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 | ... | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41
1077 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 63

Trusted

  Reply # 801979 18-Apr-2013 23:30
One person supports this post
Send private message

tardtasticx: ...

Thanks Sam - genuinely appreciate your answer. :)

Sarcasm and the likes seem to come around because its such a heavy topic. Both sides are absolutely certain that they are right and the other side has to be so idiot/illogical. Its an easy thing to happen.

Indeed. Agreed.

I apologise to you or anyone I might have offended, its easy to get carried away.

Truly, I didn't take offence, so no need to apologise to me. Likewise my intention wasn't to come across as angry or offended, so I apologise to you if my post came across that way.

Thanks again.

---
I think this is likely to be my last post in this thread, so thanks everyone who has contributed to the discussion. I've really enjoyed exploring other viewpoints and challenging my own. I hope some of my contributions were at least moderately thought provoking and that none of them in any way offended or belittled anybody. If I did cause offence I unreservedly apologise; it wasn't my intention.

507 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 31


  Reply # 802112 19-Apr-2013 10:22
Send private message

It appears that many people oppose on basis that they think homosexual couples are not an ideal family unit for children to grow up with and this amendment to the marriage act is a step towards making homosexual couples with children more mainstream?? Or normalise homosexuality?

My thoughts are that there are many many dysfunctional heterosexual couples/families and single parents (who are less than ideal for mainly financial reasons) who also arent the "ideal" family unit.

However I have to admit that personally if my wife and I were to pass away tomorrow I would prefer my son to grow up in a loving heterosexual family environment. Obviously a loving homosexual couple would be better than others but to my mind not as good for my child.





 


The force is strong with this one!

1301 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 270


  Reply # 802160 19-Apr-2013 11:18
Send private message

mm1352000: I did follow up by reading the original 1955 marriage act section (29):
Licence authorizes but not obliges marriage celebrant to solemnize marriage
  • A marriage licence shall authorize but not oblige any marriage celebrant to solemnize the marriage to which it relates.
    Compare: 1908 No 113 s 28
    Section 29 heading: amended, on 1 January 1977, by section 2(1) of the Marriage Amendment Act 1976 (1976 No 8).
    Section 29: amended, on 1 January 1977, by section 2(1) of the Marriage Amendment Act 1976 (1976 No 8).



So that clears up the confusion. I still think it would be easy for the casual reader to misunderstand the amendment at first glance, if not understood in context of the original act. In fact I'd go so far as to say the amendment doesn't go far enough if it is intended to clarify that any celebrant can refuse to solemnise a marriage due to their religious beliefs.


I believe the amendment was designed solely to clarify the wording in the original 1955 Act. It does that. It doesn't state that a celebrant can refuse due to religious beliefs because a celebrant may refuse to marry a couple for any number of reasons - religious, moral, or philosophical come to mind. If a celebrant is not comfortable with performing a ceremony for anyone they retain the right to say no without giving rise to any claims of discrimination. 

That's been the status quo for some time. The new wording was probably felt necessary in light of all the confusion regarding the effects of making it legal for all marriageable couples to marry. 

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user


2862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 683

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 863804 22-Jul-2013 19:50
Send private message

any real reason to drag all this up again apart from one up man ship




Galaxy S8

 

Garmin  Vivoactive 3




2439 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 144


  Reply # 863819 22-Jul-2013 19:59
Send private message

Well obviously god is angry at gay marriage coming next month so caused the Seddon quakes! Duh!

186 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 5


  Reply # 863891 22-Jul-2013 21:10
Send private message

kyhwana2: Well obviously god is angry at gay marriage coming next month so caused the Seddon quakes! Duh!


Not sure if serious...

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user


  Reply # 863978 22-Jul-2013 23:50
Send private message

jeffnz: any real reason to drag all this up again apart from one up man ship


I think it is a fair point considering the level of hate by those who "thought about the kids".

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 864074 23-Jul-2013 08:51
Send private message

1080p:
jeffnz: any real reason to drag all this up again apart from one up man ship


I think it is a fair point considering the level of hate by those who "thought about the kids".


Hate is a very strong word.
Disagreeing does not mean hate.

I disagree with people who "swing" in their marriages. I disagree with the "swinging lifestyle" just as much as I disagree with the "gay lifestyle.
But I don't hate. I dont know why people always assume hate?

The only people that seem to "hate" are the ones who live these lifestyles. Ie, in this case the gays. Everytime these type of threads come up the hate is always directed one way.

On that article:
Children with gay parents are happier and healthier than kids from the average family, new research shows.


So what are we saying here? Gay parents can’t be average? They can only be better than average? How biased is that?

Then the article goes on to say …

The interim results found that children from same sex couples showed no statistical difference to the rest of the population in physical and mental health, their interaction with others, and their relationship with their parents.


But children from same sex couples scored significantly higher than the national average on measures of general health and family cohesion. 


So the yard stick is only the “national average” Why not make the yard stick the optimum best situation, ie healthy loving home with heterosexual parents?

Local lesbian mum, comedian Urzila Carlson, says it is common sense - the most important element to a good family is love. 


Well said. But hetrosexual families can supply love too. A point Urzila seems to be missing.





2862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 683

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 864087 23-Jul-2013 09:33
One person supports this post
Send private message

1080p:
jeffnz: any real reason to drag all this up again apart from one up man ship


I think it is a fair point considering the level of hate by those who "thought about the kids".


I agree with above poster "hate" is a very strong word to use and I don't recall seeing anything like that from either sides of the discussion. 

