The NZ Herald Gay Marriage Poll discussion

Forums › Off topic › The NZ Herald Gay Marriage Poll discussion

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | ... | 41

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#789622 30-Mar-2013 13:26

Hammerer:
1080p:
bradstewart:
kyhwana2:
Klipspringer:
Over 50% of kiwis are Christians so yes we really should be getting a Christian perspective.

I think you'll find that the majority of kiwi's are not longer christian. Or if they are, they aren't the SAME kind of christian. (That is, they believe in different gods).

For someone who has just gone on a massive attack against religion, you clearly know nothing about that which you're attacking anyway. Maybe you could do with a quick trip over to Wikipedia.

This thread has actually kept a rather respectful and civil tone despite clear differences in opinion. But your posts are completely unnecessary and will only serve to derail the thread.

*points to the door*

The previous posts by this member all simply state facts. I don't find them unnecessary at all given that many opinions expressed here are based upon various religions. The key point to take away is that religion has no place in this debate.

Why should "religion should have no place in this debate". You're trying to provide a privileged position for so-called non-religious positions. It is like saying that "culture", "race", "philosophy" or "family background" should have no place in this debate given their strong association with "religion".

The key point to take away is that humanity has no place in this debate.

Not at all. Your reply is a nicely decorated straw man with a splash of false dilemma.

My reasoning behind religion being inappropriate here is that the issue at hand is being decided at a state level. Religion and state do not and cannot mix because we guarantee all members of our society freedom of religion and expression. If we were to base our state level decisions upon what Christians believed then what would that mean for all those citizens who follow Allah or no god at all?

To clarify:

1) Reasoning that marriage may not apply to homosexual people because a particular belief system prohibits this is only appropriate where discussion of that belief system is appropriate.

2) Belief systems have no place in state legislation.

Therefore, religion has no place deciding that marriage at a state level may not include homosexual people.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#789624 30-Mar-2013 13:30

bradstewart:
kyhwana2: Been the same huh? Lets check out the bible, since that seems to be peoples favourite reason why we can't have equal marriage.
Genesis: 4:19 "And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.".

This is disingenuous. You have pulled that verse way out of context. If you bother reading ones either side of it then you'll actually find it is part of a geneology. The fact that Lamech took two wives is neither condemned nor condoned. It is simply a part of a telling of a family lineage.

Stop using material in which you have shown to lack even a simplistic understanding of to base your arguments upon (I refer you back to your previous comments about Christians believing in different Gods).

I bet I could pick out a bunch of random verses, remove them from their surrounding context and also use them to make wildly inaccurate claims about their meaning too. But then that would just make me an idiot.

If you looked hard enough you might actually find something that you could build a case with but this just isn't it.

If you want to make a credible argument try harder.

Actually, in this particular case the verse is not taken out of context. The point was to demonstrate that marriage has not only been between one woman and one man throughout history. This quote does that perfectly well by describing one such marriage. It being condoned or condemned by Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that marriage has not been the same throughout history.

alasta

4684 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#789627 30-Mar-2013 13:42

Hammerer: By using the word 'hysteria', which is such a loaded term, you are attempting to devalue those people that you don't agree with. Why not stick to reasoned debate?

If you refer back to Handle9's post on page 18 he, quite rightly in my view, made the interesting observation that both sides of the argument feature people who have sound and reasoned viewpoints even though you or I may not necessarily agree with them, while both sides of the argument also have angry and hyped up proponents who are highly provocative and have clearly given little rational thought to the issues at hand.

I guess I'm in the slightly unusual position of being in disagreement with most people on both sides of the argument since I have a different perspective on things, but even among those who I disagree with I can see a clear distinction between those who are rational and those who aren't.

da5id

552 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#789628 30-Mar-2013 13:42

1080p:
bradstewart:
kyhwana2: Been the same huh? Lets check out the bible, since that seems to be peoples favourite reason why we can't have equal marriage.
Genesis: 4:19 "And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.".

This is disingenuous. You have pulled that verse way out of context. If you bother reading ones either side of it then you'll actually find it is part of a geneology. The fact that Lamech took two wives is neither condemned nor condoned. It is simply a part of a telling of a family lineage.

