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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 41
532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28


  Reply # 787340 26-Mar-2013 17:00
4 people support this post
Send private message

NZtechfreak:
nakedmolerat: This is how I see it.

OP disagreed with the poll result as it does not support what he think is 'right'. I on the other hand think everyone is entitled to their opinion. I advocate respect and freedom of opinion.

As of late, I notice that if you have different opinion to gay community, you are often labelled as intolerant, judgemental, close minded, religious etc. It is sad to see the world has gone backwards



World going backwards? You mean one where a minority group oppressed throughout most of recorded history is enjoying a level of civil liberty never previously available to them? Yikes, indeed what a terrible world it has become. Just a terrible slippery slope. Terrible.


But what you are saying is that civil liberties means taking the rights that other groups have established for themselves. As I pointed out, "marriage" is, in language, a legalised personal arrangement between a man and a woman. A man and a woman who are married have a right to consider that marriage is an arrangement of that sort and entails a special bond between a man and a woman and that has a special and valued meaning to them.

I think one would find that a great deal of people would not care if a homosexual couple could enter into a similar arrangement as long as it was not called marriage (although there may be valid concerns over the adoption of children as we all as children are conditioned by our upbringing, whether that be religion, ethics, sexual behaviour, etc. and that upbringing becomes the adult). But they want to be able to say, "I am married, I have a wife or husband and our bond is that between a man and a woman and we value and regard that as special". Perhaps that is part of the key, homosexuals do not experience the bond between a man and a woman and so consider it is not of special worth to be protected by its own name and so can be shared by them.

That is not to say that there is not a special and valued bond between a homosexual couple, just that it is a bond of a different sort for a number of physical, behavioural and procreative reasons. I would have thought putting in place a recognition of that bond is the delivery of civil liberty rather than an approach that others feel diminishes their own.

Instead, homosexuals want not only to interlope into a special relationship that others feel they have and is special to them as a mixed sex bond, many of them and their agents get offended, abusive and dismissive  (dismissive, just as you have done) and denial of the right to an opinion of anyone who expresses views wanting to protect that relationship.

As I have already pointed out, they seem to also get offended even if someone uses a word (such as "gay", despite its legitimate many meanings) in any manner which could mischievously or ignorantly be construed to be an arrow fired at them. Instead, they are hijacking the language to the disadvantage of others.




Awesome
4799 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1060

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 787370 26-Mar-2013 17:48
4 people support this post
Send private message

John2010:
But what you are saying is that civil liberties means taking the rights that other groups have established for themselves. As I pointed out, "marriage" is, in language, a legalised personal arrangement between a man and a woman. A man and a woman who are married have a right to consider that marriage is an arrangement of that sort and entails a special bond between a man and a woman and that has a special and valued meaning to them.


Yep, because New Zealand law is based on the Oxford English dictionary. Because one publication has a definition of a word, we shouldn't be allowed to have a different interpretation. Just like how our laws much also conform to Christian values. /sarcasm

FYI - The current Oxford English Dictionary definiton of marriage currently contains the following in the first definition of the word:
     "(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex."




Twitter: ajobbins


2859 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 683

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 787385 26-Mar-2013 18:32
One person supports this post
Send private message

jayveeee:
Any online polls are really of no value. Properly conducted polls (Such as the Herald Digipoll, Neilson polls etc) are conducted in a planned and controlled way in order to canvas a cross section of the target and produce statistically accurate results (within a margin of error). The headline article on the Herald today for example is talking about the Herald Digipoll, not the accompanying online poll on the same site.


* Source: Herald DigiPoll survey of 750 people, March 11-17. Margin of error 3.6 per cent.

750 people. Margin of error 3.6 per cent.  LOL, is that even worthy of a headline!

Almost as bad as polls fro preferred PM. 80% (probably more ) of the dimwits that they poll don't know any other alternative to the current PM.







ok so I think we get your political stance as well, maybe those "dimwits"saw no viable alternative.

Given the amount of time now being spent on the topic I would say it is news worthy and shows that not everyone is as accepting as what some may think.








Galaxy S8

 

Garmin  Vivoactive 3




2859 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 683

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 787391 26-Mar-2013 18:51
One person supports this post
Send private message

ok thanks for your clarification.

your last remark isn't worthy of comment




Galaxy S8

 

Garmin  Vivoactive 3




4304 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152

Mod Emeritus
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 787394 26-Mar-2013 18:56
One person supports this post
Send private message

jayveeee:
jeffnz: ok thanks for your clarification.

your last remark isn't worthy of comment


lol .......how righteous we think we are!



The hypocrisy is astounding. I can see this pointless thread getting locked very soon.

2986 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 453

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 787397 26-Mar-2013 19:00
Send private message

ajw: 
While we hear all sorts of propaganda about gay "rights' - what about children's rights? Many have now spoken of the sheer unhappiness and embarrassment about being brought up two lesbians or two honsexuals - and how much they missed the balancing influence of a member of the other sex.


You're right.  Single parents absolutely should not be allowed to have children.  CYFS, get to rounding them up kthx.

4304 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152

Mod Emeritus
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 787406 26-Mar-2013 19:07
2 people support this post
Send private message

jayveeee:
The hypocrisy is astounding. I can see this pointless thread getting locked very soon.


Why? Just because you don't agree with the topic?



I actually do. I just don't agree with pointless threads like this. They go absolutely nowhere and everyone ends up pissed off.

So what if I did disagree with it? It is a perfectly valid point of view and people have every right to express it without being jumped on by you.

Kind of ironic really when you think about it.


2859 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 683

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 787410 26-Mar-2013 19:12
One person supports this post
Send private message

this is going nowhere and seems to be just grandstanding which is a shame because I thought there were some valid comments for both sides of the discussion.




Galaxy S8

 

Garmin  Vivoactive 3




Awesome
4799 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1060

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 787413 26-Mar-2013 19:15
One person supports this post
Send private message

jayveeee: Excellent point. Fatherless and motherless children is a concept too difficult for anti-gay marriage campaigners to grasp.


Based on people's strong objection to this law changed based on the 'a mother and a father bound in holy matrimony under the witness of god are the only way to raise a child', you would be forgiven for thinking that this will allowed SS couples of rip the babies from the arms of their loving parents the moment they are born.

Gay people can adopt already. This law change won't cause more kids to be adopted by gay people.
Gay people can have committed relationships already. This law change won't cause more people to be gay.

This bill is about recognition. It's about giving gay partners, and gay parents equal rights in law for equal situations.






Twitter: ajobbins


gzt

9932 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1494


  Reply # 787453 26-Mar-2013 20:18
4 people support this post
Send private message

Gay couples raise children. Gay couples get married. The same obligations must be balanced by the same rights. I just don't see any problem here.

4649 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 470

Trusted

  Reply # 787593 26-Mar-2013 22:10
Send private message

John2010: 
But what you are saying is that civil liberties means taking the rights that other groups have established for themselves. As I pointed out, "marriage" is, in language, a legalised personal arrangement between a man and a woman. A man and a woman who are married have a right to consider that marriage is an arrangement of that sort and entails a special bond between a man and a woman and that has a special and valued meaning to them.

I think one would find that a great deal of people would not care if a homosexual couple could enter into a similar arrangement as long as it was not called marriage (although there may be valid concerns over the adoption of children as we all as children are conditioned by our upbringing, whether that be religion, ethics, sexual behaviour, etc. and that upbringing becomes the adult). But they want to be able to say, "I am married, I have a wife or husband and our bond is that between a man and a woman and we value and regard that as special". Perhaps that is part of the key, homosexuals do not experience the bond between a man and a woman and so consider it is not of special worth to be protected by its own name and so can be shared by them.

That is not to say that there is not a special and valued bond between a homosexual couple, just that it is a bond of a different sort for a number of physical, behavioural and procreative reasons. I would have thought putting in place a recognition of that bond is the delivery of civil liberty rather than an approach that others feel diminishes their own.