I do believe that word conveys the wrong message and may, inadvertently, cause angst when there need not be given the topic was discussed to death and should have stayed buried.

I don't see the need to raise the issue again unless some want to relive the moment for some perverse reason




Galaxy S8

 

Garmin  Vivoactive 3




507 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 31


  Reply # 864104 23-Jul-2013 10:10
2 people support this post
Send private message

1080p: http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/love-sex/8944107/Children-with-gay-parents-happier-research

What say ye naysayers?


I say this, using rational thought:

1.  Gay couples are obviously not at risk of making "mistakes" and having kids as a result

2.  Thus the average age for gay couples with kids are older than heterosexual couples on the basis that:





    • It is increasingly common in the western world for people to have children older and for young adults to enjoy a longer partying/fun/travel stage of life than in previous generations.







    • No "mistake" children to counter the above statement.








3.  In general the most at risk children are those with younger, less mature or less financially sound parents.


So, thinking logically this could actually have some legs given that we are seeing (in general) a skewed argument from a socio-economic picture in gays who are more mature/settled/financially secure and adopt vs a cross stratum of society for heterosexual couples.


However I still maintain that a child from a strong, mature, financially-sound heterosexual family unit is inherantly healthier and better off than one from a strong, mature, financially-sound homosexual family unit. 

I contend that the study is not "comparing apples with apples".  It should also be noted that the person doing the research is homosexual himself with two adopted kids - Im not saying that this makes the research invalid - just that it needs to be considered.




 


The force is strong with this one!

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 864118 23-Jul-2013 10:32
Send private message

rossmnz:
However I still maintain that a child from a strong, mature, financially-sound heterosexual family unit is inherantly healthier and better off than one from a strong, mature, financially-sound homosexual family unit. 


100% agreed. As a parent I can't honestly believe that I would be able to be a better, or equally as good a father if I say traded my wife in for a gay man.

I would need serious help raising daughters .... Some things are better left for the woman of the house. And some things a man can simply do better. A hetrosexual marriage provides an adequate balance.

rossmnz: I contend that the study is not "comparing apples with apples".  It should also be noted that the person doing the research is homosexual himself with two adopted kids - Im not saying that this makes the research invalid - just that it needs to be considered.


LOL. Its just biased. Here is a study about all of these studies ...

New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research

Of course, anyone who has had a college course in statistics knows that when a survey shows there are differences between two groups, it is important to test whether that finding is "statistically significant." This is because it is always possible, by chance, that a sample may not accurately reflect the overall population on a particular point. However, through statistical analysis researchers can calculate the likelihood of this, and when they have a high level of confidence that a difference identified in the survey represents an actual difference in the national population, we say that finding is "statistically significant." (This does not mean the other findings are unimportant--just that we cannot have as high a level of confidence in them.)

4053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 710

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 864129 23-Jul-2013 10:50
One person supports this post
Send private message

jeffnz: I agree with above poster "hate" is a very strong word to use and I don't recall seeing anything like that from either sides of the discussion.


That's true in relation to the discussion that has taken place in this particular thread, because typically Geekzone users are reasonably well educated and think carefully about the views that they express.

However if you followed this debate on a lowest-common-denominator type of media such as Facebook then you would have observed a disturbing degree of hatred and anger exchanged between both sides of the 'debate'. I describe it as disturbing because I am beginning to believe that there is an extreme degree of contempt bubbling away between forward thinking urban liberals versus those with more traditional views. The same sex marriage debate is just one outlet of that hatred, and in the future we are probably going to see a lot more of this.

2862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 683

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 864136 23-Jul-2013 10:58
One person supports this post
Send private message

alasta:
jeffnz: I agree with above poster "hate" is a very strong word to use and I don't recall seeing anything like that from either sides of the discussion.


That's true in relation to the discussion that has taken place in this particular thread, because typically Geekzone users are reasonably well educated and think carefully about the views that they express.

However if you followed this debate on a lowest-common-denominator type of media such as Facebook then you would have observed a disturbing degree of hatred and anger exchanged between both sides of the 'debate'. I describe it as disturbing because I am beginning to believe that there is an extreme degree of contempt bubbling away between forward thinking urban liberals versus those with more traditional views. The same sex marriage debate is just one outlet of that hatred, and in the future we are probably going to see a lot more of this.


I tend to stay away from other forums for the reasons that you have pointed out being GZ peeps are reasonable or can be reasoned with.

It may well be that these sort of biases have always been there and its just that people can usually hide behind a keyboard when posting and wouldn't do it in real life. Maybe socialisation has stopped this sort of behavior in the past but with the internet and faceless communication it gives rise to anti social behavior. Anyway Off topic but would make a good thread wouldn't it.




Galaxy S8

 

Garmin  Vivoactive 3




4053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 710

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 864144 23-Jul-2013 11:03
One person supports this post
Send private message

jeffnz: It may well be that these sort of biases have always been there and its just that people can usually hide behind a keyboard when posting and wouldn't do it in real life. Maybe socialisation has stopped this sort of behavior in the past but with the internet and faceless communication it gives rise to anti social behavior.


If you think back to the civil union and anti-smacking debate we had liberals and conservatives angrily shouting at each other on the steps of parliament. With the same sex marriage debate we're seeing more of the online equivalent of that.

So, although the warfare has shifted into online media I don't personally believe that it's any different in nature from the sort of 'real life' behaviour we've seen in the past.

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