Stop using material in which you have shown to lack even a simplistic understanding of to base your arguments upon (I refer you back to your previous comments about Christians believing in different Gods).

I bet I could pick out a bunch of random verses, remove them from their surrounding context and also use them to make wildly inaccurate claims about their meaning too. But then that would just make me an idiot.

If you looked hard enough you might actually find something that you could build a case with but this just isn't it.

If you want to make a credible argument try harder.

Actually, in this particular case the verse is not taken out of context. The point was to demonstrate that marriage has not only been between one woman and one man throughout history. This quote does that perfectly well by describing one such marriage. It being condoned or condemned by Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that marriage has not been the same throughout history.

But no matter how many wives (as illustrated by the stick figure cartoon earlier) any marriage always contained the complimentary sexes - male and female - irregardless of how many women were involved.

And just because a man took two wives in the Bible doesn't mean that man was right. Moses also allowed divorce in the Old Testament, but Jesus said in Matthew 19: 3-8 -

Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#789632 30-Mar-2013 13:56

da5id:
kyhwana2:
da5id:
kyhwana2: Obvious Solution is obvious. Repeal all law mentioning "marriage". Only allow civil unions/partnerships.
People that solemnise these things become "civil union celebrants". If you wanted to get "married", go dance on a beach after getting your civil union certificate.

Done. *wipes hands*

da5id:
Because I don't believe that Government created 'marriage' and as such cannot just do away with it or change it's definition to be anything other than a union of a man and a woman.

Actually, I think you'll find it has and it can. See the Marriage Act 1955. That's where they created it. So as such they can change what it "means".

da5id:
A question though: why should society do away or change the definition of the institution of marriage (which has always been the same throughout history and across cultures) and take up civil unions instead.

Been the same huh? Lets check out the bible, since that seems to be peoples favourite reason why we can't have equal marriage.
Genesis: 4:19 "And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.".

Screw it, have an image instead:

So you asseration that marriage has always been the same across cultures and history is simply incorrect. Try again.

But if you look at your little stick figures, there is one with pants and one with a dress in every box.
It is still based on an institution between a man and a woman (or women). Not two women or two men.
The formula they use is "Man +" a differing number of women.

You're fine with defining marriage as one an and multiple women?

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#789638 30-Mar-2013 14:10

da5id:
Elpie: One thing is clear in this thread - people don't agree on what the word, "marriage" means. I married a couple of weeks ago in Canada where marriage is entirely gender-neutral. The guys who filmed my ceremony have been married for years yet should they move here they would not have their relationship recognised. My marriage in Canada is recognised here so it seems unreasonable that theirs wouldn't be. Unless the law changes.

Marriage is a loaded word because it has two meanings - one religious and one secular. The meaning has been in flux for centuries but the idea of it being in any way related to love is reasonably new.

The legal side is not about relationships or emotions. It's about property and responsibility. A legal marriage confers obligations on two people, including the obligation to provide for any offspring should they have them. Society has its mores but cannot enforce legally-binding obligations.

Until relatively recent times, women were considered property of men, as were children of their union. This is still true in some countries. Even now, some people get married here with the father of the bride, "giving her away" and a man responding to, "do you take this woman" and a woman vowing to be subservient. Monogamy in marriage used to be something only expected of women (right down to the dark old days of chastity belts) because that was the only way a man could be certain his heir was his child. Again, all about property rights and inheritance. Marriage was an economic institution.

Marriage for love started really coming into prominence only last century. Some people argue that it is a relationship between only a man and a woman and therefore cannot be changed. The Marriage Act was written in 1950 and a lot has changed since then. Back then, divorces were messy and difficult - no such thing as a "no faults" divorce with a couple simply deciding to separate then legalising it. Many marital traditions — for eg. coverture, marital rape exemptions—have been unjust and have been changed. It used to be legally acceptable to hit kids too. Times change.

People are not going to agree on what marriage means. However, our government is not trying to redefine the word. They are looking at rewriting a law. Laws change as society changes.

