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 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 41
532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28


  Reply # 787902 27-Mar-2013 13:05
One person supports this post
Send private message

sittingduckz:
John2010:
Klipspringer:
networkn:

So again, you have no issue with what's happening you just don't want it called marriage?


Spot on.



+ Spot on.

And repeating myself, that for myself, for reasons I have explained regarding how many hold the word marriage as representing a special type of relationship that they have and I believe that they have a right to have that protected and respected by others. Instead gays (the public face of them anyway) deny them that right and are just totally dismissive of it without consideration.

Along the same lines, and adding to what I posted before, some modern dictionaries give a warning about use of the word "gay". In my Oxford Dictionary of English it says "The word gay cannot be readily used unselfconsciously today in these older senses (my note: referring to all the other meanings and pre-existing meanings of gay) without raising a sense of double entendre."

What gives gays the right to usurp control of this word and for them to get upset if people use gay in other senses in interviews, etc? Furthermore, I assume that their adoption of the word gay (my understanding is that homosexuals themselves promoted the calling of themselves as gays) was because of the positive connotations all of the existing meanings of gay has. Now they are telling us we can't use those other useful meanings without their being offended (and in the case of gay leaders, telling us that our doing so will cause gays to commit suicide (e.g. ref. Interviews with gay movement leaders regarding the gay shirt quotation incident, and in which "jumping off bridges" were also mentioned).

So gays (the public face anyway, because I know many individuals are different) are intent on usurping the rights of others, not just gaining them.



So you are also fighting against people who use the word marriage incorrectly ie. Immigration purposes, Marriages of convienience, Gold digging?

Or is it just the Gays you are against?


You are demonstrating the problem; as part of your argument you are assuming that I am against gays in order to dismiss what I am saying. Nowhere have I said that, and all through it is very clear that what I have a difficulty is that I believe others have a non trivial pre-existing right to what the word "marriage" means insofar as the relationship between two people is and that right should not be usurped.

Similarly, if I were to appear on TV and describe a shirt as "gay" then I would be abused (whereas gay has a number of pre-existing meanings (all positive, by the way).

I have also pointed out that it is only the word "marriage" I see a difficulty with and have made clear that is what my only concern is on the matter. Not that gays should not have similar rights to some sort of relationship of equal standing.

Instead, typical of the concerns I have expressed, you have jumped in and made an assumption about my beliefs in order to use that to dismiss what I have said. Your reaction is typical of those that, in my view do gays a disservice in the eyes of many.

For the record - I am not against gay rights. I can also say that although "straight" I have mixed freely and equally with homosexuals all of my life since early teenage years, including in those times when it was not wise for them to identify themselves as being such. I have also mixed in the transsexual community (I recognise they are not necessarily the same, but there is considerable overlap) and I suspect that I was a customer at the likes of Carmen's International coffee lounge in Vivian street (for coffee and cakes Smile) before many here were twinkles in their father's eyes (and maybe before some of their fathers were twinkles in their grandfather's eyes too).

Oh, and for the record too - I am not religious (in fact the very opposite) as no doubt some of you have also been assuming.

4649 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 470

Trusted

  Reply # 787904 27-Mar-2013 13:06
Send private message

It fascinates me to see several posts to the effect that somehow gay people are "Usurping the rights of others", or that gay people being accorded a right somehow impugns anothers equivalent right.

Interesting that so many appear to believe that there are some rights that should be reserved for some people and not others.




Twitter: @nztechfreak
Blogs: HeadphoNZ.org


 
 
 
 


Try Wrike: fast, easy, and efficient project collaboration software
BDFL - Memuneh
60007 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11109

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 787905 27-Mar-2013 13:06
4 people support this post
Send private message

da5id: So, we want to promote a lifestyle to children that has high rates of substance abuse, suicide, disease and dysfunction?


Wow...

No one is advocating "promote a lifestyle to children". You make it sound like people will be placing posters around schools with "Children, become gay", like "Children, enlist in the army".

If there's something being promotoed it's acceptance.

If we teach our children about acceptance, this is a great victory, because it seems a few generations didn't do it.





Awesome
4786 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1059

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 787907 27-Mar-2013 13:07
Send private message

Klipspringer: So you happy that gay brothers can get married but not heterosexual brothers and sisters.

Hang on... Slippery slope approaching...


If what you are saying is that the biological reason preventing a brother and sister for marrying doesn't apply to two brothers, then you are right.

HOWEVER. This is not what we are taking about changing the law to accommodate now. If and when that ever was on the table, you can debate the merits of that then.

Until that time, it's just a slippery slope argument - which as we should all know by now is a logical fallacy and is an invalid argument.




Twitter: ajobbins


4384 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 819

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 787913 27-Mar-2013 13:11
Send private message

da5id: Maybe not on you, but what about your children and their children? Are there negatives to the homosexual lifestyle? There are actually many. I don't care what people do in their own bedrooms, but promoting this stuff in school to children as being normal is destructive. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005, so they have no problems now right? Wrong. Here's an excerpt from Canada's largest gay paper XTRA, from a story by Julia Garro, Tuesday, February 17, 2009.


