I believe in gay marriage [Archive] - Page 4

bogan

18th April 2013, 00:07

Oh, how tolerant of you. It seems to be a common theme with the hypocritical 'equal rights' groups. I have seen some vile shit posted on facebook and other online media directed at anyone who was brave enough to voice their opposition to same sex marriages.

As for my question, it may be safe to put your money on pedophilia, maybe it has something to do with people from the LGBT community being over represented in kiddy fiddler stats. Yep society is going down the shitter quicker than ever.

http://cigpapers.wordpress.com/tag/paedophile-action-for-liberation/

http://www.b4uact.org/about.htm

Well, there's always going to be arseholes on both sides of the fence, the fact of the matter is more people support it than are against it.

I think euthanasia is actually fairly close to the mark. Or maybe banning abortion, though that might be reliant on better contraceptives; or lots of gay couples wanting to adopt. There we go, two birds with one stone!

ducatilover

18th April 2013, 00:12

There we go, two birds with one stone!

Like this?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dytQEQvcqIA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

bogan

18th April 2013, 00:14

Like this?

For some reason that made me think of a better next one, Robo Loving.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AjI2J2SQ528" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

ducatilover

18th April 2013, 00:17

Does this mean we should allow robot-marriage? Because that might suit fat people :yes: And Mr Hawking

bogan

18th April 2013, 00:19

Does this mean we should allow robot-marriage? Because that might suit fat people :yes: And Mr Hawking

Probably a moot point tbh, but I for one, welcome and choices our Robotic Overlords make for us!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/07PDJ8onDIM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Oh look, its a dubstep remix :chase:

ducatilover

18th April 2013, 00:22

Is this what you want the world to be?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/T7hbLZFQ6nk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> :sweatdrop

bogan

18th April 2013, 00:25

It's not rape if you change the firmware...

ducatilover

18th April 2013, 00:27

I have a feeling this has gone off on a tangent

But I think I may use the firmware excuse

bogan

18th April 2013, 00:28

I have a feeling this has gone off on a tangent

But I think I may use the firmware excuse

You may have a point there....

...that's what she, or now he, said.

There we go, back on topic, job done :yawn:

ducatilover

18th April 2013, 00:30

You may have a point there....

...that's what she, or now he, said.

There we go, back on topic, job done :yawn:

Damn it all to buggery eh?

Oakie

18th April 2013, 07:58

As for my question, it may be safe to put your money on pedophilia, maybe it has something to do with people from the LGBT community being over represented in kiddy fiddler stats. Yep society is going down the shitter quicker than ever.

Care to provide some verifiable statisitics to support that?

BoristheBiter

18th April 2013, 08:00

Well, there's always going to be arseholes on both sides of the fence, the fact of the matter is more people support it than are against it.

!

I think the problem was there was two questions.
1) should gay people be allowed to marry and
2) should they change the definition of the word marriage.

And it all got lumped into the same question.

Makes no difference now anyway.

Swoop

18th April 2013, 08:31

Watching the debate on Parliamentary TV last night, I was most impressed with Chris Faafoi's speech.

I think euthanasia is actually fairly close to the mark.
I'm quite surprised this hasn't been enacted already, but from the treasury's point of view (completely devoid of ethical considerations, of course).

Greater savings in the health sector (less beds taken up).
A re-distribution of wealth from the estates of those euthanised.
Helping employment by introducing a new "profession".

Surely a fiscally minded government would follow this path?

oldrider

18th April 2013, 08:57

I think the problem was there was two questions.
1) should gay people be allowed to marry and
2) should they change the definition of the word marriage.

And it all got lumped into the same question.

Makes no difference now anyway.

This will fester on and on, IMHO the bill would struggle to survive a referendum and it appears that the politicians are out of synch with the electorate!

Not an opinion on the subject just the outcome of it's progress to date! (the fat lady sings and all that!)

Hitcher

18th April 2013, 09:10

There have been times when I have thought that having a husband would be really useful. However I'm not yet convinced that this should be a full-time role.

Banditbandit

18th April 2013, 09:13

This will fester on and on, IMHO the bill would struggle to survive a referendum and it appears that the politicians are out of synch with the electorate!

Not an opinion on the subject just the outcome of it's progress to date! (the fat lady sings and all that!)

Naa ... polls show that a majority of kiwis support the bill .. so a referendum is unlikely to change anything ..

Go here http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10873630

This poll on March 26 this year (23 days ago) shows a majority still support gay marriage ... yes the numbers are changing, but the anti-campaigners were in full swing, while the pros only targeted the MPs ... so a more public campaign by the pro group may well see support increase again ..

SMOKEU

18th April 2013, 09:13

Fucking liberals corrupting society.

Katman

18th April 2013, 09:31

Fucking liberals corrupting society.

And yet you support cannabis law reform?

If you want people to be more open minded about your wishes perhaps you'd better start being a little less close minded about other's wishes.

SMOKEU

18th April 2013, 09:36

And yet you support cannabis law reform?

If you want people to be more open minded about your wishes perhaps you'd better start being a little less close minded about others wishes.

I don't really care if fags want to do their "thing" behind closed doors, but encouraging gays to marry is wrong. They've already got civil unions, the human rights act etc, they've got all the rights they could ever need, so why do they need marriage? Marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman, and the morals of society are slipping away very quickly by the left wing propaganda that the sheep swallow hook, line and sinker.

Gays are now going to be allowed to adopt kids. It's pretty fucked up that a kid could have 2 moms or 2 dads. How do you think the kid is going to feel?

Katman

18th April 2013, 09:49

I don't really care if fags want to do their "thing" behind closed doors, but encouraging gays to marry is wrong. They've already got civil unions, the human rights act etc, they've got all the rights they could ever need, so why do they need marriage? Marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman, and the morals of society are slipping away very quickly by the left wing propaganda that the sheep swallow hook, line and sinker.

Gays are now going to be allowed to adopt kids. It's pretty fucked up that a kid could have 2 moms or 2 dads. How do you think the kid is going to feel?

Seriously man, you're as fucked in the head as Ed is.

Banditbandit

18th April 2013, 09:51

Marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman,

Who says ??? What law of the universe made it so??? Absolutely none - it's a human concept - Change it !!!

Gays are now going to be allowed to adopt kids.

Yeah .. and ???

It's pretty fucked up that a kid could have 2 moms or 2 dads.

Fuck .. they can now when parents remarry ...

How do you think the kid is going to feel?

They'll only feel bad if peopel like you make them feel bad ...

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2013, 09:54

I was very pleased to see this law pass last night. Good stuff.

I am somewhat pleased to be a Kiwi today.

A triumph of being sensible . :)

scissorhands

18th April 2013, 09:58

Gays are now going to be allowed to adopt kids. It's pretty fucked up that a kid could have 2 moms or 2 dads. How do you think the kid is going to feel?

once they get over it, they'll be fine, most adopted children or artificially inseminated kids [he he] grow into the same sex parents family from a baby or toddler most of the time

might be a better home than your place dude!

Oscar

18th April 2013, 10:04

bogan

18th April 2013, 10:11

It's pretty fucked up that a kid could have 2 moms or 2 dads. How do you think the kid is going to feel?

Loved. That's all you need!

FJRider

18th April 2013, 10:16

Gays are now going to be allowed to adopt kids. It's pretty fucked up that a kid could have 2 moms or 2 dads. How do you think the kid is going to feel?

How about normal .. and probably will be better fed and looked after than a lot of kids in Mum/dad "normal" family's ...

Banditbandit

18th April 2013, 11:48

Katman

18th April 2013, 12:54

I think marriage has long since moved on from having any religious significance.

My wife and I got married outside without a single reference to anything religious.

Oscar

18th April 2013, 12:56

Yeah .. I had similar reservations ... because why?

In the Middle Eastern Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition SEX is bad bad bad ... if you want to have sex you have to obtain God's blessing ... that's why you need Marriage - to obtain God's blessing to have sex ...

Yes ... if Sex is bad bad bad ... and God frowns on homosexuals .. then he is never going to give his blessing for Gay marriage ... ('course if you are like me and do not believe in God .. then you don't need any kind of blessing to have sex ...)

It does seem a little strange to me that Gays wanted Marriage when they already have a civil union ... it seems contradictory ... why participate in a religious ceremony drawn from a relgion that excludes you???

However if our Gay brothers and sisters want it then who am I to deny them that celebration and status ...

who are any of us to deny them that status ???

I agree with everything you say, except it seems like the step from Civil Union to Marriage is one that gains very little, but upsets a lot of people, so why bother?
It's almost as if, to make up for years of persecution, they're being allowed to dish a little back...

Oscar

18th April 2013, 12:59

I think marriage has long since moved on from having any religious significance.

My wife and I got married outside without a single reference to anything religious.

Actually, that's the flip side of my argument - if I was to marry again (shudder), I would want it to be a civil union.
Are hetros allowed civil unions?

huff3r

18th April 2013, 13:06

Actually, that's the flip side of my argument - if I was to marry again (shudder), I would want it to be a civil union.
Are hetros allowed civil unions?

Yes. 10chars

Banditbandit

18th April 2013, 13:09

I think marriage has long since moved on from having any religious significance.

My wife and I got married outside without a single reference to anything religious.

