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 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | ... | 41
994 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 160

UberGroup

  Reply # 790807 2-Apr-2013 16:08
Send private message

My bad missed a few pages because it was reading like a merry go round that nobody got off




Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated 

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user


  Reply # 791860 2-Apr-2013 18:57
Send private message

da5id:  
1080p:

For those against the proposed amendment, what reason(s) are there that the definition of marriage must remain as defining a heterosexual relationship? A few conditions apply to this question, they follow:

- Your reason(s) may not include religious ideas because not every married heterosexual couple are religious and the generally accepted idea that religion has zero place in political discussion



Actually, the discussion doesn't have to have religious arguments in it at all in order to question the idea of marriage being redefined to include same-sex couples.
The questions you have to ask are: what is marriage? And why does the Govt have an interest in it?

Marriage is one of either two things - 

  • Marriage is the public recognition of a committed relationship between two adults solely for their individual fulfillment. 
  • Marriage unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union.
I tend to believe it is the second. Ryan Anderson from the Heritage Foundation writes - 


In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view of marriage that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. This view reduces marriage primarily to emotional bonds or legal privileges. Redefining marriage represents the culmination of this revisionism and would leave emotional intensity as the only thing that sets marriage apart from other bonds.

However, if marriage were just intense emotional regard, marital norms would make no sense as a principled matter. There is no reason of principle that requires an emotional union to be permanent. Or limited to two persons. Or sexual, much less sexually exclusive. Or inherently oriented to family life and shaped by its demands. Couples might live out these norms where temperament or taste motivated them, but there would be no reason of principle for them to do so and no basis for the law to encourage them to do so.

In other words, if sexual complementarity is optional for marriage, present only where preferred, then almost every other norm that sets marriage apart is optional.



Government is not in the business of affirming our love. Rather, it leaves consenting adults free to live and love as they choose. Contrary to what some say, there is no ban on same-sex marriage. Nothing about it is illegal. In all 50 states, two people of the same sex may choose to live together, choose to join a religious community that blesses their relationship, and choose a workplace offering joint benefits. There is nothing illegal about this.

What is at issue is whether the government will recognize such relationships as marriages—and then force every citizen, house of worship, and business to do so as well. At issue is whether policy will coerce and compel others to recognize and affirm same-sex relationships as marriages. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else. 







 


The final part of your quote has already been answered. There will be no forcing of anyone to marry anyone they do not choose too. This is already the case.

Again, you've submitted an argument containing a false dilemma. Marriage is not only one of the two above options.

This argument really boils back down to a 'for the kids' argument which has been disproven before. What, precisely, will change for heterosexual couples choosing to raise children if homosexual couple are also permitted to marry?

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user


  Reply # 791861 2-Apr-2013 18:58
Send private message

jeffnz: @beccara

it was posted 2 pages back and only sums it up for those that agree with that stance and like calling others bigots that don't agree with them.


I'm sure the same was said by those who chose to believe interracial marriage was an abomination.

2861 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 683

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 791864 2-Apr-2013 19:05
One person supports this post
Send private message

1080p:
jeffnz: @beccara

it was posted 2 pages back and only sums it up for those that agree with that stance and like calling others bigots that don't agree with them.


I'm sure the same was said by those who chose to believe interracial marriage was an abomination.


and the parallel you are trying to draw is what exactly 




Galaxy S8

 

Garmin  Vivoactive 3




2445 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 146


  Reply # 791874 2-Apr-2013 19:20
Send private message

Hammerer:
I'm not sure if your joking in your second comment. Why would one position cancel out the other? Here's an example using a different set of people. If "thare are some NZers against gay marriaage" then it is hardly helpful to say "I guess they cancel out the ones for".


Since gay marriage doesn't effect those people against, given that the (religious) people against are cancelled out by the ones for, (or vice versa as you point out) and gives benefits to those who do get married, it's pretty obvious that it should be legal!


2445 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 146


  Reply # 791880 2-Apr-2013 19:25
One person supports this post
Send private message

da5id: 
Marriage is one of either two things - 

  • Marriage is the public recognition of a committed relationship between two adults solely for their individual fulfillment. 
  • Marriage unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union.
I tend to believe it is the second. Ryan Anderson from the Heritage Foundation writes - 
(snipped rubbish)


That's great for you, I believe it's the first. (So therefore I should be able to get married to a same sex partner)


1745 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 427

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 791976 2-Apr-2013 21:49
Send private message

1080p:
Hammerer:
1080p:

For those against the proposed amendment, what reason(s) are there that the definition of marriage must remain as defining a heterosexual relationship? A few conditions apply to this question, they follow:

- Your reason(s) may not include religious ideas because not every married heterosexual couple are religious and the generally accepted idea that religion has zero place in political discussion.


It is not true that it is "generally accepted that religion has zero place in political discussion."

Why are you trying so hard to privilege your own viewpoint on this issue? It looks like you are trying to establish guidelines for political correctness. The same sort of reasoning leads to hegemonies of the like seen in oppressive political regimes.

Here's an example to illustrate the weakness of your stance. It seems to be widely accepted that communist ideas have little political currency in NZ. Even so, it would be absurd to say in a discussion that "Your reason(s) may not include communist ideas because not every married heterosexual couple are communist and the generally accepted idea that communism has zero place in political discussion."



How can you know I am privileging my own point of view if you do not know what that is.



It is not your viewpoint that you are attempting to exclude.




Survival of the fittest • 68kg HP Color LaserJet behemoth • 38kg HP Color LaserJet giant • 82kg HP Netserver leviathan - Extinct 2015 • 61kg HP Netserver brontosaurus - Extinct 2010 • 32kg Compaq Proliant goliath - Extinct 2010 • 31kg 21" IBM CRT gargantua - Extinct 2010


531 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 56


  Reply # 792002 2-Apr-2013 22:35
One person supports this post
Send private message



This argument really boils back down to a 'for the kids' argument which has been disproven before. What, precisely, will change for heterosexual couples choosing to raise children if homosexual couple are also permitted to marry?


I haven't seen it disproved. And yes, children are the only reason that Government gets involved in marriage at all. Otherwise, why should they? It's just another relationship otherwise. 

Here's a useful video that tries to explain in simple language.


2445 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 146


  Reply # 792012 2-Apr-2013 22:53
Send private message

da5id:
I haven't seen it disproved. And yes, children are the only reason that Government gets involved in marriage at all. Otherwise, why should they? It's just another relationship otherwise. 


And here I thought it was about enforcing contracts and other such nonsense! Oh silly me, I guess!

(Wait! We've been over this argument before. Why does government let infertile people get married? What about people who can breed, but choose not too!? AAIIIEEEE)

Oh and before you go on about "principle" of being able to breed and such, that's a rubbish argument. You're wrong.


1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user


  Reply # 792281 3-Apr-2013 12:52
Send private message

da5id:


This argument really boils back down to a 'for the kids' argument which has been disproven before. What, precisely, will change for heterosexual couples choosing to raise children if homosexual couple are also permitted to marry?


I haven't seen it disproved. And yes, children are the only reason that Government gets involved in marriage at all. Otherwise, why should they? It's just another relationship otherwise. 

Here's a useful video that tries to explain in simple language.


Children are far from the only reason government has legislation regarding marriage. There are other factors including property rights, life support choices and so on which have all been pointed out in this thread already.

Children are a (possible) result of intercourse between two people as well as a host of old and new technology which can assist in the process.

Marriage is not required for children to be born. Children being born is not a requirement for marriage. The two are related to marriage only by a correlation which describes the fact that many pregnancies occur within marriage. The cause of this could be many things.


The points raised in that video are a little outdated to say the least. Marriage is not a behaviour. It is a legal contract. I am free to behave as if I am married but without signing the marriage register I am still not married.

The perpetuation and stabilisation of society is an invalid point because homosexual marriage will not affect current reproductive trends given that homosexual couples may not (yet) themselves reproduce without assistance and will likely increase the stability of society by allowing homosexual couples to affirm their relationships in an identical manner to heterosexual couples.

To answer points for marriage as raised in that video:

1) Creates children.

- This will remain unaffected by the proposed change.

2) Best raises children.

- There is no evidence of this. Feel free to provide some.

3) Protects women.

- Women's protection will (at the very least) remain unaffected by the proposed change.

4) Civilises men.

- Men's civilisation will (at the very least) remain unaffected by the proposed change.

5) Lowers crime, poverty, and welfare.

- These will all remain unaffected by the proposed change.


Homosexual marriage does not simply validate sex partners. As previously discussed, it will fully enable adoption for homosexual couples and within our Commonwealth framework possibly allow for homosexual relationship recognition internationally.

The clip then goes on to provide a lot of non-evidence that homosexuals and their agenda are evil so I won't dignify it with a response. An analogy equating heterosexual relationships with police work? Come on.

Again, my (as yet unanswered) question is: how will heterosexual marriages be affected by allowing homosexual marriages?

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 792303 3-Apr-2013 13:19
Send private message

kyhwana2:

Since gay marriage doesn't effect those people against, given that the (religious) people against are cancelled out by the ones for, (or vice versa as you point out) and gives benefits to those who do get married, it's pretty obvious that it should be legal!


Just because it does not affect me, it does not mean I don't have the right to oppose it, voice my opinions and even vote against it.

I don’t believe its obvious at all.

NZ’ers Asked To Sign Marriage Pledge

Just made my pledge against gay marriage on mymarriagepledge.org.nz

Edit: Dam... I took the bait....




531 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 56


  Reply # 792349 3-Apr-2013 13:54
One person supports this post
Send private message


2) Best raises children.

- There is no evidence of this. Feel free to provide some.


No worries.

------

A study published by the left-leaning research institution Child Trends concluded:

[I]t is not simply the presence of two parents…but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development.

[R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes.… There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents.

~ Kristin Anderson Moore, Susan M. Jekielek, and Carol Emig, “Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do About It?” Child Trends Research Brief, June 2002, p. 1, p. 6 http://www.childtrends.org/files/MarriageRB602.pdf (accessed March 4, 2013) (original emphasis).

[...]

“[t]he advantage of marriage appears to exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both parents.”

~ Wendy D. Manning and Kathleen A. Lamb, “Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married, and Single-Parent Families,” Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 65, No. 4 (November 2003), pp. 876 and 890.

[...]

We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.

~ Barack Obama, “Obama’s Speech on Fatherhood,” Apostolic Church of God, Chicago, June 15, 2008, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obamas_speech_on_fatherhood.html (accessed March 4, 2013).

[...]

Recent studies using rigorous methods and robust samples confirm that children do better when raised by a married mother and father. These include the New Family Structures Study by Professor Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas–Austin and a report based on Census data recently released in the highly respected journal Demography.

~ See Children from Different Families, http://www.familystructurestudies.com/ (accessed March 4, 2013).
~ Douglas W. Allen, Catherine Pakaluk, and Joseph Price, “Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld,” Demography, November 2012.

I could go on, but here is a list of more publications and books supporting the value of a two-parent married family - 



•    Steven Stack and J. Ross Eshleman, “Marital Status and Happiness: A 17-Nation Study,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60 (1998): 527-536;

•    David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling Evidence that Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensable for the Good of Children, (New York, The Free Press, 1997)

•    Glenn T. Stanton Why Marriage Matters: Reasons to Believe in Marriage in Postmodern Society, (Colorado Springs, Pinon Press, 1997)

•    W. Bradford Wilcox, et al., Why Marriage Matters, Second Edition: Twenty Six Conclusions from the Social Sciences, (New York: Institute for American Values, 2005)

•    Paul Amato, “The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation,” in The Future of Children, “Marriage and Child Wellbeing,” Volume 15, Number 2, Fall 2005, (Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton and The Brookings Institution)

•    Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially, (New York Doubleday, 200)

•    Katherine Reissman and Naomi Gerstel, “Marital Dissolution and Health: Do Males or Females Have Greater Risk?” Social Science and Medicine 20 (1985): 627-635

•    Robert Coombs, “Marital Status and Personal Well-Being: A Literature Review,” Family Relations 40 (1991) 97-102

•    George A. Akerlof, “Men Without Children,” The Economic Journal 108 (1998) 287-309

•    Ronald P. Rohner and Robert A. Veneziano, “The Importance of Father Love: History and Contemporary Evidence,” Review of General Psychology 5.4 (2001): 382-405

•    Kyle D. Pruett, Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child, (New York: The Free Press, 2000)

•    David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem, (New York: Basic Books, 1994)

•    Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994)

•    Deborah Dawson, “Family Structure and Children’s Health and Well-Being: Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey on Child Health,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991): 573-584

•    Scott Coltrane, “Father-Child Relationships and the Status of Women: A Cross-Cultural Study,” American Journal of Sociology, 93 (1988) p. 1088