Instead, homosexuals want not only to interlope into a special relationship that others feel they have and is special to them as a mixed sex bond, many of them and their agents get offended, abusive and dismissive  (dismissive, just as you have done) and denial of the right to an opinion of anyone who expresses views wanting to protect that relationship.

As I have already pointed out, they seem to also get offended even if someone uses a word (such as "gay", despite its legitimate many meanings) in any manner which could mischievously or ignorantly be construed to be an arrow fired at them. Instead, they are hijacking the language to the disadvantage of others.


Your apparent haste to put words in my mouth seems to have arrested your reading comprehension. I was not making any statement about anything you suggest I was. I was referring to civil liberties gay people presently enjoy, which obviously makes no statement at all about rights they do not presently enjoy like gay marriage.

I was merely objecting to the sentiment that the world has gone backwards because gay people have sufficient civil liberties and are secure enough in them to accuse other people of bigotry without fear of reprisal, which rather suggests to me a world that has come forward a great deal indeed. If on the other hand that person meant the world has gone backwards a bit for bigots, I would certainly agree with that proposition. The terrible scourge of political correctness and legal protections against discrimination have made it much more difficult for those people to dish out the casual and thoughtless bigotry that afflicted the lives of millions before this political correctness malarky took off. 

I have no problem with people having their own opinions, I never suggested otherwise. However that doesn't mean I can't dismiss them as faulty either. Again, I wish you wouldn't try and put words in my mouth.





Twitter: @nztechfreak
Blogs: HeadphoNZ.org


532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28


  Reply # 787598 26-Mar-2013 22:35
One person supports this post
Send private message

ajobbins:
...FYI - The current Oxford English Dictionary definiton of marriage currently contains the following in the first definition of the word:
     "(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex."


Yes, that demonstrates exactly what I am saying. Homosexuals are hijacking a definition into something new without any concern whatsoever (to the extent of abuse) for those who hold the definition to have some special meaning to them (the nature of which I have tried to explain but which in turn is dismissed).

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28


  Reply # 787599 26-Mar-2013 22:37
Send private message

NZtechfreak:
John2010: 
But what you are saying is that civil liberties means taking the rights that other groups have established for themselves. As I pointed out, "marriage" is, in language, a legalised personal arrangement between a man and a woman. A man and a woman who are married have a right to consider that marriage is an arrangement of that sort and entails a special bond between a man and a woman and that has a special and valued meaning to them.

I think one would find that a great deal of people would not care if a homosexual couple could enter into a similar arrangement as long as it was not called marriage (although there may be valid concerns over the adoption of children as we all as children are conditioned by our upbringing, whether that be religion, ethics, sexual behaviour, etc. and that upbringing becomes the adult). But they want to be able to say, "I am married, I have a wife or husband and our bond is that between a man and a woman and we value and regard that as special". Perhaps that is part of the key, homosexuals do not experience the bond between a man and a woman and so consider it is not of special worth to be protected by its own name and so can be shared by them.

That is not to say that there is not a special and valued bond between a homosexual couple, just that it is a bond of a different sort for a number of physical, behavioural and procreative reasons. I would have thought putting in place a recognition of that bond is the delivery of civil liberty rather than an approach that others feel diminishes their own.

Instead, homosexuals want not only to interlope into a special relationship that others feel they have and is special to them as a mixed sex bond, many of them and their agents get offended, abusive and dismissive  (dismissive, just as you have done) and denial of the right to an opinion of anyone who expresses views wanting to protect that relationship.

As I have already pointed out, they seem to also get offended even if someone uses a word (such as "gay", despite its legitimate many meanings) in any manner which could mischievously or ignorantly be construed to be an arrow fired at them. Instead, they are hijacking the language to the disadvantage of others.


Your apparent haste to put words in my mouth seems to have arrested your reading comprehension. I was not making any statement about anything you suggest I was. I was referring to civil liberties gay people presently enjoy, which obviously makes no statement at all about rights they do not presently enjoy like gay marriage.

