The NZ Herald Gay Marriage Poll discussion

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

1 | ... | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | ... | 41

2413 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 133

Reply # 793557 4-Apr-2013 22:19

Klipspringer:
Kyanar:
Klipspringer:
ANother interesting point.

Gay Marriage will always deny a Child Either a Father or a Mother.

So yes I have an answer to that, No need for scientific evidence for everything. Ask a child. If gay marriage is going to always deny a child either a father or a mother then its a bad thing.

Single parents also deny a child either a mother or father. So you're saying the government needs to step in and stop that right now too? No father around? Baby gets taken at birth and stuck into CYFS custody. Not having both parents is a bad thing.

You are talking here about split up families. They happen.

Guess what? families with two same sex parents happen to. They Happen. Get over it.

kyhwana2

2413 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 133

Reply # 793559 4-Apr-2013 22:22

Klipspringer:
onebytemike:
Gay couples are already raising children. That's not going to change with this law. All it's going to do is supply the same legal framework for these families as existing marriages have.

I'm glad you used the term "raising children". I have no issues with that at all and just believe that the best scenario for the child would be a traditional marriage with a mother and a father.

Gay couples that are raising children are doing exactly that. Raising children.

Currently gay couples cannot legally adopt children and in so doing deny a child from having both a mother and a father.

Allowing SSM will open that door. Is that not part of the push from the gay community?

Yes, that's the whole point. Not sure about the whole "Currently gay couples cannot legally adopt children and in so doing deny a child from having both a mother and a father." bit.

CYFS is supposed to look at what family environment the adopted children go into. If there's a loving same sex couple that they think will be just as good as an opposite sex couple, what grounds are you going to oppose that adoption on?

Try Wrike: fast, easy, and efficient project collaboration software

Elpie

1301 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 270

Reply # 793590 4-Apr-2013 22:54

mm1352000:
Although I'm not particularly familiar with the history of homosexual relationships or what medical and social sciences have to say, I'd have to agree that I have not observed direct problems myself. However my gut response from purely naturalistic observations says: homosexual relationships can't produce children, so why should relationships which do not [naturally] result in children be conferred with the legal privileges of a relationship that I would argue is intended for safeguarding children? Something doesn't feel right about that.

Do you feel there is something wrong about heterosexual couples marrying when they know they cannot (or do not wish to) have children? A childless heterosexual couple can choose to adopt. So can a single person of any sexual orientation. Two single people of the same gender cannot choose to adopt together and that, to me, is discrimination.

Using your analogy, marriages should be unavailable to older people that are past their child-bearing years.

mm1352000:
So what does it say to a child when their parents are the same gender?

Regardless of what you believe about homosexuality, I think you'd have to agree that sends a message to the child that homosexuality and amorous same-sex relationships are normal. And yet, I don't think nature shows this to be the case.

I'm hetero yet I raised my child to believe that homosexuality and amorous same-sex relationships are normal. She knows that normal is a cycle on a washing machine that has very little to do with the human experience.

bcourtney

652 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 27

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 793604 4-Apr-2013 23:09

6 people support this post

I've been contemplating contributing to this thread for a few days now. I've read it all with interest and feel that, while not really anyone else's business, I would give my experience in matters raised previously - a first hand take on the situation, if you will.

Firstly, briefly, there are two debates occurring in this thread. The vast majority of people are debating something that was dealt with prior to 1986 - homosexual relationships are not illegal. Homosexuals CAN currently raise children. The other debate is the redefining of the concept of marriage in NZ.

Now to my experience. I am the eldest of 6 "step-brothers" and "step-sisters" that we're raised for the main part of our lives by 2 mothers. We call each other brothers and sisters when in actual fact 4 of us came from the heterosexual relationship between my mother and my father and the other 2 from another heterosexual relationship. Those relationships ended and our mothers began a homosexual relationship and all 6 of us continued to be raised by these two incredible women. I'm not getting in to details but fatherly input was minimal from the biological fathers.

The youngest of the six of us was 3 at the beginning of this relationship and I was the oldest and was 13. This relationship has lasted for 20 years so far. None of us found growing up in this environment awkward in any way. All 6 of us are now in very stable and happy HETEROSEXUAL relationships (the homosexual relationship of our mothers had no influence on our sexualities). 4 of us have been in relationships with our partners for over 10 years, the other 2 relationships have been going for over 3 years. 3 of us were married 2 years ago, another two of us are getting married this year and my youngest brother is far too busy studying to think about marriage! We've had weddings in NZ, the USA and this year one in Australia and one in the south of France. Our mothers entered in to a civil union when that bill passed several years ago.

We are all successful professionals. I own my own successful business, 2 others are successful marketing execs based overseas for big name global corporates, 1 is a highly successful sales manager based overseas, 1 is an EA and my youngest brother is an honours student at university. 3 of us have had our first children over the last 18 months. Some of us own houses.

None of us have criminal records, have been mixed up in crime in any way or have been afflicted with any addictions or other social nasties. Never has the upbringing we experienced disadvantaged any of us in any way. We were shown what a loving and happy family environment can be that has in turn shown us how to replicate the same loving and happy family environments in our heterosexual relationships.

