Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26
1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user


  Reply # 667183 3-Aug-2012 18:44
Send private message

mattRSK: Ok so I am a bigot for wanting to keep the definition of marriage to between a male and a female while giving same sex couples the same rights under civil unions.


This is a valid position, provided you can justify there being a reason for marriage to be between a male and female only.

Given that the concept of marriage predates recorded history and most likely organised religion and that marriage is not entered into solely for the purposes of procreation what valid reason is there that it is a contract only people of opposite sexes may enter into?

1076 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 31


  Reply # 667247 3-Aug-2012 21:46
Send private message

crackrdbycracku:
In effect you are trying to force your definition of marriage on others. 


Hold on a minute, isn't that what this law change will do?
That's one of my main objections to it!

gzt

9812 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1465


  Reply # 667250 3-Aug-2012 21:50
Send private message

crackrdbycracku: In effect you are trying to force your definition of marriage on others.
 

Skolink: Hold on a minute, isn't that what this law change will do?
That's one of my main objections to it!


I don't understand this objection. How will it change your circumstances? The change will make no difference to anyone at all except gay people.

1076 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 31


  Reply # 667268 3-Aug-2012 22:27
Send private message

gzt:
crackrdbycracku: In effect you are trying to force your definition of marriage on others.
 

Skolink: Hold on a minute, isn't that what this law change will do?
That's one of my main objections to it!


I don't understand this objection. How will it change your circumstances? The change will make no difference to anyone at all except gay people.


My objections are not really about how it will impinge on me personally, but I certainly think this law change is forcing a different definition of marriage on those who believe it should stay as it is.

After all, we all have to live by the laws of the country whether we agree with them or not. In any situation which requires consideration to the married status of someone, everyone will be obliged to treat a same sex marriage as if it were a male-female couple. This would affect anyone dealing with the estate of a deceased relative, or an employer or authority giving certain benefits to a married couple. As a tax payer I will be funding fertility treatments for same-sex couples even though it is something I strongly object to.

Many groups hold dear certain titles or terms and are very incensed by the misuse of term by others, because of the meaning that title has to them.

To me this law change is the gay community saying 'you *will* acknowledge our relationship as legitimate'.

As I said, the loss of the exclusive use of the term 'marriage'  is not my main objection. As previously debated, there are more important factors.

2431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 143


  Reply # 667281 3-Aug-2012 23:01
Send private message

nate: Just hidden a post and warned a user for a personal attack.

We are getting very close to the wire on some of these posts, if you feel someone has stepped over the FUG please PM me so I can check it out.  

I'm very keen for this discussion to continue, however if we keep this up, the thread will be locked again in no time and not re-opened.


Thank-you.



So it's fine to slag off a group of people as "not normal/natural" but you can't slag off individuals?

Alright.

These people seem to want to force their belief's onto everyone else. Equal marriage DOES NOT affect them, except they believe it does, except IT ACTUALLY DOESN'T.



2431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 143


  Reply # 667282 3-Aug-2012 23:03
Send private message

mattRSK: Ok so I am a bigot for wanting to keep the definition of marriage to between a male and a female while giving same sex couples the same rights under civil unions.


Yes. The group of people that you belong to are Bad People and are Wrong.

In my Opinion of course.


654 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

  Reply # 667283 3-Aug-2012 23:04

Skolink: My objections are not really about how it will impinge on me personally, but I certainly think this law change is forcing a different definition of marriage on those who believe it should stay as it is.

After all, we all have to live by the laws of the country whether we agree with them or not. In any situation which requires consideration to the married status of someone, everyone will be obliged to treat a same sex marriage as if it were a male-female couple. This would affect anyone dealing with the estate of a deceased relative, or an employer or authority giving certain benefits to a married couple. As a tax payer I will be funding fertility treatments for same-sex couples even though it is something I strongly object to.

Many groups hold dear certain titles or terms and are very incensed by the misuse of term by others, because of the meaning that title has to them.

To me this law change is the gay community saying 'you *will* acknowledge our relationship as legitimate'.