I'm not so sure - most of the objections to Gay mariage are religious-based ... and people do still get married in a church ... the religious element is still essential for some peope (but then, I also think that many people get married in a church without having any religious offiliation - it's just "the done thing" ...

Actually, that's the flip side of my argument - if I was to marry again (shudder), I would want it to be a civil union.
Are hetros allowed civil unions?

And yes, if 20 years ago Civil Unions existed I would probably have had one with my wife - rather than a marriage ...

mashman

18th April 2013, 13:15

Actually, that's the flip side of my argument - if I was to marry again (shudder), I would want it to be a civil union.
Are hetros allowed civil unions?

And yes, if 20 years ago Civil Unions existed I would probably have had one with my wife - rather than a marriage ...

:rofl: coz it's just your choice, the future missus subservient will have nothing to say on the subject or heaven forbid may harbour desires towards being married.

bogan

18th April 2013, 13:16

I'm not so sure - most of the objections to Gay mariage are religious-based ... and people do still get married in a church ... the religious element is still essential for some peope (but then, I also think that many people get married in a church without having any religious offiliation - it's just "the done thing" ...

The only way to get around that, is to change the legal standing to civil union for everybody. It's not right that a straight couple can head down to the courthouse (or wherever it is) and get them legally married, but gays can't. If marriage is a religious thing, then that is all it should be, our legal system should not be dictated to by religion.

Oscar

18th April 2013, 13:17

And yes, if 20 years ago Civil Unions existed I would probably have had one with my wife - rather than a marriage ...

Exactly (and I'm getting into a disturbing habit of agreeing with you).
As a non-believer, I find the idea of marriage hypocritical, so it would be the civil union for me.

Oscar

18th April 2013, 13:18

:rofl: coz it's just your choice, the future missus subservient will have nothing to say on the subject or heaven forbid may harbour desires towards being married.

You shouldn't judge everyone by your own (lack of) standards.

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2013, 13:20

Whereas I support the Civil Union Act, I think this one is a step too far in the name of a nebulous concept known as “Gay Rights”. I don't really care what consenting adults do in their own homes, and I'm not religious at all. However, there are some things that disturb me about this bill.

The concept of marriage derives from cultural and religious traditions, which in Judeo/Christian society featured a man and a woman joining to propagate a family. This bill, which is constantly referred to in terms of the rights of gay people, tramples all over that cultural tradition. When you consider that we already have a Civil Union law, I wonder why Parliament found it necessary to ignore this tradition and deeply offend a significant portion of the population with this bill? I also wonder what would have happened if this bill had of offended Maori cultural traditions in such a fashion.

I think this has been done to death, but in rebuttal.

This is not about "gay rights" it is about "human rights": you dont see that there is a contradiction between your statement that you care not what consenting adults do in their own homes, fine, neither do i.

marriage is not a religious institution. And it never has been. You are referring to a time where the church WAS the state, and so the traditionalists say "Well Judeo Christian society blah de blah tradition etc etc" A Judeo Christian society is a BAD THING. RELIGION is an appalling thing. We as a society have moved on. Thinking people have moved on.

But anyway, about marriage: it is a state recognition that a couple are, well, a couple. That has effects on things that the state might be interested in: who pays for kids you produce, what benefits you might be entitled to, stuff like that. What it is not about is religion. That is an add on for the sick individuals so afflicted. And since thats a private party, they can do what they like, provided people like me can point and giggle and say "Waht a bunch of stupid cosks"

If your civil society values freedom and equality, and recognises the union of certain of its members, then denial of those rights (and obligations) is nothing more or less than discrimination. Simple as that.

To bleat about offending tradition is to misunderstand what marriage is, almost entirely.

And putting up the old "Well, we'd never offend the moari like this offends religious mentalists (sorry, FUNdamentalists) shows the inherent weakness of your argument.

Admit it, you find gays icky (but I bet you watch a lot of hot lesbo pr0n) and thats what you are reacting to. Go on. Admit it.

Banditbandit

18th April 2013, 13:23

:rofl: coz it's just your choice, the future missus subservient will have nothing to say on the subject or heaven forbid may harbour desires towards being married.

Naaa .. she would have gone for a civil union too ... we discussed just that when the law was changed .. adn we both said we would have done it ...

Oscar

18th April 2013, 13:29

I think this has been done to death, but in rebuttal.

This is not about "gay rights" it is about "human rights": you dont see that there is a contradiction between your statement that you care not what consenting adults do in their own homes, fine, neither do i.

marriage is not a religious institution. And it never has been. You are referring to a time where the church WAS the state, and so the traditionalists say "Well Judeo Christian society blah de blah tradition etc etc" A Judeo Christian society is a BAD THING. RELIGION is an appalling thing. We as a society have moved on. Thinking people have moved on.

But anyway, about marriage: it is a state recognition that a couple are, well, a couple. That has effects on things that the state might be interested in: who pays for kids you produce, what benefits you might be entitled to, stuff like that. What it is not about is religion. That is an add on for the sick individuals so afflicted. And since thats a private party, they can do what they like, provided people like me can point and giggle and say "Waht a bunch of stupid cosks"

If your civil society values freedom and equality, and recognises the union of certain of its members, then denial of those rights (and obligations) is nothing more or less than discrimination. Simple as that.

To bleat about offending tradition is to misunderstand what marriage is, almost entirely.

And putting up the old "Well, we'd never offend the moari like this offends religious mentalists (sorry, FUNdamentalists) shows the inherent weakness of your argument.

Admit it, you find gays icky (but I bet you watch a lot of hot lesbo pr0n) and thats what you are reacting to. Go on. Admit it.

Firstly I don't watch porn full stop - it bores me as much as ad hominem arguments.
Also if marriage is not a religious institution, why is it limited to one partner?
At what point do the rights of one group override the rights of another?

As for the rest, could you please tell me what additional "rights" are gained by this bill?
For that matter, could you point out the section of The Bill of Rights that guarantees the right to marriage?

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2013, 13:31

I've been with my partner for just over 30 years. Neither of us have wanted to get married. I said I wouldnt mind if she wanted to, and I didnt have to organise it. REsponse? "Nah, CBF". Its not the answer for everyone, is my point.

Banditbandit

18th April 2013, 13:34

our legal system should not be dictated to by religion.

Bwhahahahaha ... our criminal legal system is based on the 10 commandments .. written in stone by Yaweh and handed to Moses on the Mountain ...

Whoa .. this next one is a bit more complex !!! Henry .. what are you smoking ???

I think this has been done to death, but in rebuttal.

This is not about "gay rights" it is about "human rights": you dont see that there is a contradiction between your statement that you care not what consenting adults do in their own homes, fine, neither do i.

marriage is not a religious institution. And it never has been. You are referring to a time where the church WAS the state, and so the traditionalists say

Hang on ... the "church as the state" contradicts "marriage is not a relgious institution" ... That's exaclty the origins of marriage in our society.

"Well Judeo Christian society blah de blah tradition etc etc" A Judeo Christian society is a BAD THING. RELIGION is an appalling thing.

I agree here ...

We as a society have moved on. Thinking people have moved on.

The two statements are not the same ... Christianity still has a strong hold on a large number of people in our society ..

But anyway, about marriage: it is a state recognition that a couple are, well, a couple. That has effects on things that the state might be interested in: who pays for kids you produce, what benefits you might be entitled to, stuff like that. What it is not about is religion. That is an add on for the sick individuals so afflicted. And since thats a private party, they can do what they like, provided people like me can point and giggle and say "Waht a bunch of stupid cosks"

If your civil society values freedom and equality, and recognises the union of certain of its members, then denial of those rights (and obligations) is nothing more or less than discrimination. Simple as that.

To bleat about offending tradition is to misunderstand what marriage is, almost entirely.

You are right about the State recognition of marriage. But marriage came from religion - and is still a religious ceremony for many people ... (hey, I'm not defending this - I haven't believed in a God since sometime back in the 1960s .. but you have to recognise the importance of religion in many peple's lives ...)

And putting up the old "Well, we'd never offend the moari like this offends religious mentalists (sorry, FUNdamentalists) shows the inherent weakness of your argument.

You're putting up a straw man ...

Admit it, you find gays icky (but I bet you watch a lot of hot lesbo pr0n) and thats what you are reacting to. Go on. Admit it.

Bwhahahaha ... some of my best friends ...

Katman

18th April 2013, 13:38

I'm not so sure - most of the objections to Gay mariage are religious-based ... and people do still get married in a church ... the religious element is still essential for some peope (but then, I also think that many people get married in a church without having any religious offiliation - it's just "the done thing" ...

Nah, that's just religious people's only straw to clutch at.

I'm not about to let religious people cheapen my marriage by having them try to claim the institution as their own.

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2013, 13:44

Firstly I don't watch porn full stop - it bores me as much as ad hominem arguments.
Also if marriage is not a religious institution, why is it limited to one partner?
At what point do the rights of one group override the rights of another?

As for the rest, could you please tell me what additional "rights" are gained by this bill?
For that matter, could you point out the section of The Bill of Rights that guarantees the right to marriage?

Oh, SURE you dont watch pr0n. Me either.

