why it was even an issue at all. Their relationships were legal, why should they not be legally recognised as well? Sure I've heard all the "for the children" arguments, but those fall flat in the face of evidence that single parents can raise children too.

Yes I think you have stated your opinion quite clearly many many times, I don't think anyone here doesn't understand your position. What I don't understand is why you are continuing to state your position now that the law has passed.

It's called freedom of speech

rossmnz

507 posts

Ultimate Geek

#801502 18-Apr-2013 11:57

To me, we had civil unions already.

Difference in marriage vs civil union was due to other legislation - adoption/death etc not encompassing the civil union adequately.

The problem was therefore with that particular piece of legislation not the marriage or civil union thing.

Logically pretty much all all of the jibber-jabber that was used to justify gay marriage can also be used to justify polygamous marriage - they love each other therefore they have the right to marriage etc etc.

Note: I dont think polygamy is right and Im not advocating for it but if we are ensuring equal rights for all lets make sure it is for all.....???

Anyways its happened and ill keep a wary eye out for the likely decline in moral standards in society....oh wait that boats already sailed...

Questions this poses:

-Does this change the way sex education is taught in schools?
-Does this mean religious places (churches, mosques etc) now cannot refuse to marry a same sex couple? Would they be then open to discrimination-accusation under NZ law?
-If a person has two fathers and two mothers (as was quoted somewhere in stuff.co.nz LOL) how does this affect child support etc? Be pretty rad @ xmas and birthdays I bet!!!

IMO this is a much broader social issue than just "let gays get married".

DISCLAIMER: I am a white male, married with a kid, a dog, a cat and a picket fence. My son is biracial. I have gay friends and relatives and consider myself fairly open minded.

The force is strong with this one!

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#801516 18-Apr-2013 12:11

Well I’m 100% behind the law change that occurred last night. It's been a long time coming and it's time as a society we progressed into a modern way of thinking. Don't fear the change people, embrace it.

I for one am a huge supporter of the new direction our marvellous country is heading.

I mean, come on, who wouldn't want an extra public holiday?

Edit: And PS. About that other law change. I will be using my vote in the next election to vote conservative

jamesrt

1377 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#801592 18-Apr-2013 13:02

rossmnz: Does this mean religious places (churches, mosques etc) now cannot refuse to marry a same sex couple? Would they be then open to discrimination-accusation under NZ law?

I don't believe so. The current text of the Marriage Act (1956) reads:

A marriage licence shall authorize but not oblige any marriage celebrant to solemnize the marriage to which it relates.

My understanding is that this means that currently no-one can be forced into performing a marriage ceremony. In addition, the amendment bill also inserts into the Marriage Act the following:

no celebrant who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1, and no celebrant who is a person nominated to solemnize marriages by an approved organisation, is obliged to solemnize a marriage if solemnizing that marriage would contravene the religious beliefs of the religious body or the religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of the approved organisation.

Again, in my opinion, this wording makes it even more explicit that a Minister of Religion cannot be forced into performing a ceremony that is against his or her religious beliefs. In terms of Christian churches and Ministers, some have already indicated they happy to perform same-gender marriages, and some have indicated they aren't. This text, to me, reads that a minister who is against same-gender marriage cannot be forced into presiding over one - so, yes, they can "refuse".

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek

#801601 18-Apr-2013 13:13

rossmnz:

Questions this poses:

-Does this change the way sex education is taught in schools?

Why should it? Sex may happen in marriage, out of marriage, with goats or pumpkins, or in as many ways as humans can imagine and try out. It's biological and has nothing directly to do with a relationships legal status.

rossmnz:
-Does this mean religious places (churches, mosques etc) now cannot refuse to marry a same sex couple? Would they be then open to discrimination-accusation under NZ law?

If you had read the Bill, followed the news, or even read through this (long) thread you would know that any marriage celebrant, whether belonging to a religious institution or not, can decline to marry anyone. That has always been the case but it has been specifically stated in this new law so that there is no ambiguity.

FWIW, the Anglican church refused to marry me with my first marriage, because my husband was divorced. He was High Church and couldn't marry in his own church. Refusing to marry people has always been legal and not legally seen as discriminatory.

rossmnz:
-If a person has two fathers and two mothers (as was quoted somewhere in stuff.co.nz LOL) how does this affect child support etc? Be pretty rad @ xmas and birthdays I bet!!!

That child gets four people supporting and loving them. It has no impact on NZ social services beyond making it less likely that one parent will end up as a single parent needing a benefit.

rossmnz:
IMO this is a much broader social issue than just "let gays get married".

That's what some people said. However, a marriage in law doesn't do anything except allow people to marry. Names could already be changed, property is covered by a separate law and already applied to everyone equally, adoptions were already open to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

Now it's passed into law there is little point in debating the issues (or perceived issues). The sky hasn't fallen. Kids haven't woken up gay this morning. It's just life as normal with some committed couples being able to plan their weddings.

rossmnz

507 posts

Ultimate Geek

#801648 18-Apr-2013 13:54

and they couldnt do that with civil unions?

