Huge Fuss, didn't even make it a year.

Forums › Off topic › Huge Fuss, didn't even make it a year.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1091737 18-Jul-2014 20:26

The only way to find out new Zealanders' opinions is to conduct a referendum. Then we will know for sure what everyone thinks. What everyone thinks doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do, but three or four people arguing on a forum, achieves little

Glassboy

851 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 251

ID Verified

Trusted

#1091760 18-Jul-2014 21:20

tardtasticx:
Glassboy: Your entire argument runs counter to Article 19 of the UDHR. The UDHR is also only relevant to the degree to which NZ has signed up to it, and that generally is expressed in the BORA 1990, and you by telling other people what they think and whether they are allowed to think it contravenes both the Freedom of thought, conscience, and expression and the Freedom of expression.

I never said they weren't allowed to think things. You're putting words in my mouth which is rude.

I simply explained why someones opinion can be wrong. Doesn't mean they can't hold an opinion.

In truth, the OP is not necessarily wrong. People should go into marriage with the intention to make it last. They shouldn't also get married for trivial reasons. Stating this isn't any kind of religious intolerance, it's simple common sense. There's personal, familial, financial and legal consequences from ending long term relationships. It's not a good investment in any shape or form.

What's annoying everyone is the OP is repeating a non-story created by a morally deficient journalist who cyber stalked the women in question, and published even though they could not substantiate anything. The distaste is not that woman are gay, it's that they've been victimized, and the OP is carrying on the victimisation. It's also annoying that people try and make out that this non-story is in anyway significant (in any sense).

If you want to ride in like a liberal white knight and prove to everyone how virtuous you are, how about talking about what is actually offensive rather than just googling some stuff and not even creating a proper argument to support it. Or at least have the good grace to stop when someone calls bullcakes*.

*Mr F. has a filter that is inhibiting my Freedom of Expression and forces me to write like Emma Pillsbury.

alasta

6889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3363

Trusted

Subscriber

#1091955 19-Jul-2014 12:17

tardtasticx: Marriage is a right...

Religious freedom is a right. Having the state involved in your religious practices is not a right.

Glassboy

851 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 251

ID Verified

Trusted

#1091956 19-Jul-2014 12:19

alasta:
tardtasticx: Marriage is a right...

Religious freedom is a right. Having the state involved in your religious practices is not a right.

It's also not necessarily a wrong :-)

For example our head of state is also the head of a religion.

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#1091962 19-Jul-2014 12:27

alasta:
tardtasticx: Marriage is a right...

Religious freedom is a right. Having the state involved in your religious practices is not a right.

Except marriage pre-dates any modern day religion and you can get married without ever having set foot in a church. So it's not exactly interfering with anyone's right to religious freedom.

alasta

6889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3363

Trusted

Subscriber

#1092025 19-Jul-2014 15:16

tardtasticx:
alasta: Religious freedom is a right. Having the state involved in your religious practices is not a right.

Except marriage pre-dates any modern day religion and you can get married without ever having set foot in a church. So it's not exactly interfering with anyone's right to religious freedom.

So what is marriage then? If it's not a religious tradition then it must just be a lifestyle choice which still leaves the question open as to why the state needs to be involved and how anyone would be penalised if the state refuses to get involved.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1092108 19-Jul-2014 18:31

It is really a contract. It establishes a relationship between two parties, including how they share their income, how they share ownership of goods, etc.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

alasta

6889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3363

Trusted

Subscriber

#1092125 19-Jul-2014 18:53

freitasm: It is really a contract. It establishes a relationship between two parties, including how they share their income, how they share ownership of goods, etc.

Then why do we need to have both civil unions and marriage? Shouldn't we just dump marriage?

And why is it only open to two people? Why shouldn't three or more people be able to enter into this contract?

The whole concept needs a complete rethink.