I carefully tried to avoid an ad hominem argument in my rebuttal. I actually think we agree. If I did play the man (so to speak....) not the ball then I apologise. I am typing one handed while eating a pie with the other and answering the phone (I now have pie filling in one ear...). I may re-read that post and edit.

your question "if marriage is not a religious institution, why is it limited to one partner" begs the question. those two clauses are not related. And I tried to address that by referring to the fact that marriage as we know it dates principally from a time when the church was the state, thus religous and civil strictures were the same. An example might be the Roman Catholic Church and its " Inquiry on Heretical Perversity": the Inquisition to you and I.

basically the point is that to argue this on relgious grounds is to deny about two thousand years of cultural progress, which religion has been opposing just as long.

at what point do the rights of another blah: seriously? How does me marrying my boyfriend affect your rights? I am going on to the ad hominem limb here and will say "Are you retarded?" But the answer to the question is "When our duly elected representatives, after due consideration, decide": example: Treaty settlements.

additonal rights: OTOH the big one is adoption I would suspect: I havent read the consequential amendments in the bill so I can't commetn. It will tidy up the PRA a bit for which I am grateful.

no one has a guarantee of a "right to marriage" on a quick skim read of the BORA 1990.

what we do have is freedom of association (14) , freedom of expression (17)(incluing looney relgious expression) and freedom from discrimination (Cl19)

For example. You are a 25y.o male and wish to marry an 8 year old female (like the prophet Mohammed): that is unlawful in this country. It will be unlawful still fi their genders are the same.

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2013, 13:46

I'm not about to let religious people cheapen my marriage by having them try to claim the institution as their own.

Fantasticly well put, Sir.

One reason for getting married in a church is that getting married is all about the bitches, and their desire to be a princess for a day. Encouraged by a vast, vast industry and consumer culture, beginning when they are 3.

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2013, 13:48

B

Hang on ... the "church as the state" contradicts "marriage is not a relgious institution" ... That's exaclty the origins of marriage in our society.

..

badly put, sorry: my point was going to be that church = state was true, but we have moved on and now they are separate, as they should be IMO. and thus the sanction of one or blessing of another is separate. Does that make more sense?

Tigadee

18th April 2013, 13:49

You know marriage is too mainstream when the fringe groups are now mainstream...

I think it's time to come out of the closet and tell my wife I'm a lesbian in a man's body. :lol:

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2013, 13:49

Hang on ... the "church as the state" contradicts "marriage is not a relgious institution" ... That's exaclty the origins of marriage in our society.

..

but not how it is now. and its just taken another, long overdue step forward.

Tigadee

18th April 2013, 13:51

One reason for getting married in a church is that getting married is all about the bitches, and their desire to be a princess for a day. Encouraged by a vast, vast industry and consumer culture, beginning when they are 3.

That applies to everything then, no? Food, clothes, money, movies/media, motorcycles... :whistle:

Oscar

18th April 2013, 13:54

your question "if marriage is not a religious institution, why is it limited to one partner" begs the question. those two clauses are not related. And I tried to address that by referring to the fact that marriage as we know it dates principally from a time when the church was the state, thus religous and civil strictures were the same. An example might be the Roman Catholic Church and its " Inquiry on Heretical Perversity": the Inquisition to you and I.

.

You keep contradicting yourself, and in this case in the same paragraph.
If the Church was the State, then marriage is relgious, surely?
It is also cultural, there seems to be a respect in our society for cultural or religious beliefs, except for when they happen to be Christian.

Also the reason the two clauses are related is because Christian marriage has always been almost exclusively monogamous.

And don't get me wrong, I loathe religion, and Christianity in particular.

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2013, 13:54

The two statements are not the same ... Christianity still has a strong hold on a large number of people in our society ..

You are right about the State recognition of marriage. But marriage came from religion - and is still a religious ceremony for many people ... (hey, I'm not defending this - I haven't believed in a God since sometime back in the 1960s .. but you have to recognise the importance of religion in many peple's lives ...)
...

correct. Religious people generally are not thinking people.

I think I do have to acknowledge that religion is an important part of some people's lives. I don't acknowledge or agree that their definition of whats (forgive me for this) in and what's out should be the basis of a civil institution.

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2013, 13:55

That applies to everything then, no? Food, clothes, money, movies/media, motorcycles... :whistle:

luckily no one on this site knows anything about or is interested in any of those things.

Tigadee

18th April 2013, 13:58

luckily no one on this site knows anything about or is interested in any of those things.

Nope, just boobs and bikes... :laugh:

Oscar

18th April 2013, 13:59

correct. Religious people generally are not thinking people.

I think I do have to acknowledge that religion is an important part of some people's lives. I don't acknowledge or agree that their definition of whats (forgive me for this) in and what's out should be the basis of a civil institution.

Now we're getting somewhere.

If marriage is a Christian concept that has been codified over the years, why not just get rid of it?
Then everyone can have a civil union to cover the legalities and the religious cermony (or not) of their choice?

oneofsix

18th April 2013, 14:10

Now we're getting somewhere.

If marriage is a Christian concept that has been codified over the years, why not just get rid of it?
Then everyone can have a civil union to cover the legalities and the religious cermony (or not) of their choice?

That's a big if. Whilst many Christians might like to believe that I am reasonable sure the parent religion also had a concept of marriage, after all wasn't that what Mary and Joseph were about do to before that Christ fellow arrived. Then there is the Pagan broom stick jumping marriage. Sorry but marriage is a social concept which religions and governments have codified.

About time we circled around again.

pritch

18th April 2013, 14:10

maybe it has something to do with people from the LGBT community being over represented in kiddy fiddler stats.

Be interested to know where that came from.

Professionals in the field would most commonly associate child abuse of any sort with the "boy friends" of the child's mother.

Off hand I can only think of one gay person with such a conviction and that was highly dubious. More to do with mass hysteria.

bogan

18th April 2013, 14:34

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2013, 14:52

Be interested to know where that came from.

Professionals in the field would most commonly associate child abuse of any sort with the "boy friends" of the child's mother.

Off hand I can only think of one gay person with such a conviction and that was highly dubious. More to do with mass hysteria.

Peter Ellis?

and yes

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2013, 14:55

Now we're getting somewhere.

If marriage is a Christian concept that has been codified over the years, why not just get rid of it?
Then everyone can have a civil union to cover the legalities and the religious cermony (or not) of their choice?

but shirley in that example all you have done is changed the name? i.e. your "civil union" is a "marriage": As long as it is not discriminatory on the basis of gender then indeed "why not just get rid of it?"*

*though I dont see the bitches getting all weak at the knees at the civil union registry.

Banditbandit

18th April 2013, 15:00

but not how it is now. and its just taken another, long overdue step forward.

Yeah .. OK. Your second long post made clear what was not clear in the first one ..

Swoop

18th April 2013, 15:04

It has taken many years to be allowed "gay marriage" in NZ, BUT have they thought about "gay divorces"?
Might take another 15 years to be allowed to get rid of S/HWMBO! :rofl:

bluninja

18th April 2013, 15:05

Forward thinking secular government .... nah they've just caved in to the gay lobby. Perhaps we are doing such a poor job of bringing up children to be positive contributing members that we don't need to really consider the social framework for them going forward.

The best outcome for children and society is if children are brought up in a stable home with a mother and father. That doesn't say that other arrangements for child rearing cannot be beneficial, or that mum and dad can't be absolute failures and screw things up. Instead of seeking to heal and mend our society and families we seem to be moving away from the best option and inventing legal solutions for a small, but wealthy and vocal, minority that don't seem to grasp that being different is not good or bad, just different.

Yes, that doesn't need marriage per se; but neither does a fully committed relationship regardless of membership gender, or configuration.

oneofsix

18th April 2013, 15:07

It has taken many years to be allowed "gay marriage" in NZ, BUT have they thought about "gay divorces"?
Might take another 15 years to be allowed to get rid of S/HWMBO! :rofl:

FFS no you can't have a happy divorces it would threaten lawyer incomes.

Oscar

18th April 2013, 15:21

Exactly, keeps everyone happy that way! (didn't I say that like 2 pages ago...)

Probably, but who has an attention span that long?

Oscar

18th April 2013, 15:24

but shirley in that example all you have done is changed the name? i.e. your "civil union" is a "marriage": As long as it is not discriminatory on the basis of gender then indeed "why not just get rid of it?"*

*though I dont see the bitches getting all weak at the knees at the civil union registry.

Yep - that's all - change the name.
If you do that, then yer not upsetting the religious, who have the option of conducting their own witchcraft as well.

Banditbandit

18th April 2013, 15:49

It has taken many years to be allowed "gay marriage" in NZ, BUT have they thought about "gay divorces"?
Might take another 15 years to be allowed to get rid of S/HWMBO! :rofl:

Naa ... someone thought of it ages ago ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLfNusklXtI&playnext=1&list=PL9E9E83A2154CF4F4&feature=results_main

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2013, 16:22

Yeah .. OK. Your second long post made clear what was not clear in the first one ..

I also had pie in my ear, as I explained. That was distracting.

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2013, 16:26

FFS no you can't have a happy divorces it would threaten lawyer incomes.

As someone who dabbles a bit in this area, let me tell you two things. 1. The law is pretty straightforwad in 99% of dissolutions. 2. People arguing and fighting and fucking up their children are the problem. Straight, gay, black, white, stripy, green or orange, a messy dissolution is an ugly thing to be around. I don't do those ones anymore....

and, for the record, its not particularly lucrative. Certainly not for the stress. involved.

mashman

18th April 2013, 17:20

You shouldn't judge everyone by your own (lack of) standards.

