Gays and Marriage

Forums › Off topic › Gays and Marriage

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#664714 31-Jul-2012 16:12

It gets my support, way over due

dclegg

2806 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#664725 31-Jul-2012 16:21

Firstly, I am 100% in support of this Marriage Equality initiative. I'm also confident that New Zealand is tolerant and informed enough to not derail this, vocal minorities notwithstanding.

But my first thought was, what happens to couples who have already committed via a Civil Union? Will they have a way to have this converted to a marriage, or have some process to ensure they can have all the rights they should now be entitled to, had marriage been an option when they joined via Civil Union?

Perhaps the Government should provide financial assistance to allow them to have lavish marriage ceremonies, allowing couples to renew their vows under this new legal construct made available to them. :-)

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#664726 31-Jul-2012 16:22

While I have nothing against gay people, I don't think they should be allowed to change the nature of marriage.

Marriage should remain the optimal arrangement for child bearing and raising a family as it always has been.

Gay people cannot bear children naturally, so , they cannot marry.

Once you start changing the nature of marriage to allow anyone in love to marry, then , what's stopping a brother and sister from marrying, or other bizarre combinations.

Gay people in a civil union can call themselves married, but it is a marriage via civil union .

Incidentally, the religious aspect of marriage means nothing to me.

dclegg

2806 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#664732 31-Jul-2012 16:29

surfisup1000:
Gay people cannot bear children naturally, so , they cannot marry.

That's not entirely accurate. Two of my closest friends have two young boys, both who were naturally carried to term by one of them. Of course, there did have to be external assistance in terms of a sperm donor, who also has a strong and loving relationship with his sons.

I also am having a hard time reconciling your correlation between the ability to bear children naturally and the right to marry. Does that mean we need to screen couples for potential fertility issues before granting marriage licenses?

gzt

17140 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#664737 31-Jul-2012 16:36

surfisup1000: Marriage should remain the optimal arrangement for child bearing and raising a family as it always has been. Gay people cannot bear children naturally, so , they cannot marry.

A lot of people cannot bear children for various reasons, but it is not and never has been a qualification for marriage.

surfisup1000: Once you start changing the nature of marriage to allow anyone in love to marry, then , what's stopping a brother and sister from marrying, or other bizarre combinations.

None of those things you name are being considered here.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#664752 31-Jul-2012 16:50

ajobbins:
Firstly a truck and a car do not have the same rules on the road - and I am quite happy to point out the reasons why they don't, and shouldn't. And this IS broken - we are denying people the right to equal legal recognition of their commitment relationship based on a bias against their sexuality - this, by definition, is discrimination.

We discriminate all the time. We euthanise pets but not humans Why? Because we discriminate that cats are inferior to us (except for some crazy cat people). This is a good thing, and saves us money so we can treat more people.

We practice affirmative action in NZ, which is positive discrimination.

Manufacturers discriminate against left handed people all the time.

Airlines discriminate against very fat people by making them purchase 2 seats.

Gay people also discriminate when choosing their partner -- a gay man will avoid sex with a female -- he is discriminating against women.

Gay people are different -- this is not just a minor difference such as skin colour or height -- to the point, if everyone were gay, there would be no people at all.

Marriage in the tradition sense is between a man/woman, but this excludes gay people by definition. So civil unions were created to allow gay people to enjoy the same rights under law as a married couple. Yet, the gay people still don't have the exactly the same rights, as the laws of nature prohibit them from naturally bearing children. The gay people can argue that one with god :)

In 1000 years, gay people may treasure the thousand year old tradition of 'civil unions' and want to block straight people from 'civil unions'.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#664754 31-Jul-2012 16:53

gzt:

surfisup1000: Once you start changing the nature of marriage to allow anyone in love to marry, then , what's stopping a brother and sister from marrying, or other bizarre combinations.

None of those things you name are being considered here.

But, this is where such changes can lead.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#664755 31-Jul-2012 16:54

gzt:
A lot of people cannot bear children for various reasons, but it is not and never has been a qualification for marriage.

But, it is the optimal arrangement for continuing the human race.

BlueShift

1692 posts

Uber Geek

#664756 31-Jul-2012 16:55

surfisup1000:
gzt:

surfisup1000: Once you start changing the nature of marriage to allow anyone in love to marry, then , what's stopping a brother and sister from marrying, or other bizarre combinations.

None of those things you name are being considered here.

But, this is where such changes can lead.

O noes, not the slippery slope!!! Before you know it we will all be forced to marry horses at gunpoint! That logically follows from gay marriage!

richms

28189 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#664759 31-Jul-2012 16:59

The issue I have with the surveys etc on this is that they basically only give the options of support, oppose, or undecided.

Im not supporting it, I am not opposed to it and I am pretty much decided that I dont care either way on it happening, yet there is no option for that.

I suspect that if they did have that option then a lot fewer people would be putting themselves in the undecided or opposed options.

Richard rich.ms

BlueShift

1692 posts

Uber Geek

#664760 31-Jul-2012 17:00

surfisup1000: Gay people also discriminate when choosing their partner -- a gay man will avoid sex with a female -- he is discriminating against women.

And I choose not to have sex with anyone who isn't my wife, aren't I such a bigot - discriminating against 99.999999% of the world!

Marriage in the tradition sense is between a man/woman, but this excludes gay people by definition. So civil unions were created to allow gay people to enjoy the same rights under law as a married couple. Yet, the gay people still don't have the exactly the same rights, as the laws of nature prohibit them from naturally bearing children. The gay people can argue that one with god :)

Traditionally, racially mixed marriages were illegal. For many millennia the laws of nature prohibited marrying people from other continents. Times change.

In 1000 years, gay people may treasure the thousand year old tradition of 'civil unions' and want to block straight people from 'civil unions'.

I'll leave the science fiction to the sci fi authors, I think you should too.

gjm

808 posts

Ultimate Geek

#664761 31-Jul-2012 17:00

scuwp: OK, I will have a crack at a sort of opposing view...

Marriage is a defined term, why are we trying to redefine it? Marriage is between a man and woman, end of story. Gay and lesbian couples claim to only want the same rights as married couples, and guess what...they do under current laws in a variety of ways including civil unions.

"Man" and "Woman" are also defined terms. When woman wanted the same "rights" as men, we didn't go out and change the definition of "women" so they could enjoy an equal status in modern society.

I am all for non-discrimination and equal rights no matter what your gender or sexual orientation, but a car is a car, and a truck is a truck. Both have the same rules and rights on the road, lets not try to fix something that isn't broken. Isn't this just more PC nonsense?

This is pretty much what I think as well but probably written better than I could. I'm not sure how similar the rights of married and "unioned" couples are at the moment but they should be the same. However I get annoyed when I think they are trying to change the meaning of words. Call my old fashioned but if everyone decided to call a horse a dolphin it would still be a horse.

Do surveys for Beer money (referral link) - Octopus Group

Link for buying beer (not affiliated, just like beer) - Good George

BlueShift

1692 posts

Uber Geek

#664769 31-Jul-2012 17:03

surfisup1000:
gzt:
A lot of people cannot bear children for various reasons, but it is not and never has been a qualification for marriage.

But, it is the optimal arrangement for continuing the human race.

Until gay marriage actually becomes compulsory for all, this argument is invalid. All evidence shows that the human race has absolutely no problems in propagating itself, there are over 7 billion exhibits for the defense there.

BlueShift

1692 posts

Uber Geek

#664775 31-Jul-2012 17:10

For the record I am in favor of anyone in a loving, consensual relationship being able to have that relationship recognised as a marriage by law. Religions can look after themselves, this is solely a legal/civil matter.

I'm not gay, I have gay friends and relatives, but none that are planning on getting hitched to my knowledge.
What really gets my snark going is the shonky, post-hoc 'reasoning' some people come up with to try and justify their own prejudices. I will attempt to keep my snark civil (if not unionised) and restrain my rebuttals to mattters of fact and logic (mostly).

vexxxboy

4244 posts

Uber Geek

#664778 31-Jul-2012 17:14

Gay people are different -- this is not just a minor difference such as skin colour or height -- to the point, if everyone were gay, there would be no people at all.

what a load of rubbish, of course there would be people , you dont need sex to carry on the human race and im with the majority who thinks this whole issue is a storm in a teacup and in the long run , the law will pass and the world wont end and i still wont care

Common sense is not as common as you think.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7