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1092128 19-Jul-2014 19:07

freitasm: It is really a contract. It establishes a relationship between two parties, including how they share their income, how they share ownership of goods, etc.

Actually marriage dictates none of those things. My wife and I had separate accounts until recently and we just celebrated 10 years married and 18 years together. The only time marriage dictates financial sharing is when it's dissolved.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1092140 19-Jul-2014 19:54

Marriage is like swearing in of police, the prime minister, parliament, doctors Hippocratic oath, coronation, knighthood, birthday party, graduation, FUNERAL.

They mean nothing to those who don't care, but a significant symbol to those who partake in the ceremony.

Who cares if I die today and never have a funeral? I don't. But my children will. Well for those who just had a lost somebody on mh 17, it means the world to them.

In the same way your graduation does not give you any extra abilities, Anzac day will not change history, coronation of the the queen won't give her a tan, they are all celebrations which define society, bring meaning to life of commoners.

Graduation allows siblings and friends and parents to celebrate a journey of education. Funeral allows the living to celebrate a life. Coronation allows citizens to embrace their symbol of unity and strength. The day will come when these will cease, abolished by some apathetic soul, and humans become a statistic. For example, the culture of multi family community Samoa vs the generations of mass orphanages in some parts of the world, where humans would grow up without ever being carried or touched by loving arms. As we see on geek zone, it's already gained momentum. I am sad for my children's children.

rossmnz

507 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 31

#1092980 21-Jul-2014 13:18

Hmmmm interesting (and disappointing) to see any user making a post that could be interpreted as anti-LGBT being labelled as a "bigot" and their opinions deemed "not valid".

Firstly it is perfectly legitimate to be anti same-sex marriage. It has not yet been determined what effects (if any) this will have on New Zealand. To my mind, as long as any opinion is conveyed respectfully and backed by facts, ithat user should not be called a bigot, or that that user is clearly trying to hide homosexual tendancies etc.

Secondly, everyones opinion is equally valid, it doesnt matter what that opinion is. Last I checked we lived in a democracy - despite this legislation being passed without a referendum.

Cheers

The force is strong with this one!

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

jonathan18

7415 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2850

ID Verified

Trusted

#1092995 21-Jul-2014 13:46

Umm, thought this thread had died, which wasn't necessarily a bad thing!

rossmnz:
Secondly, everyones opinion is equally valid, it doesnt matter what that opinion is. Last I checked we lived in a democracy - despite this legislation being passed without a referendum.

Cheers

Sure, everyone has the right to have an opinion, but in the end I'd not go as far to say that everyone's opinion is equally valid. A soundly argued position with strong evidence is, in my opinion(!), more "valid" than some off-the-cuff remark that hasn't been thought through properly.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1092999 21-Jul-2014 13:53

alasta:
tardtasticx:
alasta: Religious freedom is a right. Having the state involved in your religious practices is not a right.

Except marriage pre-dates any modern day religion and you can get married without ever having set foot in a church. So it's not exactly interfering with anyone's right to religious freedom.

So what is marriage then? If it's not a religious tradition then it must just be a lifestyle choice which still leaves the question open as to why the state needs to be involved and how anyone would be penalised if the state refuses to get involved.

The state involvement in Marriage today is more about money and legal entitlements, e.g Property split, is one entitled to a Single persons or married persons Benefit/ pension etc etc

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

alasta

6889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3363

Trusted

Subscriber

#1093008 21-Jul-2014 14:03

KiwiNZ:
alasta: So what is marriage then? If it's not a religious tradition then it must just be a lifestyle choice which still leaves the question open as to why the state needs to be involved and how anyone would be penalised if the state refuses to get involved.

The state involvement in Marriage today is more about money and legal entitlements, e.g Property split, is one entitled to a Single persons or married persons Benefit/ pension etc etc

Isn't that what civil unions are for?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1093010 21-Jul-2014 14:04

Show me hetero couples that would go for "civil unions" or even know that this was an option...

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9