If a gay or lesbian couple marry it doesn't affect the legal contract made by any other couples that marry. It just confers on them the same rights and responsibilities heterosexual couples have when they sign that piece of paper. Property becomes joint property, decisions over their spouses health or end-of-life care become theirs to make, joint income and circumstances are taken into account when applying for welfare, mortgages, custody and inheritance rights, and tax status. LBGT individuals can adopt children now - allowing legal marriage makes two people responsible for those children instead of the individual parent as it stands now. Surely that's a good thing? Marriage doesn't make adoption of children any more likely than it already is (and given the shortage of children available for adoption by ANYONE it's a spurious argument at best).

Many of the arguments I've seen here in this thread read like the arguments people in the States used when there were moves to allow inter-racial marriage. I'm all for passing legislation to make marriage gender-neutral. And, for me, people's sexuality is irrelevant.

Interesting and thoughtful reply. But when you say that Government is not trying to redefine the word, I believe they are. Louisa Wall's marriage bill is officially called 'The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill'. Therefore (going by the title of the bill), the bill does seek to amend or change the definition of marriage, or what marriage means. And, logically, if marriage has always been between man and woman, then the definition truly is changing if it becomes something it was previously not, ie also between same-sex couples.

You also talk about equality of property rights and incomes for married gays and lesbians with married people etc. This wouldn't change at all. It was already changed. Equal rights were conferred when Civil Unions were passed in 2004-2005.
Snippet from a Dominion Post column below -

Everyone remembers the passing of the Civil Unions Act in late 2004 because of the publicity it generated. The Civil Unions Act was followed by a companion Relationships (Statutory References) Act in early 2005 - the Relationships Act. It was passed by Parliament without fanfare and little publicity. It has therefore been missing from this debate because its purpose and legal effects are largely unknown to New Zealanders. Yet it is of crucial importance.

So what did the Relationships Act do? It amended more then 150 acts of Parliament to add, after every reference to "marriage", the words "civil union and de facto" so there would be a complete and perfect legal equality between marriage, civil unions and heterosexual or homosexual de facto relationships. It means all couples, in any of these relationships, have the same rights under New Zealand law, with the possible exception of the adoption law.

Therefore, nothing is to be gained from redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, since equal rights have already been granted. That battle was fought and won in 2005.

As far as marriage having two meanings, one secular and one religious, the understanding of marriage predates any government or religion. It’s a pre-political, pre-religious institution evident even in cultures that had no law or faith to promote it. Being religious myself, I believe that the institution comes from God, but that's another matter.

As I've said before though, the State doesn't care about romantic love, or who loves whom, and people are free to love and live with whomever they choose. Government only gets involved in the business of marriage because marriage between one man and one woman is likely to result in a family with children. Since the government is deeply interested in the propagation and stabilization of society, it promotes and regulates this specific type of relationship above all others.

Assuming the proposed bill intends to change the definition of the word marriage, why will that affect you? Will your religious beliefs be forced to change in some way? Will your right to marry be removed? Will your life be changed or affected in any way at all by this amendment?

For what reason, given that a marriage and a civil union are identical in the eyes of the law already (with the few exceptions identified earlier in this thread), should they remain named differently? If this were computer code I'd have noticed there were two identical functions doing the same thing undder different names and merged them by now. It saves space in the legislation by combining marriage with civil unions and that is about where the differences end.

Another (slightly OT) question, if marriage originated from 'God' how would it have pre-dated religion? Given that without religion there would have been no 'God' your statement seems odd.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#789640 30-Mar-2013 14:20

da5id: kyhwana2, by the way, many SSM proponents have tried to equate the push for SSM with the Civil Rights movement (like your cartoon does) They are not similar at all. Equality is not the same as equivalence.

Under segregation, blacks and whites were forced to use separate bathrooms or restrooms. That was obviously wrong and now they can use the same.

However, men and women are uniquely different.

Males and females have to use separate bathrooms as well, but no one claims this is inequality or that it is sexist. It doesn't take away from the rights of men or women to do so. They are different but equal in value. The relationships between same gender couples and couples made up of man and women are also different, and it is not sexist or bigoted to say so. They just are. This doesn't mean the have less value.

The existence of unisex bathrooms makes this analogy just incorrect and inappropriate.

There are fundamental differences between men and women just as there are fundamental differences between a black person and a white person (skin colour) and neither of these facts are denied. What is denied is that a committed relationship between two people is not called the same thing for no reason at all.

If there is no difference or greater/lesser value between these two types of relationships then what reason other than 'it is not male/female' is there to refuse them the title of marriage?

Hammerer

2174 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#789642 30-Mar-2013 14:22

1080p:
Hammerer:
1080p:

The previous posts by this member all simply state facts. I don't find them unnecessary at all given that many opinions expressed here are based upon various religions. The key point to take away is that religion has no place in this debate.

Why should "religion should have no place in this debate". You're trying to provide a privileged position for so-called non-religious positions. It is like saying that "culture", "race", "philosophy" or "family background" should have no place in this debate given their strong association with "religion".

The key point to take away is that humanity has no place in this debate.

Not at all. Your reply is a nicely decorated straw man with a splash of false dilemma.

My reasoning behind religion being inappropriate here is that the issue at hand is being decided at a state level. Religion and state do not and cannot mix because we guarantee all members of our society freedom of religion and expression. If we were to base our state level decisions upon what Christians believed then what would that mean for all those citizens who follow Allah or no god at all?

To clarify:

1) Reasoning that marriage may not apply to homosexual people because a particular belief system prohibits this is only appropriate where discussion of that belief system is appropriate.

2) Belief systems have no place in state legislation.

Therefore, religion has no place deciding that marriage at a state level may not include homosexual people.

People have belief systems. They can be labelled religious, secular, ideological, philosophical or whatever. That should not be used to exclude the viewpoints of anybody just because it can be labelled as being in one category.

Belief systems do have a place in state legislation. The legal system and parliamentary systems are both based on a sets of mutually supportive beliefs, ie belief systems.

Religion and state can and do mix. Just as ideology and state does. The existence of competing ideologies don't mean that they should all be excluded from involvement in the state. Would you accept that? "If we were to base our state level decisions upon what communists believed then what would that mean for all those citizens who are democrats or anarchists."

We do not guarantee freedom of expression whether religious or otherwise. If a religion involved human sacrifice then its adherents are not guaranteed freedom of expression in New Zealand. Likewise for paedophilia.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#789644 30-Mar-2013 14:30

da5id:
1080p:
bradstewart:
kyhwana2: Been the same huh? Lets check out the bible, since that seems to be peoples favourite reason why we can't have equal marriage.
Genesis: 4:19 "And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.".

This is disingenuous. You have pulled that verse way out of context. If you bother reading ones either side of it then you'll actually find it is part of a geneology. The fact that Lamech took two wives is neither condemned nor condoned. It is simply a part of a telling of a family lineage.

Stop using material in which you have shown to lack even a simplistic understanding of to base your arguments upon (I refer you back to your previous comments about Christians believing in different Gods).

I bet I could pick out a bunch of random verses, remove them from their surrounding context and also use them to make wildly inaccurate claims about their meaning too. But then that would just make me an idiot.

If you looked hard enough you might actually find something that you could build a case with but this just isn't it.

If you want to make a credible argument try harder.

Actually, in this particular case the verse is not taken out of context. The point was to demonstrate that marriage has not only been between one woman and one man throughout history. This quote does that perfectly well by describing one such marriage. It being condoned or condemned by Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that marriage has not been the same throughout history.

But no matter how many wives (as illustrated by the stick figure cartoon earlier) any marriage always contained the complimentary sexes - male and female - irregardless of how many women were involved.

And just because a man took two wives in the Bible doesn't mean that man was right. Moses also allowed divorce in the Old Testament, but Jesus said in Matthew 19: 3-8 -

Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

I'm aware of what the bible says and the fact that it has many incongruencies. Nonetheless, the original point being made was that marriage has not always only been between one man and one woman.

Right now, the idea of a marriage between one man and more than one woman would likely not be fine with you either despite it having happened in the past. The same is true with claiming a woman's property rights or forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist. All of which used to be 'marriage' in the past.

The point is that marriage has evolved in definition over time and homosexual marriage is a continuation of that. If you'd like to argue against that then you need a better argument than 'my religion prohibits it' or 'it never used to be that way'.

kyhwana2

2469 posts

Uber Geek

#789928 31-Mar-2013 14:46

da5id:

But no matter how many wives (as illustrated by the stick figure cartoon earlier) any marriage always contained the complimentary sexes - male and female - irregardless of how many women were involved.