Over the past 10 years [Government] have contracted with experts on gay, lesbian, bisexual health to produce studies ... issues affecting queer Canadians includes lower life expectancy than the average Canadian, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, inadequate access to care and HIV/AIDS... all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our community... higher rates of anal cancer in the gay male community, lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer ... more GLBT people in this country who die of suicide each year than die from AIDS, there are more who die early deaths from substance abuse than die of HIV/AIDS... now that we can get married everyone assumes that we don't have any issues ... A lot of the deaths that occur in our community are hidden ... Those of us who are working on the front lines see them and I'm tired of watching my community die."


So, we want to promote a lifestyle to children that has high rates of substance abuse, suicide, disease and dysfunction?


This was reported recently :

http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/2/article_12303.php

An "incredible rise" in he incidence of syphilis amongst young gay and bi men in Christchurch is likely to be a result of often anonymous sexual hookups arranged over the internet with an accompanying lack of sexual health messages reaching at-risk men, according to a Christchurch sexual health expert.





Awesome
4786 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1059

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 787915 27-Mar-2013 13:12
Send private message

I think we can all agree that giving people certain rights (eg. to murder) is a bad thing, and that giving people other rights (like the right to an education) is a good thing.

What we are discussing is not whether giving rights or not is in itself is a bad thing, but whether allowing same sex couples to marry is a bad thing. That is, there will be a net negative consequence to society by allowing it.

I'm yet to see an argument from those opposing this law change that proves allowing this would have a net negative consequence to society.




Twitter: ajobbins


2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 787919 27-Mar-2013 13:14
Send private message

freitasm:

If we teach our children about acceptance, this is a great victory, because it seems a few generations didn't do it.



Well said. As long as it does not clash with teaching our children the difference between whats right and wrong.

I teach my children that being gay is wrong.

I teach my children that tagging, drinking too much, drugging is also wrong. But I teach them to accept everyone as they are. Who are we to judge anybody.

Not supporting gay marriage does not mean Im not accepting.

1049 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 51

Trusted

  Reply # 787921 27-Mar-2013 13:15
3 people support this post
Send private message

freitasm: No one is advocating "promote a lifestyle to children". You make it sound like people will be placing posters around schools with "Children, become gay", like "Children, enlist in the army".

If there's something being promotoed it's acceptance.

What is the difference between acceptance (or toleration for that matter) and normalisation?
I ask this because I believe that this bill has the potential to change what society perceives as normal.

How do you think a Christian should show their acceptance of homosexual lifestyles when they believe that homosexuality is morally wrong? ... and how should that person explain their position to their kids?


451 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 37


  Reply # 787922 27-Mar-2013 13:16
3 people support this post
Send private message

ajobbins:
Klipspringer: So you happy that gay brothers can get married but not heterosexual brothers and sisters.

Hang on... Slippery slope approaching...


If what you are saying is that the biological reason preventing a brother and sister for marrying doesn't apply to two brothers, then you are right.

HOWEVER. This is not what we are taking about changing the law to accommodate now. If and when that ever was on the table, you can debate the merits of that then.

Until that time, it's just a slippery slope argument - which as we should all know by now is a logical fallacy and is an invalid argument.


No it's not. Do you think we'd be having this debate now if Civil Unions hadn't been passed into law? That was the beginning of the 'slippery slope'. People said then that it would lead on to gay marriage and other things but we were assured both by Helen Clark and by Tim Barnett that this would not be the case - 


2004
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister):
NZ Herald June 21 2004 “Marriage is only for heterosexuals. The Government is not — underline — not, changing the Marriage Act. That will remain as an option only for heterosexual couples.”

TIM BARNETT (Labour – now Secretary General of Labour):
First Reading Civil Unions Bill “The Civil Union Bill is an acceptable alternative; marriage can remain untouched.”  


So, not slippery at all then.


447 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 104


  Reply # 787926 27-Mar-2013 13:20
5 people support this post
Send private message

Klipspringer:

I teach my children that being gay is wrong.



Awesome parenting skills!!

I hope for your children's sake they are not gay, because they will be afraid to come out because of your lack of acceptance. It will eat away at them, maybe they will even get married (opp sex) to try and please you.

Isn't that a worse use of the word marriage?

11030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3462

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 787928 27-Mar-2013 13:22
Send private message

ajobbins: I think we can all agree that giving people certain rights (eg. to murder) is a bad thing, and that giving people other rights (like the right to an education) is a good thing.

What we are discussing is not whether giving rights or not is in itself is a bad thing, but whether allowing same sex couples to marry is a bad thing. That is, there will be a net negative consequence to society by allowing it.

I'm yet to see an argument from those opposing this law change that proves allowing this would have a net negative consequence to society.


Are people no longer allowed to hold views simply because that is what feels right to them? Must any view now come with a full logical treatise to support it?

Personally I think that this is a change to society of such significance that a referendum would have been the appropriate way to settle the matter rather than trusting MP's.





2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 787930 27-Mar-2013 13:24
Send private message

ajobbins:
Klipspringer: So you happy that gay brothers can get married but not heterosexual brothers and sisters.