I was merely objecting to the sentiment that the world has gone backwards because gay people have sufficient civil liberties and are secure enough in them to accuse other people of bigotry without fear of reprisal, which rather suggests to me a world that has come forward a great deal indeed. If on the other hand that person meant the world has gone backwards a bit for bigots, I would certainly agree with that proposition. The terrible scourge of political correctness and legal protections against discrimination have made it much more difficult for those people to dish out the casual and thoughtless bigotry that afflicted the lives of millions before this political correctness malarky took off. 

I have no problem with people having their own opinions, I never suggested otherwise. However that doesn't mean I can't dismiss them as faulty either. Again, I wish you wouldn't try and put words in my mouth.



Sorry if I misunderstood you.

But unfortunately, if misunderstanding you is what I did, I have no better understanding at all of what you are saying after reading the above Frown.


1068 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 55

Trusted

  Reply # 787617 26-Mar-2013 23:00
2 people support this post
Send private message

Hmmm, I'll risk a comment...

Having been raised in a religious background myself, I think it is interesting that some religious people seem to expect the law to reflect and support their moral persuasions. To be clear, my understanding is that those people see gay marriage as a moral issue (ie. homosexuality is wrong so gay marriage is even more wrong). A few years ago I probably would have numbered myself as one of those people. In some ways I think their indignation is understandable, because NZ's law has historically reflected Christian morality. However the law is obviously not able or designed to enforce a moral code.

I think more than anything else, such people are concerned about the increasingly violent crime, greed and materialism, and poverty and desperation that appear to have emerged in NZ society in parallel with the shift away towards atheism and secularism. In such a world view, gay marriage is yet another symptom of the breakdown of society's moral fibre.

I equally find it interesting that although NZ proclaims itself to be a tolerant society, people here and others that I've interacted with have expressed strongly anti-religious views to the point where I would avoid talking about my religious background with them. If it is not an anti-religious environment, I think it is at least an environment in which society seems to prefer to avoid talking openly about religion. Every time anyone with a religious affiliation dares to make a public comment about an issue such as gay marriage we get people who throw up their hands at those "hateful sunday-only christians" (or [insert similar comment about Muslims or other religious minorities]). It becomes impossible to take a moral stand about any issue.

I personally find it hard to separate the legal definition of marriage (ie. the legal rights and recognition entailed with being legally married) with moral connotations from my upbringing. Rightly or wrongly, I don't know if I could ever support a gay couple getting married in a church. I'd rather see marriage become a non-legal concept or to give the legal concept a different name.

3966 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 674

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 787621 26-Mar-2013 23:04
One person supports this post
Send private message

My impression of this whole issue is that both sides of the argument are caught up in emotive platitudes and don't seem to be able to clearly articulate what practical outcome they want to achieve. A large part of the problem is that the term 'marriage' seems to be used to refer to several quite distinct concepts.

If marriage is about property rights and power of attorney then same sex and multiple partner marriage makes sense, but isn't particularly necessary as there are other legal avenues available to achieve this. If marriage is a living arrangement then this shouldn't be 'legally recognised' at all as it's none of the state's business, and if marriage is a religious ritual then deciding who is eligible is the responsibility of the church rather than the state.

With all that in mind I am extremely disappointed that calls for the state to be completely removed from the business of marriage have been dismissed as 'out of scope' by the select committee. Regardless of whether this bill passes or not I have no doubt that this issue will continue to cause anger and division until we can have a proper grass roots reform of the Marriage Act, rather than a sloppy piece of legislation which pushes a particular narrow agenda but ignores the big picture.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 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:





News »

Hawaiki Transpacific cable ready-for-service
Posted 20-Jul-2018 11:29


Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central launches
Posted 10-Jul-2018 10:40


Spark completes first milestone in voice platform upgrade
Posted 10-Jul-2018 09:36


Microsoft ices heated developers
Posted 6-Jul-2018 20:16


PB Technologies charged for its extended warranties and warned for bait advertising
Posted 3-Jul-2018 15:45


Almost 20,000 people claim credits from Spark
Posted 29-Jun-2018 10:40


Cove sells NZ's first insurance policy via chatbot
Posted 25-Jun-2018 10:04


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



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.