Honestly its a lot of hoopla for nothing. If equality for all is so important how about we work a bit harder on life expectancy, infant mortality, and general socio-economic problems of maori and pacific islanders in NZ?

There are far greater numbers of people that fit into this category!

The force is strong with this one!

groynk

233 posts

Master Geek

#801649 18-Apr-2013 13:55

Disclaimers:
I haven't read this whole thread and
I support the change.

But my opinion is that civil unions had already dealt with the equality (in law) issue years ago.

another opinion: A lot of people in NZ jumped on the global band wagon, but in other nations it was because they hadn't allowed any form of civil union and were still going for any form of 'marriage'

Based on this opinion:
The sticking point here has been about status. (and more specifically the meaning of the word marriage ingrained in our language).
Personally my solution to this would have been to make all legal formalisations of a relationship 'civil unions' (or pick a new name if you like).
Result is that religions do what they want with 'marriage' and the government treats anyone wanting to 'legally join', gay or otherwise, as equal.

= Everyone happy (or perhaps everyone equally unhappy?)

Would have been worth a debate at least I thought...

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76358 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#801656 18-Apr-2013 14:02

Elpie: FWIW, the Anglican church refused to marry me with my first marriage, because my husband was divorced. He was High Church and couldn't marry in his own church. Refusing to marry people has always been legal and not legally seen as discriminatory.

Ah... Similar situation (as in trying to get married in a religious setting) for me. My first wife was catholic and I am not. She wanted to get married in a church and the priest asked me to talk to the bishop. He asked me if I was going to convert. I said "No, I'm not planning" and after fifteen minutes of talking he gave the authorisation for the priest to conduct the ceremony.

It all depends on how accepting you are of other people...

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

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#801710 18-Apr-2013 15:08

freitasm: It all depends on how accepting you are of other people...

What are you intending here?
It's like you're saying a priest/bishop who would not have married you was not accepting... with all the associated negative connotations of intolerance and discrimination. Am I misunderstanding?

I'm honestly curious to know what people's definitions of acceptance/tolerance/<your word here> would look like in that situation. In other words, can a bishop or priest show that they accept or have tolerance for a couple's beliefs and still not agree to marry a couple, or are those two things mutually exclusive?

no celebrant who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1, and no celebrant who is a person nominated to solemnize marriages by an approved organisation, is obliged to solemnize a marriage if solemnizing that marriage would contravene the religious beliefs of the religious body or the religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of the approved organisation.

I haven't followed the debate particularly closely or read the actual wording of the law, but if that is law now I find it very interesting. At first read it suggests that a celebrant cannot refuse on the grounds of their own personally held beliefs; they can only refuse on the grounds of the beliefs of the organisation/body that they represent. Example: if the pope woke up tomorrow and changed the position of the Catholic church [organisation/body] to pro-SSM, would Catholic priests have to conduct SSM marriages if requested? I know that is an extreme example - just trying to understand what the law says.

MikeB4

18125 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#801720 18-Apr-2013 15:27

freitasm:
Elpie: FWIW, the Anglican church refused to marry me with my first marriage, because my husband was divorced. He was High Church and couldn't marry in his own church. Refusing to marry people has always been legal and not legally seen as discriminatory.

Ah... Similar situation (as in trying to get married in a religious setting) for me. My first wife was catholic and I am not. She wanted to get married in a church and the priest asked me to talk to the bishop. He asked me if I was going to convert. I said "No, I'm not planning" and after fifteen minutes of talking he gave the authorisation for the priest to conduct the ceremony.

It all depends on how accepting you are of other people...

A Catholic Priest refused to marry us because contrary to his beliefs we should not be living together and because of that our marriage would not last. Well that was 33 years ago and we are still very much together, but I guess it's only 33 years so he may still be right.

tardtasticx

3050 posts

Uber Geek

#801826 18-Apr-2013 18:54

I cant understand why people don't read this bill properly before they go around saying their rights to freedom are being taken (ie churches marrying people). It was never said that this bill was forcing the churches to marry people they didn't want to, and was clarified on MANY occasions by many different people. They have always been able to do this and I think its completely stupid but I wouldn't want to marry in a church that wasn't accepting anyway.

My parents didn't get married in a church because my mum divorced her dead beat husband years before she met my father when she was VERY young. They instead married by a close family friend at the local cosmopolitan club and had a blast from what the photos show.

I'm just happy all of this is over because now people can see that society has not crumbled, I woke up to rain and couldn't wear my pink suede shoes but thats as bad as today got tbh, unless that was the beginning of the gay apocalypse?

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#801948 18-Apr-2013 22:31

tardtasticx: I cant understand why people don't read this bill properly before they go around saying their rights to freedom are being taken (ie churches marrying people). It was never said that this bill was forcing the churches to marry people they didn't want to, and was clarified on MANY occasions by many different people. They have always been able to do this...