Hang on... Slippery slope approaching...


If what you are saying is that the biological reason preventing a brother and sister for marrying doesn't apply to two brothers, then you are right.

HOWEVER. This is not what we are taking about changing the law to accommodate now. If and when that ever was on the table, you can debate the merits of that then.

Until that time, it's just a slippery slope argument - which as we should all know by now is a logical fallacy and is an invalid argument.


OK.

This is all about the right for 2 people who "love" each other to marry? Right?

If so then what has sex got to do with it?

You implying that marriage should not be allowed because of sex. Thats 2 different things.

By your statement I can only presume that you would be happy that a brother and sister get married just as long as they don't have sex? Or there was some way of insuring it would not happen?

This needs to be debated.

Hang on... Slippery slope number 2 approaching...



11030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3462

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 787932 27-Mar-2013 13:26
Send private message

Klipspringer:
ajobbins:
Klipspringer: So you happy that gay brothers can get married but not heterosexual brothers and sisters.

Hang on... Slippery slope approaching...


If what you are saying is that the biological reason preventing a brother and sister for marrying doesn't apply to two brothers, then you are right.

HOWEVER. This is not what we are taking about changing the law to accommodate now. If and when that ever was on the table, you can debate the merits of that then.

Until that time, it's just a slippery slope argument - which as we should all know by now is a logical fallacy and is an invalid argument.


OK.

This is all about the right for 2 people who "love" each other to marry? Right?

If so then what has sex got to do with it?

You implying that marriage should not be allowed because of sex. Thats 2 different things.

By your statement I can only presume that you would be happy that a brother and sister get married just as long as they don't have sex? Or there was some way of insuring it would not happen?

This needs to be debated.

Hang on... Slippery slope number 2 approaching...




That's thing about Slippery Slopes: they are like buses - none around for ages then 2 come at once...! ;-)





Awesome
4786 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1059

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 787933 27-Mar-2013 13:30
Send private message

Klipspringer: Hang on... Slippery slope number 2 approaching...


Sigh. Slippery Slope is not an argument against something.

Allowing same-sex marriage will not allow what you are suggesting. Just as Civil Unions didn't allow Same Sex Marriage.

Things change over time and as they come up there is an opportunity to discuss and debate them before the law is changed. Exactly what is happening right now.

At some point in the future, regardless of whether this law is passed or not, some people may push for sibling marriages. We can't know for sure and the outcome of this law does not dictate the outcome of that argument.

Unless you have any proof to the contrary, this is just another invalid slippery slope argument.





Twitter: ajobbins


2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 787935 27-Mar-2013 13:34
Send private message

ajobbins:
Klipspringer: Hang on... Slippery slope number 2 approaching...


Sigh. Slippery Slope is not an argument against something.

Allowing same-sex marriage will not allow what you are suggesting. Just as Civil Unions didn't allow Same Sex Marriage.

Things change over time and as they come up there is an opportunity to discuss and debate them before the law is changed. Exactly what is happening right now.

At some point in the future, regardless of whether this law is passed or not, some people may push for sibling marriages. We can't know for sure and the outcome of this law does not dictate the outcome of that argument.

Unless you have any proof to the contrary, this is just another invalid slippery slope argument.



OK then can you answer me please about your statement about not allowing brothers and sisters to marry. Everybody that supports the sames sex marriage bill says that 2 people who love each other have a right to marry.

Klipspringer:
This is all about the right for 2 people who "love" each other to marry? Right?

If so then what has sex got to do with it?

You implying that marriage should not be allowed because of sex. Thats 2 different things.

By your statement I can only presume that you would be happy that a brother and sister get married just as long as they don't have sex? Or there was some way of insuring it would not happen?

This needs to be debated.


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 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 »

Amazon launches the International Shopping Experience in the Amazon Shopping App
Posted 19-Apr-2018 08:38


Spark New Zealand and TVNZ to bring coverage of Rugby World Cup 2019
Posted 16-Apr-2018 06:55


How Google can seize Microsoft Office crown
Posted 14-Apr-2018 11:08


How back office transformation drives IRD efficiency
Posted 12-Apr-2018 21:15


iPod laws in a smartphone world: will we ever get copyright right?
Posted 12-Apr-2018 21:13


Lightbox service using big data and analytics to learn more about customers
Posted 9-Apr-2018 12:11


111 mobile caller location extended to iOS
Posted 6-Apr-2018 13:50


Huawei announces the HUAWEI P20 series
Posted 29-Mar-2018 11:41


Symantec Internet Security Threat Report shows increased endpoint technology risks
Posted 26-Mar-2018 18:29


Spark switches on long-range IoT network across New Zealand
Posted 26-Mar-2018 18:22


Stuff Pix enters streaming video market
Posted 21-Mar-2018 09:18


Windows no longer Microsoft’s main focus
Posted 13-Mar-2018 07:47


Why phone makers are obsessed with cameras
Posted 11-Mar-2018 12:25


New Zealand Adopts International Open Data Charter
Posted 3-Mar-2018 12:48


Shipments tumble as NZ phone upgrades slow
Posted 2-Mar-2018 11:48



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.