•    Jan Stets, “Cohabiting and Marital Aggression: the Role of Social Isolation,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991): 669-680

•    Michael Gordon, “The Family Environment of Sexual Abuse: A Comparison of Natal and Stepfather Abuse,” Child Abuse and Neglect, 13 (1985): 121-130

•    Michael Stiffman, et al., “Household Composition and Risk of Fatal Child Maltreatment,” Pediatrics, 109 (2002), 615-621

•    Frank Putnam, “Ten Year Research Update Review: Child Sexual Abuse,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 42 (2003) 269-279

•    Richard Koestner, et al., “The Family Origins of Empathic Concern: A Twenty-Six Year Longitudinal Study,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 (1990): 709-717

•    E. Mavis Hetherington, “Effects of Father Absence on Personality Development in Adolescent Daughters,” Developmental Psychology 7 (1972): 313 –326

•    Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, Single Mothers and Their Children: A New American Dilemma (Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1986), pp. 30-31

•    Sara L. McLanahan, “Life Without Father: What Happens to Children?” Center for Research on Child Wellbeing Working Paper #01-21. Princeton University, August 15, 2001

•    Paul R. Amato and Fernando Rivera, “Paternal Involvement and Children’s Behavior Problems,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61 (1999): 375-384

•    David Ellwood, Poor Support: Poverty in the American Family (New York: Basic Books, 1988), p. 46

•    Ronald J. Angel and Jacqueline Worobey, “Single Motherhood and Children’s Health,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 29 (1988): 38-52;

•    L. Remez, “Children Who Don’t Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems,” Family Planning Perspectives, January/February 1992

•    Judith Wallerstein, et al., The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study, (New York: Hyperion, 2000)

•    Nicholas Zill, Donna Morrison, and Mary Jo Coiro, “Long-Term Effects of Parental Divorce on Parent-Child Relationships, Adjustment, and Achievement in Young Adulthood,” Journal of Family Psychology, 7 (1993):91-103.

•    James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families (New York: Harper Collins, 2002)

•    Steven Stack and J. Ross Eshleman, “Marital Status and Happiness: A 17-Nation Study,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60 (1998): 527-536

•    Chris Wilson and Andrew Oswald, “How Does Marriage Affect Physical and Psychological Health? A Survey of the Longitudinal Evidence,” currently unpublished paper from the University of Warwick, May 2005, p. 13.  (paper accessed at http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/oswald/healthlong2005.pdf)


2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 792376 3-Apr-2013 14:15
Send private message

1080p:
2) Best raises children.

- There is no evidence of this. Feel free to provide some.



The best way to answer this one is by asking ourselves what is the absolute best for a child?

And that answer is very simple.

Every kid deserves a Mom and a Dad...

One can argue all day and go around in circles about some families etc and bad upbringings of some kids in failed marriages with a Mom and a Dad. But simply put, nothing is better than bringing up a child in a healthy loving home with a Mom and a Dad.

So if nothing is better.. Then why settle on something than is worse than the absolute best for a child?

And the answer to that one is simply that gay couples are putting themselves and their own selfish desires before the kids.



994 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 160

UberGroup

  Reply # 792392 3-Apr-2013 14:19
One person supports this post
Send private message

Klipspringer:
1080p:
2) Best raises children.

- There is no evidence of this. Feel free to provide some.



The best way to answer this one is by asking ourselves what is the absolute best for a child?

And that answer is very simple.

Every kid deserves a Mom and a Dad...

One can argue all day and go around in circles about some families etc and bad upbringings of some kids in failed marriages with a Mom and a Dad. But simply put, nothing is better than bringing up a child in a healthy loving home with a Mom and a Dad.

So if nothing is better.. Then why settle on something than is worse than the absolute best for a child?

And the answer to that one is simply that gay couples are putting themselves and their own selfish desires before the kids.






By your argument divorce should be outlawed and single mothers too. It's just staggering that you apply this argument in such a limited view




Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated 

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 792399 3-Apr-2013 14:26
Send private message

Beccara:

By your argument divorce should be outlawed and single mothers too. It's just staggering that you apply this argument in such a limited view


Do you believe that a healthy home with a loving mother and a father is the absolute best environment to bring up a child?



1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | ... | 41
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:



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.