As I said, the loss of the exclusive use of the term 'marriage'  is not my main objection. As previously debated, there are more important factors.


I'm afraid to inform you that you are already funding fertility treatments for same-sex couples - the law change has nothing to do with that.  http://www.fertilityassociates.co.nz/paying-for-treatment/public-funding-and-eligibility.aspx



2431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 143


  Reply # 667284 3-Aug-2012 23:06
Send private message

Skolink:
crackrdbycracku:
In effect you are trying to force your definition of marriage on others. 


Hold on a minute, isn't that what this law change will do?
That's one of my main objections to it!


Why exactly are you objecting to it? Are you simply objecting because it's something Different and it's Change and you're scared of Change?


Sorry, I mean, your group of people are afraid of change..


2431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 143


  Reply # 667287 3-Aug-2012 23:07
Send private message

Skolink:
gzt:
crackrdbycracku: In effect you are trying to force your definition of marriage on others.
 

Skolink: Hold on a minute, isn't that what this law change will do?
That's one of my main objections to it!


I don't understand this objection. How will it change your circumstances? The change will make no difference to anyone at all except gay people.


My objections are not really about how it will impinge on me personally,


I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post, since it's not relevant.

If it doesn't impinge on you personally, then what logical reason do you have to objecting to it?


1076 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 31


  Reply # 667291 3-Aug-2012 23:13
Send private message

KevinL:
I'm afraid to inform you that you are already funding fertility treatments for same-sex couples - the law change has nothing to do with that.  http://www.fertilityassociates.co.nz/paying-for-treatment/public-funding-and-eligibility.aspx


I didn't realise that was the case, was that always so? I see even single women are eligible.

654 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

  Reply # 667293 3-Aug-2012 23:17

Skolink:
KevinL:
I'm afraid to inform you that you are already funding fertility treatments for same-sex couples - the law change has nothing to do with that.  http://www.fertilityassociates.co.nz/paying-for-treatment/public-funding-and-eligibility.aspx


I didn't realise that was the case, was that always so? I see even single women are eligible.


I'm pretty sure, on the basis that it's not legal to discriminate in terms of gender or sexuality!

1076 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 31


  Reply # 667295 3-Aug-2012 23:18
Send private message

KevinL:
Skolink:
KevinL:
I'm afraid to inform you that you are already funding fertility treatments for same-sex couples - the law change has nothing to do with that.  http://www.fertilityassociates.co.nz/paying-for-treatment/public-funding-and-eligibility.aspx


I didn't realise that was the case, was that always so? I see even single women are eligible.


I'm pretty sure, on the basis that it's not legal to discriminate in terms of gender or sexuality!


Nor on the basis of age...

2962 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 446

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 667315 4-Aug-2012 00:12
Send private message

Skolink:
gzt:
crackrdbycracku: In effect you are trying to force your definition of marriage on others.
 

Skolink: Hold on a minute, isn't that what this law change will do?
That's one of my main objections to it!


I don't understand this objection. How will it change your circumstances? The change will make no difference to anyone at all except gay people.


My objections are not really about how it will impinge on me personally, but I certainly think this law change is forcing a different definition of marriage on those who believe it should stay as it is.

After all, we all have to live by the laws of the country whether we agree with them or not. In any situation which requires consideration to the married status of someone, everyone will be obliged to treat a same sex marriage as if it were a male-female couple. This would affect anyone dealing with the estate of a deceased relative, or an employer or authority giving certain benefits to a married couple. As a tax payer I will be funding fertility treatments for same-sex couples even though it is something I strongly object to.

Many groups hold dear certain titles or terms and are very incensed by the misuse of term by others, because of the meaning that title has to them.

To me this law change is the gay community saying 'you *will* acknowledge our relationship as legitimate'.

As I said, the loss of the exclusive use of the term 'marriage'  is not my main objection. As previously debated, there are more important factors.