This bill will not have altered any of the above if it was in place 20 years ago. WHEN it is passed in to law this year it won't have any affect on the family environments of anyone in any situation as they currently stand. It simply allows those people that are legally recognised and accepted in society by means of their sexuality to have the full rights they should have had from the get-go.

mm1352000

1049 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 51

Trusted

Reply # 793625 5-Apr-2013 00:00

Elpie: Do you feel there is something wrong about heterosexual couples marrying when they know they cannot (or do not wish to) have children? A childless heterosexual couple can choose to adopt. So can a single person of any sexual orientation. Two single people of the same gender cannot choose to adopt together and that, to me, is discrimination.

Using your analogy, marriages should be unavailable to older people that are past their child-bearing years.

You seem to be implying that my position is that marriage is specifically and exclusively for having children, and that people that can't have children are thereby unsuitable for marriage. I didn't say that, and that is not my position. While I do think that having children is a reason for getting married, my focus is on the position of parents as role models. I don't like the idea of presenting homosexuality as the normative example of sexuality for children. I think that has unpredictable consequences for society in the long term.

Elpie:
mm1352000:
So what does it say to a child when their parents are the same gender?

Regardless of what you believe about homosexuality, I think you'd have to agree that sends a message to the child that homosexuality and amorous same-sex relationships are normal. And yet, I don't think nature shows this to be the case.

I'm hetero yet I raised my child to believe that homosexuality and amorous same-sex relationships are normal. She knows that normal is a cycle on a washing machine that has very little to do with the human experience.

We seem to have a difference of opinions, and that's fine.

I'd like to present my argument in a different context to clarify.

As a society we prevent our children and young people from gaining access to content (movies, video games, books etc.) that the New Zealand office of film and literature classification deem as inappropriate for their age. I quote [from the parents page on their website]:

"Restrictions are placed on a film or game because there are levels of sex, horror, crime, cruelty, violence, self-harm or offensive language that children should not be exposed to."

Why do we do endorse this? I support it to avoid skewing views about what is acceptable in our society for people that aren't mature enough to understand the purpose of the content in its context.

In the same way, I would prefer to not expose my children to homosexuality until they are mature enough to understand sexuality.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user

Reply # 793627 5-Apr-2013 00:03

mm1352000: -OUR PREVIOUS WALL OF TEXT-

This intuition is what I have been driving at throughout this thread. All of my discussions AFK on this issue have resulted in people admitting to this gut feeling that something is just not right about homosexual couples being married. My intention has been to uncover the argument hidden behind the traditional arguments seen in this debate (religion, children, tradition etc...) which often rely on emotion and affirmed by nothing more than an unexamined intuition in many people.

The marriage law in New Zealand does not refer to marriage as designed around or for children. It has always been about two people entering into a contract with one another for mutual advantage. To quote Wikipedia: "People marry for many reasons, including: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious." There are many more reasons than just children to consider.

Children are a very common occurrence within marriage because of a number of the above factors. That is because these factors also contribute toward the 'optimal' environment within which to raise children. I argue that marriage in and of itself is not the reason why children are born but a combination of the factors mentioned (among others) contributing to the conditions which are best to rear children. This situation is also perfectly possible to achieve outside of marriage as well. In other words, marriage is a contract between two people which often results in (but is not a guarantee of) the optimal environment to raise children.

The correlation that children are so often born and raised within a marriage is often misunderstood as a causal relationship which is where, I believe, a good proportion of the dissent to the amendment is coming from.

In my mind, the consideration of children is no reason to deny homosexual couples the ability to marry. Especially given that there are a number of other reasons why couples desire marriage and that the phenomenon of children being raised within heterosexual marriages is unlikely to ever change or shift to abnormality.

I'd agree that we're attacking this issue from a bad angle - homosexual couples and child rearing is something that is widely an unknown in a number of places. Many of the issues are subjective and based on personal morals so it is tough to remain objective.

While we're at it, however, I can't agree that homosexual parenting will adversely affect children. To establish this as possible you would need to argue that homosexuality is something a person chooses to pursue. This is a distinctly impossible line of reasoning. The best test is trying to 'choose' to desire the sexuality opposite to your own. You can easily choose to engage in intimate relations opposite to those might normally but can you alter your desires, the base attraction to a particular gender you feel? It quickly becomes apparent that choosing your sexuality is not something that is possible.

Not presenting homosexuality as normative to children is a mistake in my opinion. Homosexuality has existed in humans for a very long time. It is accepted as normal in New Zealand (check the Bill of Rights) society and children should all be raised not to discriminate based upon sexuality. Holding religious (or other) beliefs which forbid you entering homosexual relationships is perfectly fine but discriminating against homosexuality is objectively wrong. The bonus to the amendment is that exposing your children to homosexuality as normative is your decision because they are your children. I would argue that not exposing them to it leaves them ill-equipped to face life but that is another discussion.