I wasn't...

huff3r

18th April 2013, 17:27

This thread needs more lesbians...

Madness

18th April 2013, 17:49

This thread needs more lesbians...

http://img2-3.timeinc.net/people/i/2013/news/130429/jemima-kirke-300.jpg

Oakie

18th April 2013, 17:57

Gays are now going to be allowed to adopt kids. It's pretty fucked up that a kid could have 2 moms or 2 dads. How do you think the kid is going to feel?

Umm, two of my grandchildren have two mothers as of last weekend and they seem to feel fine about it. Certainly better than just having a mother and no-one else. FWIW, I feel fine with it too.

Brett

18th April 2013, 18:20

Madness

18th April 2013, 18:36

Brett

18th April 2013, 19:39

Funny thing is there was this thing called a Civil Union which pretty much covered your wants in regards to labels. The only difference between your heterosexual marriage and the future gay marriages we're lilely to see soon are the different dangly bits, or lack thereof, in the trouser department. It's a shame you have an issue with it, hopefully you'll grow out of it in time.

You can't just change pink to blue and expect everyone to agree that there is now no distinction between pink and blue. Calling one thing pink and another thing blue does not in any way diminish the properties of either, and neither one has their rights trampled because pink is pink and blue is blue. I reserve the right to call pink "pink" and blue "blue" and to be known by the colour that I actually am (I gather by this point you realise that I'm talking metaphorically, not about the colours pink and blue :eek: ) Equally, I am not going to go around telling someone that because they are a different colour to me, that they are wrong etc. but I expect to be able to differentiate myself and my relationship from something that is quite different in a fundamental way. Note different does not imply better/worse. It's hard to celebrate our differences when we're being pushed towards homogeneity.

oldrider

18th April 2013, 19:58

It has taken many years to be allowed "gay marriage" in NZ, BUT have they thought about "gay divorces"?
Might take another 15 years to be allowed to get rid of S/HWMBO! :rofl:

Well you can bet your bottom dollar that the law society has and they are looking forward to all those hard earned pink dollars choking up their vaults! :kick:

Brett

18th April 2013, 20:10

Well you can bet your bottom dollar that the law society has and they are looking forward to all those hard earned pink dollars choking up their vaults! :kick:

Interesting point actually...now there are just more people to get divorced...never actually considered that.

Katman

18th April 2013, 20:18

To me, by its very definition, marriage is the union between a male and a female.

To me, marriage is a commitment between two people - over and above whether one is male and one is female.

awayatc

18th April 2013, 20:38

. It's a shame you have an issue with it, hopefully you'll grow out of it in time.

Thats a fucken mature statement......

Your opinion is the only right one....?

Grow up

awayatc

18th April 2013, 20:42

you can all do whatever the fuck you want..........

You can all call it whatever you want.....

But if you want to call it marriage you need one of each....

If not its just gay.

Bit like showing with a Honda at a Harley meeting

mashman

18th April 2013, 20:48

You can't just change pink to blue and expect everyone to agree that there is now no distinction between pink and blue.

They're just colours of equal value to people who don't feel the need to distinguish between colours.

Brett

18th April 2013, 20:59

They're just colours of equal value to people who don't feel the need to distinguish between colours.

If that were the case, and they don't feel the need to distinguish themselves, then why be bothered about it in the first place? A rose by another other name....

mashman

18th April 2013, 21:11

If that were the case, and they don't feel the need to distinguish themselves, then why be bothered about it in the first place? A rose by another other name....

Why did women want a vote? Why did black people not want to be slaves anymore? Perhaps irrespective of gender and the gender of our partners some people grow up wanting to be married because they believe in the institution and are fed up with being told that they can't because they're different. If they have the "equality" of not being distinguished by people such as yourself, then they will get their wish of not being distinguished anymore.

oldrider

18th April 2013, 21:12

Interesting point actually...now there are just more people to get divorced...never actually considered that.

When universities just keep on churning out graduates year in year out and in a small relatively stable population, growing the business requires thinking outside the box!

Kinda makes you wonder, could there have been some other undisclosed shadowy driving force in behind the success of this bill?

Probably not of course but all I mean is it does make one ponder, who really benefits! :blip:

Brett

18th April 2013, 21:31

Why did women want a vote? Why did black people not want to be slaves anymore? Perhaps irrespective of gender and the gender of our partners some people grow up wanting to be married because they believe in the institution and are fed up with being told that they can't because they're different. If they have the "equality" of not being distinguished by people such as yourself, then they will get their wish of not being distinguished anymore.

It's all rather moot anyhow, it has passed, they CAN get married and your thoughts or mine are pretty irrelevant. I hope that this brings the gay community the happiness that they believe it will, and that their commitments to one another last better than many heterosexual relationships do. I certainly wont be joining the bigot train that seems to be carrying the majority of those who opposed the bill because fundamentally, I think that many of them just show unloving attitude and even those who are Christian should FIRST be living by one of the greatest commandments (which many seem to have forgotten) which is to love one another, showing empathy and compassion. I'm never going to agree with it, because of my position on marriage, but that is my problem to deal with and if any of my gay friends were to invite me to their wedding (I don't know many...so chances are slim), I would certainly go along and share in their day with them and wish them all the very best. I'll leave my input in this discussion here I think.

mashman

18th April 2013, 21:40

It's all rather moot anyhow, it has passed, they CAN get married and your thoughts or mine are pretty irrelevant. I hope that this brings the gay community the happiness that they believe it will, and that their commitments to one another last better than many heterosexual relationships do. I certainly wont be joining the bigot train that seems to be carrying the majority of those who opposed the bill because fundamentally, I think that many of them just show unloving attitude and even those who are Christian should FIRST be living by one of the greatest commandments (which many seem to have forgotten) which is to love one another, showing empathy and compassion. I'm never going to agree with it, because of my position on marriage, but that is my problem to deal with and if any of my gay friends were to invite me to their wedding (I don't know many...so chances are slim), I would certainly go along and share in their day with them and wish them all the very best. I'll leave my input in this discussion here I think.

Fair enough. It's a shame that there has to be something recognised as a gay community instead of a simple community. I'm not surprised that you won't change your mind. Black people are still despised by some people, women are still lesser human beings in some people's eyes, the poor are still seen as lazy by many and many other "prejudices" that are taught and encouraged will persists beyond you an I having walked the face of this spinning rock. With any luck the next "taboo" to be accepted will be the one that deals with the poor, preferably by kickin the financial system into touch :innocent:

Madness

18th April 2013, 21:43

Thats a fucken mature statement......

That's a fucking mature statement.

Your opinion is the only right one...

Is that another statement or a question? My opinion is as right to me as yours is to you, that's why they're called opinions.

Grow up

You tell me to grow up and then go on to post the following;

you can all do whatever the fuck you want..........

You can all call it whatever you want.....

But if you want to call it marriage you need one of each....

If not its just gay.

Bit like showing with a Honda at a Harley meeting

Classic. Nice to see you support the change though :niceone:

The Reibz

18th April 2013, 21:46

Just wondering, now that gays can get married and shit, can I ride with a male pillion and not be considered a homo?

Brett

18th April 2013, 21:53

Fair enough. It's a shame that there has to be something recognised as a gay community instead of a simple community. I'm not surprised that you won't change your mind. Black people are still despised by some people, women are still lesser human beings in some people's eyes, the poor are still seen as lazy by many and many other "prejudices" that are taught and encouraged will persists beyond you an I having walked the face of this spinning rock. With any luck the next "taboo" to be accepted will be the one that deals with the poor, preferably by kickin the financial system into touch :innocent:

Social cultures/behaviour can be very slow to adapt when they are strongly entrenched. For good or bad, depending on your perspective, homosexuality has been taboo for a very long time. It will take at least a full generation before this changes in any marked way IMO. (if it changes much more than it already has. NZ is quite a lot more liberal than many many other nations and is a small player in the culture of the west). FWIW...this is one of the larger cruxes I have had to go over internally. On one hand, I am extremely strong on people having their human rights protected (I come from a country that was torn apart by racial prejudice and have developed a deep seeded distaste for bigotry, racism, exploitation and oppression of human rights in general) but on the other hand, I, like anyone else, have values that I feel need to be protected. Of course this is extremely subjective, but so is yours and anyone else's views on the matter. The issue comes in that I really want to whole-heartedly support what is seen by many as a massive leap forward in acknowledging human rights of a minority group, but on another level I also just don't agree with it. Hence my standing on it that while I don't agree with it, I am not going to let it be a fuel for hurt in a world where there is already ample fuel for the fire. Anyway, I said I was bowing out of this convo...:facepalm:

Jantar

18th April 2013, 22:03

Just wondering, now that gays can get married and shit, can I ride with a male pillion and not be considered a homo?
Yes, as long as you aren't on a Honda.

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2013, 22:06

The Reibz

18th April 2013, 22:06

Yes, as long as you aren't on a Honda.
Fuckin safe...