If those are your objections, well.  I have nothing good to say about that.  Leaving aside the funding argument (it actually does impact upon you as a taxpayer so I think we can all accept that your view there has merit to you), that you are arguing that we should not let same sex couples marry because it would affect their legal status when one partner dies... I cannot believe you actually said that.  And to also argue that employers or whatever should not be required to treat those couples as what they are - married couples - I cannot see how this impacts upon you at all.  I am honestly curious as to what your fundamental reasons are for claiming that.

805 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

  Reply # 667317 4-Aug-2012 00:18
Send private message

There has been some really good discussion on here. I've been doing a lot of reading and I've realized something. My opinion that there should be civil unions for same-sex couples and marriages for man-women couples is actually degrading to the same sex couples. When I think about it at a purely political level it is right that anyone should have the right to be defined as married on that level.

The thing I am confused about is you can make exactly the same argument for couples that are related and polygamy. Why do we have the right to tell them what to do?

Anyway probably the most interesting discussion I've ever had. Bit tough on the brain.

654 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

  Reply # 667318 4-Aug-2012 00:34

mattRSK: There has been some really good discussion on here. I've been doing a lot of reading and I've realized something. My opinion that there should be civil unions for same-sex couples and marriages for man-women couples is actually degrading to the same sex couples. When I think about it at a purely political level it is right that anyone should have the right to be defined as married on that level.

The thing I am confused about is you can make exactly the same argument for couples that are related and polygamy. Why do we have the right to tell them what to do?

Anyway probably the most interesting discussion I've ever had. Bit tough on the brain.


Bravo for reaching your own conclusion - after all, the point of all this discussion is to make us all think a bit more about the issues.

I don't think the "slippery slope" argument is something you really need to worry about.

There's reasonable genetic reasons not to allow related people to marry (well, not allowing them to procreate is more the intention). The rules are just an extension of the (separate) laws regarding incest. 

Polygamy suffers from a bit of societal stigma from (and I'm generalising a bit) the same groups that oppose same-sex marriage and also due to bad publicity regarding polygamist religious fringe groups and/or child abuse.  I suspect there are probably slightly more people opposed to polygamy than same-sex marriage though - however it wouldn't surprise me if eventually polygamy was legalised (but probably not in our lifetimes).  It's generally less of a rights issue as the two legally married people in a threesome would have the same rights as any other married couple (person number three misses out a bit under current law, obviously).

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

N4L helping TAKA Trust bridge the digital divide for Lower Hutt students
Posted 18-Jun-2018 13:08


Winners Announced for 2018 CIO Awards
Posted 18-Jun-2018 13:03


Logitech Rally sets new standard for USB-connected video conference cameras
Posted 18-Jun-2018 09:27


Russell Stanners steps down as Vodafone NZ CEO
Posted 12-Jun-2018 09:13


Intergen recognised as 2018 Microsoft Country Partner of the Year for New Zealand
Posted 12-Jun-2018 08:00


Finalists Announced For Microsoft NZ Partner Awards
Posted 6-Jun-2018 15:12


Vocus Group and Vodafone announce joint venture to accelerate fibre innovation
Posted 5-Jun-2018 10:52


Kogan.com to launch Kogan Mobile in New Zealand
Posted 4-Jun-2018 14:34


Enable doubles fibre broadband speeds for its most popular wholesale service in Christchurch
Posted 2-Jun-2018 20:07


All or Nothing: New Zealand All Blacks arrives on Amazon Prime Video
Posted 2-Jun-2018 16:21


Innovation Grant, High Tech Awards and new USA office for Kiwi tech company SwipedOn
Posted 1-Jun-2018 20:54


Commerce Commission warns Apple for misleading consumers about their rights
Posted 30-May-2018 13:15


IBM leads Call for Code to use cloud, data, AI, blockchain for natural disaster relief
Posted 25-May-2018 14:12


New FUJIFILM X-T100 aims to do better job than smartphones
Posted 24-May-2018 20:17


Stuff takes 100% ownership of Stuff Fibre
Posted 24-May-2018 19:41



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.