Sam, I guess this comment is directed at my post? If you read the amendment and original act then I'd hazard to guess that you've done far more than most people involved in the debate. Believe it or not, mine was a genuine question based solely on the previously mentioned quote. If you honestly interpret the previous quote as allowing any celebrant to refuse to solemnise a marriage then fine. I interpreted it differently. Maybe we have a difference of opinion. I did follow up by reading the original 1955 marriage act section (29):

Licence authorizes but not obliges marriage celebrant to solemnize marriage
A marriage licence shall authorize but not oblige any marriage celebrant to solemnize the marriage to which it relates.
Compare: 1908 No 113 s 28
Section 29 heading: amended, on 1 January 1977, by section 2(1) of the Marriage Amendment Act 1976 (1976 No 8).
Section 29: amended, on 1 January 1977, by section 2(1) of the Marriage Amendment Act 1976 (1976 No 8).

So that clears up the confusion. I still think it would be easy for the casual reader to misunderstand the amendment at first glance, if not understood in context of the original act. In fact I'd go so far as to say the amendment doesn't go far enough if it is intended to clarify that any celebrant can refuse to solemnise a marriage due to their religious beliefs.

...and I think its completely stupid but I wouldn't want to marry in a church that wasn't accepting anyway.

Again with the "accepting". I just don't understand. Would you be so kind as to answer my previous question? In your opinion:

...can a bishop or priest show that they accept or have tolerance for a couple's beliefs and still not agree to marry a couple, or are those two things mutually exclusive?

I'm just happy all of this is over because now people can see that society has not crumbled, I woke up to rain and couldn't wear my pink suede shoes but thats as bad as today got tbh, unless that was the beginning of the gay apocalypse?

The "society" argument was one that holds some weight with me. Of course one bill is not going to cause society to crumble overnight. I don't think anybody has claimed that. Obviously we have a difference of opinion and it is pointless debating now as the bill has passed. I too am happy this is all over because I'm sick of the sarcastic retorts and intentional misrepresentation of arguments from both sides.

tardtasticx

3050 posts

Uber Geek

#801965 18-Apr-2013 23:04

mm1352000:
tardtasticx: I cant understand why people don't read this bill properly before they go around saying their rights to freedom are being taken (ie churches marrying people). It was never said that this bill was forcing the churches to marry people they didn't want to, and was clarified on MANY occasions by many different people. They have always been able to do this...

Sam, I guess this comment is directed at my post? If you read the amendment and original act then I'd hazard to guess that you've done far more than most people involved in the debate. Believe it or not, mine was a genuine question based solely on the previously mentioned quote. If you honestly interpret the previous quote as allowing any celebrant to refuse to solemnise a marriage then fine. I interpreted it differently. Maybe we have a difference of opinion. I did follow up by reading the original 1955 marriage act section (29):
Licence authorizes but not obliges marriage celebrant to solemnize marriage
A marriage licence shall authorize but not oblige any marriage celebrant to solemnize the marriage to which it relates.
Compare: 1908 No 113 s 28
Section 29 heading: amended, on 1 January 1977, by section 2(1) of the Marriage Amendment Act 1976 (1976 No 8).
Section 29: amended, on 1 January 1977, by section 2(1) of the Marriage Amendment Act 1976 (1976 No 8).

So that clears up the confusion. I still think it would be easy for the casual reader to misunderstand the amendment at first glance, if not understood in context of the original act. In fact I'd go so far as to say the amendment doesn't go far enough if it is intended to clarify that any celebrant can refuse to solemnise a marriage due to their religious beliefs.

...and I think its completely stupid but I wouldn't want to marry in a church that wasn't accepting anyway.

Again with the "accepting". I just don't understand. Would you be so kind as to answer my previous question? In your opinion:
...can a bishop or priest show that they accept or have tolerance for a couple's beliefs and still not agree to marry a couple, or are those two things mutually exclusive?

I'm just happy all of this is over because now people can see that society has not crumbled, I woke up to rain and couldn't wear my pink suede shoes but thats as bad as today got tbh, unless that was the beginning of the gay apocalypse?

The "society" argument was one that holds some weight with me. Of course one bill is not going to cause society to crumble overnight. I don't think anybody has claimed that. Obviously we have a difference of opinion and it is pointless debating now as the bill has passed. I too am happy this is all over because I'm sick of the sarcastic retorts and intentional misrepresentation of arguments from both sides.

Sorry it wasn't meant to be directed at anyone in particular, I was skimming through the newest responses and thats basically what I gathered.

I totally understand how it would be easy to confuse, because its not something people read every day. But it was mentioned on quite a few occasions that this bill would not force anyone to do anything that they were not comfortable with, whether it be for religious reasons or otherwise.

In response to your question, I suppose they can show they have tolerance. Like if say I approached a church and wanted to marry my boyfriend, the priest/bishop could say "I'm sorry, we don't marry same sex couples at this church for this reason.... blah blah.... but this church might do this. All the best :)".
I'd be happy with that. It shows that the priest/bishop himself has an accepting heart, but the church that he is apart of does not believe that this is natural or legal or whatever in the bible so doesnt agree with it. Its then up to the church itself to show support/acceptance. Which could come with time.

Of course, I totally respect your beliefs about what will happen with this. Sarcasm and the likes seem to come around because its such a heavy topic. Both sides are absolutely certain that they are right and the other side has to be so idiot/illogical. Its an easy thing to happen.

I apologise to you or anyone I might have offended, its easy to get carried away.

1 | ... | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | ... | 41