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2013, 22:06

Jantar

18th April 2013, 22:07

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2013, 22:09

Well you can bet your bottom dollar that the law society has and they are looking forward to all those hard earned pink dollars choking up their vaults! :kick:

individual lawyers perhaps, the lor society won't be.

Oh yeah, just thinking this through, in fact there will be less money for lawyers now that same sex couples can marry. It ticks a lot of boxes in terms of looking after assets, status of children, PRA stuff and estate planning.

DAMN IT PUT THE LOR BACK THE WAY IT WAS SO I CAN AFFORD A NEW BENZ AND MY ITALIAN HOLIDAY.

HenryDorsetCase

18th April 2013, 22:10

When universities just keep on churning out graduates year in year out and in a small relatively stable population, growing the business requires thinking outside the box!

Kinda makes you wonder, could there have been some other undisclosed shadowy driving force in behind the success of this bill?

Probably not of course but all I mean is it does make one ponder, who really benefits! :blip:

People who yesterday couldnt marry someone and now can?

Katman

18th April 2013, 22:12

Its time to leave the country before homosexuality becomes compulsory for everyone.

I don't see anyone stopping you.

Zedder

18th April 2013, 22:40

When universities just keep on churning out graduates year in year out and in a small relatively stable population, growing the business requires thinking outside the box!

Kinda makes you wonder, could there have been some other undisclosed shadowy driving force in behind the success of this bill?

Probably not of course but all I mean is it does make one ponder, who really benefits! :blip:

Who really benefits? Marriage celebrants, wedding reception venues, florists, vehicle hire companies, etc etc.

oldrider

19th April 2013, 11:26

People who yesterday couldnt marry someone and now can?

True!

Can't really dispute that simple fact!

Whether or not they benefit from that experience will be up to the people concerned. (I personally wish them all the best in that)

Of course if it all goes wrong for them the vultures who live off cleaning up the wreckage will now have a much bigger playing field to work on too, won't they! :shutup:

Brett

19th April 2013, 16:36

so you want to discriminate. Fine, I get it. Luckily you dont have the opportunity anymore.

Most times we make a decision we are forced to discriminate in some way. I DO get to discriminate still, I will continue to refer to my marriage as hetero to define it from the now general population. But somehow I get the undertone from you that you'd rather be inflammatory on this particular topic (note my demarcation being to this convo, because usually I find your posts and perspective reasonable) and not allow for the variance in attitude/perspective (and the RIGHT to a varied opinion to yours) that I hold contrary to yours. I am not asking to have my views enforced on anyone else, in fact I believe my previous posts have shown that I seek to avoid this, however I can reserve the right to not agree with something. Beyond having my views and opinions, I have not stood in the way of this Bill or the upholding of civil rights and have not discriminated AGAINST or shown any bigotry or level of condemnation towards gay people, other than the stupid, colloquial use of the terms "gay" and "fag" which is pretty common amongst young people and IS in effect disparaging as it uses a term for someone else as a slur...but of course most of us who have used the terms "gay" and "fag" before do not intend for this to be an affront to gay people.

If I think Honda motorcycles are horrible, I can hold that view. It doesn't mean I am going to prevent anyone else from owning one and riding it around. In effect, you're telling me that I would HAVE to like Honda because I can't have a personal preference...where are my civil liberties in that?

Edit - Honda fans, i happen to think that the CBR1000rr is a fantastic bike...so untie your panties :)

jonbuoy

19th April 2013, 16:50

Umm, two of my grandchildren have two mothers as of last weekend and they seem to feel fine about it. Certainly better than just having a mother and no-one else. FWIW, I feel fine with it too.

No shortage of unwanted children in the world- better to have gay parents than get bounced from foster home/orphanage.

HenryDorsetCase

19th April 2013, 17:08

If I think Honda motorcycles are horrible, I can hold that view. It doesn't mean I am going to prevent anyone else from owning one and riding it around. In effect, you're telling me that I would HAVE to like Honda because I can't have a personal preference...where are my civil liberties in that?

You misunderstand the concept at a very basic level. Your analogy is incorrect. This legislation does not say anything about your opinion. or your likes and dislikes. You can hate Hondas all you want. Correction: you hate gay people all you want. This legislation does not affect you one iota. It merely says that someone who likes suzuki can now publicly declare that, and have that recognised by the state in the same way that your misguided like of Kawasaki is recognised. It just doesn't affect you at all, I have no idea why people are worked up about it.

Also, "jokes" about how "gay" Hondas are, are fucking stupid.

husaberg

19th April 2013, 20:35

Also, "jokes" about how "gay" Hondas are, are fucking stupid.

ok it Might explain why you meat the nicest guys on them:facepalm::shutup::shit::buggerd:

_Shrek_

19th April 2013, 20:45

There was a time in New Zealand when homsexuality was illegal.
Then in the late 1950s and early 1960s it was still illegal, but condoned as long as it was kept private.
Next it was made legal, but with some restrictions like marriage.
10 years ago A marriage like state called civil unions was legalised, and now full marriage is legal.

Its time to leave the country before homosexuality becomes compulsory for everyone.

no leaving the country wont help M

coz when it all turns to shit.... :facepalm: we will have to re-educate the kids that have been lead to believe all the :bs:

thats been taught over the last decade of two :corn:

oldrider

20th April 2013, 09:24

Next! ... Move right along there is nothing more to see or hear here, gay marriage is old hat now! :zzzz:

blue rider

20th April 2013, 09:56

.........I DO get to discriminate still, I will continue to refer to my marriage as hetero to define it from the now general population ......

This statement has me scratching my head......, if you are married to the opposite sex, your marriage is of a heterosexual nature - no? Why do you have to refer to your marriage as such then?

Madness

20th April 2013, 10:03

......

This statement has me scratching my head......, if you are married to the opposite sex, your marriage is of a heterosexual nature - no? Why do you have to refer to your marriage as such then?

Maybe Brett is struggling to cope with feelings coming from deep down in his trousers and an attraction to rainbows & pink things?

Virago

20th April 2013, 11:22

This statement has me scratching my head......, if you are married to the opposite sex, your marriage is of a heterosexual nature - no? Why do you have to refer to your marriage as such then?

I suspect it's because he doesn't want anyone to think he might be gay - which is has to be a display of the most insecure homophobia I've seen yet. :laugh:

Marriage was the last safe bastion from which homophobes could display their unquestionable heterosexuality. Now it has gone...

bogan

20th April 2013, 11:34

I suspect it's because he doesn't want anyone to think he might be gay - which is has to be a display of the most insecure homophobia I've seen yet. :laugh:

Marriage was the last safe bastion from which homophobes could display their unquestionable heterosexuality. Now it has gone...

Maybe his wife is a bit butch, so he's just removing the ambiguity that has been introduced with the law change.

husaberg

20th April 2013, 11:41

I suspect it's because he doesn't want anyone to think he might be gay - which is has to be a display of the most insecure homophobia I've seen yet. :laugh:

Marriage was the last safe bastion from which homophobes could display their unquestionable heterosexuality. Now it has gone...

Yeah like Elton John, Rock Hudson, Oscar Wilde etc..lol

http://www1.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Singer+Elton+John+Turns+60+wlC_jf7HbCBl.jpg<img src="http://therockhudsonproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1955-Rock-Hudson-wedding-cake.jpg" width="307px"/>

Virago

20th April 2013, 13:07

Yeah like Elton John, Rock Hudson, Oscar Wilde etc..lol

Ah, yes - back in the good old days where gay people pretended to be straight. :laugh:

20th April 2013, 17:17

My issue with the marriage equality bill has nothing to do with my religion etc. but has more to do with my objection of the use of the word "marriage" when describing two same sex individuals together in a marriage type union. Let me explain, it would be incorrect of me to describe myself as being in a homosexual relationship with my wife because, quite simply it cannot be that way. She is F, I am M. To me, by its very definition, marriage is the union between a male and a female. There should be another name for the union between a man/man or woman/woman that has equal grounding in law etc. so that homosexual people have an equally appropriate title for their relationship as marriage, but also allows for a clear distinction from heterosexual "marriage" - not because their relationship is "cheaper" or anything, but simply because it is not the same as mine. Liken it to a diesel vs a petrol motor...they are both equally useful at different things, but they are never going to be the same.

Best post award material right there.
I am not opposed to homosexuality or prejudice in any way towards them.
Homosexuals have the right to choose their own sexuality.
Homosexuals have the right to have their love, commitment and union with each other recognised in law with all the same protection a marriage offers husbands and wives
THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE HISTORICAL AND COMMON USE MEANING OF A WORD, ANY WORD, IN THIS CASE IT HAPPENS TO BE THE WORD MARRIAGE
I oppose this bill simply on the grounds of vocabulary abuse. I married to become husband to my wife.

First they hijacked the word gay to advance their cause. Now it is the word marriage they have hijacked, twisting it's meaning to somehow try and add some credibility to their choice of sexuality. Can't it stand on it's own merits? Are homosexuals totally devoid of any original thought? Can't they create a pleasant new word to celebrate their sexuality?

I dislike the word nigger for it's historical link to racial hatred. BUT, that doesn't mean anyone can retrospectively rewrite history and the dictionaries of the world to change the words meaning to a type of fish. It is was it is.

There are supporters on here like HDC, who's opinion I usually respect, who are so blinded by their 'anyone opposed must be a hater of homos' that they can't see how bigoted they have become themselves. Why should a minority rights be held higher than the majorities.

FFS, give homosexuals equal rights, if they don't like to call it a civil union then show some balls and intelligence and dream up a great new word you all like that celebrates the wonderful uniqueness of homosexual relationships.

husaberg

20th April 2013, 17:42

Best post award material right there.
I am not opposed to homosexuality or prejudice in any way towards them.
Homosexuals have the right to choose their own sexuality.
Homosexuals have the right to have their love, commitment and union with each other recognised in law with all the same protection a marriage offers husbands and wives
THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE HISTORICAL AND COMMON USE MEANING OF A WORD, ANY WORD, IN THIS CASE IT HAPPENS TO BE THE WORD MARRIAGE
I oppose this bill simply on the grounds of vocabulary abuse. I married to become husband to my wife.

First they hijacked the word gay to advance their cause. Now it is the word marriage they have hijacked, twisting it's meaning to somehow try and add some credibility to their choice of sexuality. Can't it stand on it's own merits? Are homosexuals totally devoid of any original thought? Can't they create a pleasant new word to celebrate their sexuality?

I dislike the word nigger for it's historical link to racial hatred. BUT, that doesn't mean anyone can retrospectively rewrite history and the dictionaries of the world to change the words meaning to a type of fish. It is was it is.

There are supporters on here like HDC, who's opinion I usually respect, who are so blinded by their 'anyone opposed must be a hater of homos' that they can't see how bigoted they have become themselves. Why should a minority rights be held higher than the majorities.

FFS, give homosexuals equal rights, if they don't like to call it a civil union then show some balls and intelligence and dream up a great new word you all like that celebrates the wonderful uniqueness of homosexual relationships.
That's the most sensable think i have heard since i posted this

Re Ed. Ya meanie i have often found him to say what a lot of people may think but do not speak out.
But back to the subject I must say i was not bothered, no opinion either way really, by the thought of Marriage rights.....
Until it was pointed out what is happening is actually a fundamental change to what the word means.
A word that has meant something for over 20000 years (a Man and a Women)suddenly has to be made to mean something else....

Well sorry even if it puts me in the minority i think that is not right.

red heering alert
Sorry i don't see how it is a basic human right to have everything that hetosexuals have esp when you consider there is already principals in place so as to safeguard the property right's, employments rights religious beliefs etc.

Why does a word meaning (marriage)that was never ever intended to mean anything other than the uniting of a Male and female and had been the case for thousands of years no have to be made to change now to include something else how is that fair.
Indeed do heterosexuals still have rights and need protecting even though they are the majority.:shifty:

Virago

20th April 2013, 18:57

...FFS, give homosexuals equal rights, if they don't like to call it a civil union then show some balls and intelligence and dream up a great new word you all like that celebrates the wonderful uniqueness of homosexual relationships.

It has nothing to do with the word - it's the law. Civil union and marriage are two different things in law, which meant property and parenting discrimination. Now the discrimination has been removed.

If you want a "different" word for homosexuals, it needs to have the same meaning in law as marriage. But why bother? I'm personally secure in my own sexuality and relationship that it doesn't bother me.

20th April 2013, 19:26

It has nothing to do with the word - it's the law. Civil union and marriage are two different things in law, which meant property and parenting discrimination. Now the discrimination has been removed.

If you want a "different" word for homosexuals, it needs to have the same meaning in law as marriage. But why bother? I'm personally secure in my own sexuality and relationship that it doesn't bother me.

Sorry I disagree. It has everything to do with the 'word' and nothing whatsoever to do with how secure or insecure heterosexuals are, what a lame attempt at diversion.

As you just stated, marriage and civil union are different and the legalities needed tinkering to provide equality. Heter and homo are different, so what's so bloody hard about finding a word that is also 'different' and better describes homosexual relationships, instead of forcing a word that has always described a heter relationship to now describe something it was never intended to describe.

Why can't the pro Marriage amendment Bill people open their eyes to the, oh so simple concept, that if a word has an existing meaning then that is it's meaning. Imagine if the word 'up' was changed to also mean 'down', or green also describes red. Everyone would be up in arms about how stupid that change was. Same principle applies here.

This is the ONLY reason I oppose the Bill.

Virago

20th April 2013, 19:45

...Heter and homo are different...

No, they're not. That's where we differ - and that's crucial point in the whole debate.

I don't think it's me that's lame... :rolleyes:

bogan

20th April 2013, 19:57

Why can't the pro Marriage amendment Bill people open their eyes to the, oh so simple concept, that if a word has an existing meaning then that is it's meaning. Imagine if the word 'up' was changed to also mean 'down', or green also describes red. Everyone would be up in arms about how stupid that change was. Same principle applies here.

This is the ONLY reason I oppose the Bill.

I think you'll find that word's existing meaning has changed a few times already...

Katman

20th April 2013, 19:59

Why can't the pro Marriage amendment Bill people open their eyes to the, oh so simple concept, that if a word has an existing meaning then that is it's meaning. Imagine if the word 'up' was changed to also mean 'down', or green also describes red. Everyone would be up in arms about how stupid that change was. Same principle applies here.

This is the ONLY reason I oppose the Bill.

Seriously man, if that's you're biggest gripe you should quietly just get over it.

Busting a vessel over it is only making those on the anti side look silly.

husaberg

20th April 2013, 20:28

Seriously man, if that's you're biggest gripe you should quietly just get over it.

Busting a vessel over it is only making those on the anti side look silly.

No ones busting a vessel over it. its a different opinion than yours, which anyone is entitled to aren't they?

Brett

20th April 2013, 20:29

Brett

20th April 2013, 20:38

Maybe Brett is struggling to cope with feelings coming from deep down in his trousers and an attraction to rainbows & pink things?

Must be.

I suspect it's because he doesn't want anyone to think he might be gay - which is has to be a display of the most insecure homophobia I've seen yet. :laugh:

Marriage was the last safe bastion from which homophobes could display their unquestionable heterosexuality. Now it has gone...

Talk about incorrect extrapolation. This is a very unfair comment on many levels, especially given how I have outlined my views. However, as you appear to be as obtuse and as much a bigot as the anti-bill folk are, I suppose it goes with the territory.

Maybe his wife is a bit butch, so he's just removing the ambiguity that has been introduced with the law change.

maybe it's that I'm a bit feminine.....keep sucking your thumb, you never know what it might produce.

This thread is pointless and this discussion is fruitless (no pun intended).

Virago

20th April 2013, 20:44

...Talk about incorrect extrapolation. This is a very unfair comment on many levels, especially given how I have outlined my views. However, as you appear to be as obtuse and as much a bigot as the anti-bill folk are, I suppose it goes with the territory...

Fair enough. I was taking the piss - my apologies.

But personally, I don't see any need to "refer to your marriage as hetero to define it from the now general population". It sounds rather precious, and would come across as rather homophobic.

Virago

20th April 2013, 20:46

One ones busting a vessel over it. its a different opinion than yours, which anyone is untitled to aren't they?

Can you translate that to English?

Kickaha

20th April 2013, 20:49

Can you translate that to English?

Dont be too mean to him, he's from the West Coast and needs all the help he can get

husaberg

20th April 2013, 20:49

Fair enough. I was taking the piss - my apologies.

But personally, I don't see any need to "refer to your marriage as hetero to define it from the now general population". It sounds rather precious, and would come across as rather homophobic.

I think any thing that differentiates any thing can be twisted to be racist sexist elitist or bigoted if someone wants to.
Remove all these sentiments from jokes image how funny any jokes would be. Society has become to precious.
Political correctness is more about politics that correctness.

husaberg

20th April 2013, 20:52

Can you translate that to English?

It is English, you don't wish to reply?
I have corrected the one word that was misspelled for you

Virago

20th April 2013, 20:57

It is English, you don't wish to reply?
I have corrected the one word that was misspelled for you

Depends on whether I am entitled or untitled to an opinion? :bleh:

husaberg

20th April 2013, 21:05

Depends on whether I am entitled or untitled to an opinion? :bleh:

I would call you a bastard, but well that would be discriminating against unmarried mothers children now wouldn't it.
I guess some people would find that offensive just as my poor checking of my use of words was, at least the words were spelled right just not the correct word LOL.

Anyway it doesn't change the original sentiment. Why and what is so special, that makes your opinion, so much more worthy than anyone else's?

Dont be too mean to him, he's from the West Coast and needs all the help he can get
I will fess up to bad spelling, but please explain this Warrick
http://www.fxr150.co.nz/forum/showthread.php?831-Kickaha-s-new-Cams-150-250-project&p=9864&highlight=#post9864

The GN is truly unacceptable.

<img src="http://www.fxr150.co.nz/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1737&d=1363069450" height="240px"/>

Brett

20th April 2013, 21:08

Fair enough. I was taking the piss - my apologies.

But personally, I don't see any need to "refer to your marriage as hetero to define it from the now general population". It sounds rather precious, and would come across as rather homophobic.

Haha...fair enough mate, piss taking is all good, damn sarcasm/humour doesn't always translate well across text...I do understand why you say that it sounds precious, but that is because of the difference in perspective.