The issue we have here is whether others may expose their children to homosexuality as normative either through being homosexual themselves or simply teaching them about it. I would argue that no one has the right to prescribe what may or may not be taught to children (within obvious limitations of legality and so forth...) and this is what is being argued by opponents to this amendment.

kyhwana2

2413 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 133

Reply # 793628 5-Apr-2013 00:05

mm1352000:
You seem to be implying that my position is that marriage is specifically and exclusively for having children, and that people that can't have children are thereby unsuitable for marriage. I didn't say that, and that is not my position. While I do think that having children is a reason for getting married, my focus is on the position of parents as role models.

Those two views seem to be mutually exclusive!
If two gay people who aren't parents get married, that's all OK, right?

mm1352000

1049 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 51

Trusted

Reply # 793633 5-Apr-2013 00:25

kyhwana2:
mm1352000:
You seem to be implying that my position is that marriage is specifically and exclusively for having children, and that people that can't have children are thereby unsuitable for marriage. I didn't say that, and that is not my position. While I do think that having children is a reason for getting married, my focus is on the position of parents as role models.

Those two views seem to be mutually exclusive!
If two gay people who aren't parents get married, that's all OK, right?

Saying that I should have no opposition to gay people marrying because they aren't parents [at the time] seems like an attempt at technical point-scoring. Many people marry before they have children!

kyhwana2

2413 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 133

Reply # 793634 5-Apr-2013 00:30

mm1352000:
kyhwana2:
mm1352000:
You seem to be implying that my position is that marriage is specifically and exclusively for having children, and that people that can't have children are thereby unsuitable for marriage. I didn't say that, and that is not my position. While I do think that having children is a reason for getting married, my focus is on the position of parents as role models.

Those two views seem to be mutually exclusive!
If two gay people who aren't parents get married, that's all OK, right?

Saying that I should have no opposition to gay people marrying because they aren't parents [at the time] seems like an attempt at technical point-scoring. Many people marry before they have children!

And some of those people end up NOT having children! Are you saying they shouldn't have been allowed to marry, in that case?
(And yes, it's technical point scoring, meaning i'm right and you're wrong!)

mm1352000

1049 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 51

Trusted

Reply # 793635 5-Apr-2013 00:41

kyhwana2: And some of those people end up NOT having children! Are you saying they shouldn't have been allowed to marry, in that case?
(And yes, it's technical point scoring, meaning i'm right and you're wrong!)

Your posts have a way of really getting under my skin. If you want to play childish games then I'm not going to engage. In the end you're only undermining your own credibility.

NZtechfreak

4649 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 470

Trusted

Reply # 793636 5-Apr-2013 00:43

3 people support this post

The assertion that a gay marriage will deny either a father or mother to the child seems to utterly neglect the many successful 'atypical' family units out there. That assertion promotes a false dichotomy.

Twitter: @nztechfreak
Blogs: HeadphoNZ.org

kyhwana2

2413 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 133

Reply # 794009 5-Apr-2013 18:23

mm1352000:
kyhwana2: And some of those people end up NOT having children! Are you saying they shouldn't have been allowed to marry, in that case?
(And yes, it's technical point scoring, meaning i'm right and you're wrong!)

Your posts have a way of really getting under my skin. If you want to play childish games then I'm not going to engage. In the end you're only undermining your own credibility.

That's alright, you don't seem to have any credibility either.
(And the questions were never actually answer)

Cloudmelon

183 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 4

Reply # 794192 6-Apr-2013 10:25

2 people support this post

Had been staying out of this thread on purpose... then curiosity got the better of me.

Even though Geekzone is generally used by open minded intelligent beings, I had expected some questionable ideas to be put forth in here....

Some of the 'ideas' are just embarrassing

Always a wonder how people can get so belligerent and unrationale/unreasonable over something that is likely to unaffect them.

I welcome the equality. It's going to happen, so may as well stop fighting about it and try and put that effort into more constructive purposes.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user

Reply # 794212 6-Apr-2013 11:12

Cloudmelon: Had been staying out of this thread on purpose... then curiosity got the better of me.

Even though Geekzone is generally used by open minded intelligent beings, I had expected some questionable ideas to be put forth in here....

Some of the 'ideas' are just embarrassing

Always a wonder how people can get so belligerent and unrationale/unreasonable over something that is likely to unaffect them.

I welcome the equality. It's going to happen, so may as well stop fighting about it and try and put that effort into more constructive purposes.

I feel the same way. If this amendment was infringing on religious freedoms (forcing churches to marry homosexual couples and so on...) I could understand the massive resistance.

The fact that a tiny minority of the population will be able to have their relationships recognised and that an even tinier group may adopt children has caused an outcry far in excess of its stature.

Cloudmelon

183 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 4

Reply # 794214 6-Apr-2013 11:15

2 people support this post

1080p: The fact that a tiny minority of the population will be able to have their relationships recognised and that an even tinier group may adopt children has caused an outcry far in excess of its stature.

Just shows how strongly certain people want to enforce their own ideals and beliefs onto others. No matter how illogical it may seem.

1 | ... | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | ... | 41