So what?

da5id:
And just because a man took two wives in the Bible doesn't mean that man was right. Moses also allowed divorce in the Old Testament, but Jesus said in Matthew 19: 3-8 -

Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

So is marriage allowed or not? If not, why is it legal?

kyhwana2

2469 posts

Uber Geek

#789929 31-Mar-2013 14:56

Hammerer:

People have belief systems. They can be labelled religious, secular, ideological, philosophical or whatever. That should not be used to exclude the viewpoints of anybody just because it can be labelled as being in one category.

Belief systems do have a place in state legislation. The legal system and parliamentary systems are both based on a sets of mutually supportive beliefs, ie belief systems.

Religion and state can and do mix. Just as ideology and state does. The existence of competing ideologies don't mean that they should all be excluded from involvement in the state. Would you accept that? "If we were to base our state level decisions upon what communists believed then what would that mean for all those citizens who are democrats or anarchists."

We do not guarantee freedom of expression whether religious or otherwise. If a religion involved human sacrifice then its adherents are not guaranteed freedom of expression in New Zealand. Likewise for paedophilia.

The point being, there's religious freedom in that the state doesn't force you do practice a certain religion. Not all christians think equal marriage is bad and they think we should have it. Other christians dont. Look at other religions, they're in the same boat. The clause that made it a crime to say someone isn't in a "real" marriage when they are married by the state has been removed.

(Wait, why do we have these stupid laws about alcohol on easter, where did THOSE laws come from? erk)

Well, except that blasphemy (against some form of christianiaty, I would assume) is still illegal here.

Religion and state shouldn't mix. Go look at all the religious states. They're mostly Muslim and they have all kinds of crazyass religious based laws. (Like stoning female rape victims, etc)

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek

#789956 31-Mar-2013 16:12

kyhwana2:
Religion and state shouldn't mix. Go look at all the religious states. They're mostly Muslim and they have all kinds of crazyass religious based laws. (Like stoning female rape victims, etc)

You do your arguments no favour at all by making such inflammatory and ill-informed comments. I find it somewhat absurd that someone can argue for equal rights and an end to discrimination then make comments that show ignorance and discrimination towards a different group.

kyhwana2

2469 posts

Uber Geek

#789960 31-Mar-2013 16:22

Elpie:
kyhwana2:
Religion and state shouldn't mix. Go look at all the religious states. They're mostly Muslim and they have all kinds of crazyass religious based laws. (Like stoning female rape victims, etc)

You do your arguments no favour at all by making such inflammatory and ill-informed comments. I find it somewhat absurd that someone can argue for equal rights and an end to discrimination then make comments that show ignorance and discrimination towards a different group.

So please, go ahead and find an islamic state that doesn't have laws that punish women or outlaw/forbid other religions from practicing their faith, or don't have any kind of blasphemy/etc laws. I dare you.

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek

#789985 31-Mar-2013 17:10

kyhwana2:
Elpie:
kyhwana2:
Religion and state shouldn't mix. Go look at all the religious states. They're mostly Muslim and they have all kinds of crazyass religious based laws. (Like stoning female rape victims, etc)

You do your arguments no favour at all by making such inflammatory and ill-informed comments. I find it somewhat absurd that someone can argue for equal rights and an end to discrimination then make comments that show ignorance and discrimination towards a different group.

So please, go ahead and find an islamic state that doesn't have laws that punish women or outlaw/forbid other religions from practicing their faith, or don't have any kind of blasphemy/etc laws. I dare you.

I could do so if I were so inclined. And, unlike you, I have spent considerable time in such countries. Do you seriously want to get into religious arguments, especially religious arguments that have absolutely no bearing on the proposed law change in NZ? If you do, then start a new topic as this is so totally off-topic for this thread that its plain silly.

kyhwana2

2469 posts

Uber Geek

#789986 31-Mar-2013 17:14

Elpie:
I could do so if I were so inclined. And, unlike you, I have spent considerable time in such countries. Do you seriously want to get into religious arguments, especially religious arguments that have absolutely no bearing on the proposed law change in NZ? If you do, then start a new topic as this is so totally off-topic for this thread that its plain silly.

So we're agreed that religion shouldn't get involved in equal marriage then? That means we can get rid of most of the posts in this thread! (For AND against)

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | ... | 41