Kickaha

20th April 2013, 21:26

The GN is truly unacceptable.
Best bike Suzuki ever built

husaberg

20th April 2013, 21:31

Best bike Suzuki ever built

That pic doesn't make me want go for a ride.
PS the beat bike Suzuki ever built was the RG500.

_Shrek_

20th April 2013, 21:37

Interesting point actually...now there are just more people to get divorced...never actually considered that.

& another fact is most homosexual relationships don't last very long... & since they bought in the civil union bill there has only been 200 (approx) civil unions

Virago

20th April 2013, 21:51

& another fact is most homosexual relationships don't last very long...

Have you got any statistics on that?

... & since they bought in the civil union bill there has only been 200 (approx) civil unions

A quick google on that says there is an average of around 300 civil unions per year.

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/marriages-civil-unions-and-divorces/info-releases.aspx

Virago

20th April 2013, 22:17

& another fact is most homosexual relationships don't last very long... & since they bought in the civil union bill there has only been 200 (approx) civil unions

Okay, just done some quick googling on those claims.

As at 31 December 2011, 2152 civil unions were registered to New Zealand residents. These comprised 1685 same-sex unions, of which 989 had been between females and 696 had been between males, and 467 opposite-sex unions. 83 civil unions had been dissolved.

So 83 had failed out of 1685 - a ratio of almost exactly 5%. Compared to hetero marriage failure - roughly one in three - it would appear that your claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

bogan

20th April 2013, 22:34

Okay, just done some quick googling on those claims.

As at 31 December 2011, 2152 civil unions were registered to New Zealand residents. These comprised 1685 same-sex unions, of which 989 had been between females and 696 had been between males, and 467 opposite-sex unions. 83 civil unions had been dissolved.

So 83 had failed out of 1685 - a ratio of almost exactly 5%. Compared to hetero marriage failure - roughly one in three - it would appear that your claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

Yes, but that's in the last 10 years. So call it 5 year average current duration, and it's a 1% per year failure rate, which is in the same ballpark as a 1 in 3 for hetro over a much longer period.

Virago

20th April 2013, 22:44

Yes, but that's in the last 10 years. So call it 5 year average current duration, and it's a 1% per year failure rate, which is in the same ballpark as a 1 in 3 for hetro over a much longer period.

Correct. Sorry, I'm a slow googler...

Statistics show that Civil Unions (of which same-sex couples are the vast majority), are just as durable as marriage over the same period of time.

Civil unions have proved to be almost as durable as traditional marriages in the first seven years since the legal status was introduced.

Statistics New Zealand figures provided to the Herald show that 4.4 per cent of civil unions registered in New Zealand from 2005 to the end of 2009 were dissolved by the end of last year, compared with 3.8 per cent of marriages in the same period.

The actual numbers - 82 civil unions dissolved out of 1876 - were so small that Statistics NZ demographer Anne Howard said any differences with the rate of marriage breakdown were unreliable.

Massey University Associate Professor Mark Henrickson, who leads a research project on New Zealand's gay, lesbian and bisexual communities, said the figures were no surprise.

"The percentages look close enough to say I don't think there is a difference between the civil union and marriage populations, which is not terribly surprising if people go to the effort [to formalise their relationships]," he said.

Family First lobbyist Bob McCoskrie, who opposed legalising civil unions in 2005, agreed.

"Humans are humans and conflict happens no matter what the sexuality of the relationship," he said.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10803393

It's a shame there's no statistics in there regarding the gender status of those civil unions dissolved. :rolleyes:

But at the end of the day, there's no substance to claims that committed homosexual relationships don't last.

husaberg

20th April 2013, 22:47

Okay, just done some quick googling on those claims.

As at 31 December 2011, 2152 civil unions were registered to New Zealand residents. These comprised 1685 same-sex unions, of which 989 had been between females and 696 had been between males, and 467 opposite-sex unions. 83 civil unions had been dissolved.

So 83 had failed out of 1685 - a ratio of almost exactly 5%. Compared to hetero marriage failure - roughly one in three - it would appear that your claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

Your statistics are also rubbish. Why, because the marriages refered to are not only marriages the have existed since 2007 are they.
The statistics are unimportant anyway. Who care how long any union exists. The word marriage has now been changed to mean something different to suit some (well meaning no doubt) PC agenda Why was it necessary?

Virago

20th April 2013, 22:49

Your statistics are also rubbish. Why, because the marriages refered to are not only marriages the have existed since 2007 are they...

Yep - see above.

Kickaha

20th April 2013, 22:50

The word marriage has now been changed to mean something different to suit some
Rubbish, it still means a couple committed to each other

husaberg

20th April 2013, 23:02

Rubbish, it still means a couple committed to each other

The meaning of the word has been changed, it had never previously been used to describe a same sex couple previously in New Zealand.
I don't object to anything other than the word, Shit i was totally in favour of the civil union bill, in-fact it should have gone further to provide the same rights of adoption etc as Marriage.

[QUOTE]Quilter v Attorney-GeneralThe case Quilter v Attorney-General had its origin in early 1996 when three female couples in long-term relationships were denied marriage licences by the Registrar-General because marriage under the common law was between one man and one woman. The case against the government was taken to the High Court in May 1996. The applicants argued that the Marriage Act did not prohibit same-sex marriage and that under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was prohibited.

In the High Court, both parties agreed that at the time the Marriage Act was written in the mid-1950s, marriage according to the common law was between one man and one woman, which explains why the Act did not specifically outlaw same-sex marriage. The applicants argued, however, that under the Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and sections 6 (Interpretation consistent with Bill of Rights to be preferred) and 19 (Freedom from discrimination) of the Bill of Rights Act, New Zealand prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and, therefore, the applicants should be allowed to marry. The government in response cited section 5 (Justified limitations) of the Bill of Right Act, which allowed rights and freedoms in the Bill of Rights to "be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". In its decision, the High Court sided with the government and common law and reiterated that marriage is between one man and one woman.

The High Court decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal (then New Zealand's highest court) in December 1997, which upheld the ruling.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand

Opinion pollsDate Conducted by Sample size In favour Against Undecided Margin of Error
13–19 December 2012Key Research 1000 53.9% 38.1% 8% ±3.1%
11–17 March 2013 Herald-DigiPoll 750 49.6% 48% 2.4% ±3.6%

The poles conducted show a very very slim margin in favour of same sex marriages but trending down. So why did they not put it to the voters to decide

Hans

20th April 2013, 23:23

I have to say I'm pretty torn on the subject. The secular humanist in me says that everyone should be free to do as they like as long as they don't negatively affect others. The student of history in me says this is yet another attack on our perception of reality by the militant left. I say this because changing language or the established meaning thereof is a well known way of influencing thought.

mashman

20th April 2013, 23:24

It's not gay marriage. It's people who are gay that want to marry. They view marriage seriously. They want to be married for exactly the same reasons as you wanted to be married. The meaning of the word is why they don't accept civil union, because it represents something entirely different. They believe in the institution of marriage. Denying them that privilege based on who they choose as a partner is most definitely an ism or an ist of some form or other and highlights a prejudice. I know you won't like hearing that, but you're putting conditions in place to allow people who are gay into what was once an exclusively heterosexual club. How else can you view it?

Hans

20th April 2013, 23:34

It's not gay marriage. It's people who are gay that want to marry. They view marriage seriously. They want to be married for exactly the same reasons as you wanted to be married. The meaning of the word is why they don't accept civil union, because it represents something entirely different. They believe in the institution of marriage. Denying them that privilege based on who they choose as a partner is most definitely an ism or an ist of some form or other and highlights a prejudice. I know you won't like hearing that, but you're putting conditions in
place to allow people who are gay into what was once an exclusively heterosexual club. How else can you view it?

Interesting point of view. If they believe in marriage, it would seem that they don't believe in the same marriage that I do. Because "marriage" is a union of man and a woman, at least in the western culture that I subscribe to.

Berries

21st April 2013, 00:29

They want to be married for exactly the same reasons as you wanted to be married.
So their kids aren't bastards?

husaberg

21st April 2013, 00:52

And to conform to society and religious norms..........
It also avoids the social awkwardness when it seems too childish to refer to your significant other as either a girlfriend/boyfriend.
Yet sounds a bit fruity to refer to them as a partner...........:msn-wink:

mashman

21st April 2013, 01:35

Interesting point of view. If they believe in marriage, it would seem that they don't believe in the same marriage that I do. Because "marriage" WAS a union of man and a woman, at least in the western culture that I subscribe to.

I don't believe in marriage at all and my western culture says that marriage is the commitment of 2 people who are in love and want to proclaim that to each other and those around them. Gender was never a consideration (which is just as well coz that'd make me an oppressive bastard :shifty:). Are you saying that you only got married because your wife is a woman? And if she wasn't then you wouldn't have wanted to be married?

And fixed that for ya :bleh:

So their kids aren't bastards?

All kids are bastards... oh, I see what you mean. Nope, their kids aren't going to be able to be considered bastards any more. Which is just as well coz when I was conceived I was a bastard, then when I was born I wasn't, then when my parents divorced I was again, then when they both married other people I wasn't, and when one got divorced I was again. I wish the law would make it's fuckin mind up, coz the therapy bill to sort that out is gonna cost a fortune.

