![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
tardtasticx:Glassboy: Your entire argument runs counter to Article 19 of the UDHR. The UDHR is also only relevant to the degree to which NZ has signed up to it, and that generally is expressed in the BORA 1990, and you by telling other people what they think and whether they are allowed to think it contravenes both the Freedom of thought, conscience, and expression and the Freedom of expression.
I never said they weren't allowed to think things. You're putting words in my mouth which is rude.
I simply explained why someones opinion can be wrong. Doesn't mean they can't hold an opinion.
tardtasticx: Marriage is a right...
alasta:tardtasticx: Marriage is a right...
Religious freedom is a right. Having the state involved in your religious practices is not a right.
alasta:tardtasticx: Marriage is a right...
Religious freedom is a right. Having the state involved in your religious practices is not a right.
tardtasticx:alasta: Religious freedom is a right. Having the state involved in your religious practices is not a right.
Except marriage pre-dates any modern day religion and you can get married without ever having set foot in a church. So it's not exactly interfering with anyone's right to religious freedom.
Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze
freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure
freitasm: It is really a contract. It establishes a relationship between two parties, including how they share their income, how they share ownership of goods, etc.
freitasm: It is really a contract. It establishes a relationship between two parties, including how they share their income, how they share ownership of goods, etc.
rossmnz:
Secondly, everyones opinion is equally valid, it doesnt matter what that opinion is. Last I checked we lived in a democracy - despite this legislation being passed without a referendum.
Cheers
Sure, everyone has the right to have an opinion, but in the end I'd not go as far to say that everyone's opinion is equally valid. A soundly argued position with strong evidence is, in my opinion(!), more "valid" than some off-the-cuff remark that hasn't been thought through properly.
alasta:tardtasticx:alasta: Religious freedom is a right. Having the state involved in your religious practices is not a right.
Except marriage pre-dates any modern day religion and you can get married without ever having set foot in a church. So it's not exactly interfering with anyone's right to religious freedom.
So what is marriage then? If it's not a religious tradition then it must just be a lifestyle choice which still leaves the question open as to why the state needs to be involved and how anyone would be penalised if the state refuses to get involved.
KiwiNZ:alasta: So what is marriage then? If it's not a religious tradition then it must just be a lifestyle choice which still leaves the question open as to why the state needs to be involved and how anyone would be penalised if the state refuses to get involved.
The state involvement in Marriage today is more about money and legal entitlements, e.g Property split, is one entitled to a Single persons or married persons Benefit/ pension etc etc
Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze
freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |