Gays and Marriage

Forums › Off topic › Gays and Marriage

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

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#664780 31-Jul-2012 17:26

surfisup1000:

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.

You're right - and not all discrimination is bad, however for the state to widely discrimate against people for being something they are (and have no control over) is the wrong kind of discrimination. I cannot see how it is different from discrimnation based on race, religion, age, sex etc. All things that were heavily discrimated on in the past, but as a society we have evolved and recognise that this was wrong. My (future) children's generation will look upon this issue in a similar way to how I look at these other historic forms of discrimination - I can't believe we so openly discriminated against 'black' people and women until so recently - and even still now to some extent. Makes me sick.

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 :)

As I said previosly, it depends who's 'definition' you are refering to. If you are refering to the chuch's definition, it's irrelevant - the issue on the cards is the state's definition for the legal recognition of a marriage. What a religion recognises as a marriage does not have to change to match the law. The spiritual definition recognition of marriage is up to that religion.

The argument about children is also irrelevant. I know married couple both who cannot have children, or chose not to have children before they got married. If that is your argument, you should be arguing against all form of marriage where there is not commitment to attempt procreation - a totally different argument all together.

Twitter: ajobbins

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#664781 31-Jul-2012 17:31

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.

Ohoh, I can answer this one.

If we require child bearing as a pre-requisite to marriage, then we need to stop allowing infertile couples (either one or both) from being allowed to get married.
There should be a fertility test you have to pass before you can get married and if you get married then one or both of the partners become infertile or get their tubes tied, then their marriage should get annuled.

Done! Next?

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#664782 31-Jul-2012 17:32

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.

See http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#664783 31-Jul-2012 17:33

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.

Guess where gay people come from!

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#664784 31-Jul-2012 17:35

gjm:

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.

And if gay couples get married once this becomes law and then consider themselves married and their friends/family call them married, then they're married.

rvangelder

352 posts

Ultimate Geek

#664786 31-Jul-2012 17:36

I'm not a lawyer - if anyone is, could they explain if it's illegal for a gay couple to marry? I searched the Marriage Act briefly, and couldn't find any restrictions.
This page is funny: Legislation

edit: found it in Births, Deaths, Marriages Act - uses the words Wife and Husband.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#664815 31-Jul-2012 18:36

Since the question has been asked, here’s my 20c worth which may well be a minority view point. I’ve never been known for standing back and not saying something I feel needs to be said, no matter what others may be espousing. Here goes.

Unless unnatural means are used, procreation between man and woman is the only way that the human race can survive. With very few exceptions throughout nature, a male and female are required for the propagation of that species. For 1000’s of years and in nearly all cultures, the formalisation of the partnership between a man and woman for the purpose of procreation, has been a marriage ceremony of some description, be it a religious or non religious ceremony. Our current laws reflect fundamental reason for marriage, i.e. the formalisation of a partnership which has the aim/possibility of producing off spring.

No matter which way you want to look at it a gay couple cannot conceive children without unnatural input. That reason alone in my opinion excludes them from the rite of marriage. This isn’t discrimination it's a fact of life.

One argument I hear as a reason for gay marriage is to allow for adoption. While there is no doubt that gay couples can exceptionally be loving parents I believe that every child deserves both a loving mother and a loving father to aid in their development and mentoring. Boys need a father figure and a mother figure and girls like wise. Two women as a couple or two men as a couple cannot do this.

I respect a gay couples right to live as a loving couple just as a man and woman do in marriage. The Civil Union Bill gives them legal formalisation of their partnership in the same manner marriage does. I don’t see why there is a need to change the laws on marriage to allow gay couples to marry, it won’t enable them to conceive and bear children. What is being achieved with this bill?

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

josephhinvest

1543 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#664817 31-Jul-2012 18:38

If only all the straight married couples would stop having all these gay children!!

I think a marriage = two people who are married. That's all.
If civil unions and marriages are equal, then why not just make it a marriage. Some couples are more equal than others?

Cheers,
Joseph

josephhinvest

1543 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#664819 31-Jul-2012 18:42

Technofreak: snip....
Our current laws reflect fundamental reason for marriage, i.e. the formalisation of a partnership which has the aim of producing off spring.?

Is this true? There is no legal requirement to produce or want offspring. I don't think this conclusion is valid.

Cheers,
Joseph

CamH

564 posts

Ultimate Geek

#664821 31-Jul-2012 18:46

I do not want to have a gay marriage and therefore will not get one.

However if Jim Bob and John want to get married because they are in love then go right ahead. None of my business who you can and can't love.

If some religious organisation/cult/whatever doesn't believe it it.... Well, just don't associate with them. I certainly don't - If you are really that closed minded then I'm not going to have anything to do with ya.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#664823 31-Jul-2012 18:50

CamH: I do not want to have a gay marriage and therefore will not get one.

However if Jim Bob and John want to get married because they are in love then go right ahead. None of my business who you can and can't love.

If some religious organisation/cult/whatever doesn't believe it it.... Well, just don't associate with them. I certainly don't - If you are really that closed minded then I'm not going to have anything to do with ya.

So, close minded = anyone who doesn't agree with you.

I find that insulting.

tardtasticx

3075 posts

Uber Geek

#664824 31-Jul-2012 18:52

surfisup1000:

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

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

Yeh thats totally logical. You're discriminating against every man in the world by not having sex with him, how stupid does that sound to you?

And I highly doubt that, given that straight people have never been restricted from getting civil unions.
We're talking about the here and now, not whats happened, not whats going to happen 1000 years from now, because these laws do not accurately reflect the views of the majority of the New Zealand population.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#664825 31-Jul-2012 18:53

jofizz:

Is this true? There is no legal requirement to produce or want offspring. I don't think this conclusion is valid.

Cheers,
Joseph

There is no legal requirement, I never said there was any legal requirement to produce or want off spring, my point was that is the generally expected outcome and our laws reflected that. There is no way a gay couple can conceive naturally. Therefore I consider my conclusion entirely valid.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

tardtasticx

3075 posts

Uber Geek

#664829 31-Jul-2012 18:56

surfisup1000:
CamH: I do not want to have a gay marriage and therefore will not get one.

However if Jim Bob and John want to get married because they are in love then go right ahead. None of my business who you can and can't love.

If some religious organisation/cult/whatever doesn't believe it it.... Well, just don't associate with them. I certainly don't - If you are really that closed minded then I'm not going to have anything to do with ya.

So, close minded = anyone who doesn't agree with you.

I find that insulting.

Close minded meaning discriminating against an entire community for something they cannot change.
Thats like saying if I believe all black people shouldn't be married and you didnt like me doing that, you are insulting because you don't like what I believe in (I don't actually believe that btw, in fact my boyfriend is of colour himself.)

tardtasticx

3075 posts

Uber Geek

#664833 31-Jul-2012 19:00

Technofreak:
jofizz:

Is this true? There is no legal requirement to produce or want offspring. I don't think this conclusion is valid.

Cheers,
Joseph

There is no legal requirement, I never said there was any legal requirement to produce or want off spring, my point was that is the generally expected outcome and our laws reflected that. There is no way a gay couple can conceive naturally. Therefore I consider my conclusion entirely valid.

Sorry but where in our law is it "generally expected" for a married couple to produce off spring? My grandma was married in her 50's after her first husband passed away, she didn't produce any children, so that means she hasn't had an official marriage?

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