And to conform to society and religious norms..........
It also avoids the social awkwardness when it seems too childish to refer to your significant other as either a girlfriend/boyfriend.
Yet sounds a bit fruity to refer to them as a partner...........:msn-wink:

Would that make calling them the significant other kinky?

_Shrek_

21st April 2013, 08:51

Berries

21st April 2013, 09:18

Nope, their kids aren't going to be able to be considered bastards any more.
Wow. The science of human biology has moved on since I was at school.

mashman

21st April 2013, 10:05

Wow. The science of human biology has moved on since I was at school.

heh... as long as their father is married of course.

Hans

21st April 2013, 10:56

I don't believe in marriage at all and my western culture says that marriage is the commitment of 2 people who are in love and want to proclaim that to each other and those around them. Gender was never a consideration (which is just as well coz that'd make me an oppressive bastard :shifty:). Are you saying that you only got married because your wife is a woman? And if she wasn't then you wouldn't have wanted to be married?

And fixed that for ya :bleh:

If you don't believe in marriage, why would you advocate the changing of its meaning? And yes of course I only got married because my wife's a woman. If she wasn't, I couldn't get "married". Gender always was a consideration, it defines the very word "marriage". How hard to understand can it be? Do you think you can change the meaning of something by committee?
Jesus H Christ on a bicycle, I am so glad I don't have kids. I'd lose sleep over what sort of world the Commu-Fascists are creating for them...

bogan

21st April 2013, 11:07

Interesting point of view. If they believe in marriage, it would seem that they don't believe in the same marriage that I do. Because "marriage" is a union of man and a woman, at least in the western culture that I subscribe to.

Clearly here that culture is changing, as cultures always do, and around the world it is a similar situation in many countries.

The expansion of a definition to remove gender discrimination is to most of us just that, an expansion, it's not a change of the definition. Just as giving women the right to vote was an expansion of the definition to remove gender discrimination.

mashman

21st April 2013, 11:14

If you don't believe in marriage, why would you advocate the changing of its meaning? And yes of course I only got married because my wife's a woman. If she wasn't, I couldn't get "married". Gender always was a consideration, it defines the very word "marriage". How hard to understand can it be? Do you think you can change the meaning of something by committee?
Jesus H Christ on a bicycle, I am so glad I don't have kids. I'd lose sleep over what sort of world the Commu-Fascists are creating for them...

I don't believe in marriage, but I am married. Figure that one out and you'll understand the answer to your question. It doesn't define the word marriage anymore and it's about time. If marriage was just about the definition of a word, then I could declare myself, if I was not married, as married. Hey, it's a word, I can use it if I like, right? Or is there more to marriage than just the definition of the word?
Good job you never procreated, the less queer households there are on the planet the better.

Hans

21st April 2013, 11:15

Clearly here that culture is changing, as cultures always do, and around the world it is a similar situation in many countries.

The expansion of a definition to remove gender discrimination is to most of us just that, an expansion, it's not a change of the definition. Just as giving women the right to vote was an expansion of the definition to remove gender discrimination.

The culture is not changing, it's being changed by fiat. Without clear majority support. If there were a binding referendum on the subject, odds are I would have voted for.

And of course it's changing the definition. Saying you can expand the scope of something without changing its definition is being disingenuous.

Hans

21st April 2013, 11:20

I don't believe in marriage, but I am married. Figure that one out and you'll understand the answer to your question. It doesn't define the word marriage anymore and it's about time. If marriage was just about the definition of a word, then I could declare myself, if I was not married, as married. Hey, it's a word, I can use it if I like, right? Or is there more to marriage than just the definition of the word?
Good job you never procreated, the less queer households there are on the planet the better.

I'll just ignore the supposedly witty barb at the end. Funnily enough, the first sentence of your post describes my "marital status" to a T. For all else, see my reply to Bogan. I've voiced my opinion here, and I'm done with this bullshit.

mashman

21st April 2013, 11:30

I'll just ignore the supposedly witty barb at the end. Funnily enough, the first sentence of your post describes my "marital status" to a T. For all else, see my reply to Bogan. I've voiced my opinion here, and I'm done with this bullshit.

The witty barb is the whole point though innit? Out with the old in with the new type thing. I agree, the legal/biblical definition has changed and I was hoping that someone would have posted the new definition by now... unless I missed it somewhere.

bogan

21st April 2013, 11:38

The culture is not changing, it's being changed by fiat. Without clear majority support. If there were a binding referendum on the subject, odds are I would have voted for.

And of course it's changing the definition. Saying you can expand the scope of something without changing its definition is being disingenuous.

So 20 years ago the numbers supporting the changes would have been around 50% as well?

Expansion is a form of change yes, but it's not changing the definition as it applies to those who are already included or others who will be included.

AllanB

21st April 2013, 11:39

The culture is not changing, it's being changed by fiat. Without clear majority support.

He has a fair point here. Mr Peters (oh shit .....) wanted a referendum on this subject. He was well out voted, I suspect so because if one had been done what would have been the outcome from the votable public?

All retrospective now as the publicly elected reps voted and it is a done deal.

Hans

21st April 2013, 11:43

He has a fair point here. Mr Peters (oh shit .....) wanted a referendum on this subject. He was well out voted, I suspect so because if one had been done what would have been the outcome from the votable public?

All retrospective now as the publicly elected reps voted and it is a done deal.

Exactly. Because we can't have the public voting on something if the outcome may be one we don't like, or one that doesn't fit with an agenda we may have. The EU is so much more betterer at this. They hold a referendum and if they don't like the outcome they hold one again and again until they get the result they want:laugh:

bogan

21st April 2013, 11:53

Exactly. Because we can't have the public voting on something if the outcome may be one we don't like, or one that doesn't fit with an agenda we may have. The EU is so much more betterer at this. They hold a referendum and if they don't like the outcome they hold one again and again until they get the result they want:laugh:

I can just see the unbiased poll question now:

"Do you not support bumming a dude?"
Yes
No
picture of cock and balls

Katman

21st April 2013, 11:59

The culture is not changing, it's being changed by fiat. Without clear majority support. If there were a binding referendum on the subject, odds are I would have voted for.

And of course it's changing the definition. Saying you can expand the scope of something without changing its definition is being disingenuous.

Please place in order of importance, your definition of marriage.

- two people committed to loving and supporting each other.

- a man and a woman.

AllanB

21st April 2013, 12:00

Better add a picture of some girl on girl too. Ha if you did that - and asked the question do you support this - most men would probably vote yes!!!!!

Correction - presuming they were hot. A picture of Helen Clarke and Yoko Ono licking it out would result in a 99% NO vote.

Katman

21st April 2013, 12:04

husaberg

21st April 2013, 12:53

A large number of men probably thought that the importance of their vote was lessened 130 years ago.

In the 60's a large number of whites probably thought they were of lesser importance when racial segregation was being removed.
Neither of your red herrings changed the meaning of any words.

Please place in order of importance, your definition of marriage.

- two people committed to loving and supporting each other.

- a man and a woman.

How about you look at what the word actually means.
You will notice the word has recently been amended, why is this happened if it was alsys to mean something other than a man and a women, seems a bit odd?
Grab a dictionary at home and see what the word has meant previously.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/marriage

Virago

21st April 2013, 13:19

no but it had the desired affect :corn:

Trouble is, such falsehoods can lead to greater problems...:bleh:

Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbour, for we are members one of another.

There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will not escape.

And you shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.

A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will perish.

husaberg

21st April 2013, 13:30

Trouble is, such falsehoods can lead to greater problems...:bleh:

Before you go all fire and brimstone remember.
You too also misrepresented the figures as well .Yet he who is without ...blah blah:nono:

Virago

21st April 2013, 13:35

Before you go all fire and brimstone remember.
You too also misrepresented the figures as well .Yet he who is without ...blah blah:nono:

Yeah, but it's okay for me - I don't claim to live by the bible... :msn-wink:

Katman

21st April 2013, 13:52

Neither of your red herrings changed the meaning of any words.

That post was actually addressed to the people who seem to think that their hetrosexual marriage somehow means less now.

Maha

21st April 2013, 13:56

That post was actually addressed to the people who seem to think that their hetrosexual marriage somehow means less now.

Mine can never mean any more, now where an I vote? :msn-wink:

bogan

21st April 2013, 14:27

Neither of your red herrings changed the meaning of any words.

How about you look at what the word actually means.
You will notice the word has recently been amended, why is this happened if it was alsys to mean something other than a man and a women, seems a bit odd?
Grab a dictionary at home and see what the word has meant previously.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/marriage

Well it has to be changed, otherwise it would no longer be applicable in light of the culture/law changes. Are you opposed to all changes? or just this one?

Virago

21st April 2013, 14:39

...Grab a dictionary at home and see what the word has meant previously.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/marriage

I wondered how long it would take for the "dictionary" argument to surface.

A dictionary will reflect society, not vice versa. It will change over time to reflect current changes in our world.

I've got a '70s dictionary here which describes several Eastern Eurpoean countries as being part of the Soviet Union. Luckily for them their more recent independence did not rely on the approval of a dictionary, eh?

FJRider

21st April 2013, 15:03

A large number of men probably thought that the importance of their vote was lessened 130 years ago.

In the 60's a large number of whites probably thought they were of lesser importance when racial segregation was being removed.

The change in laws would not have changed the opinions of ... or the reasons those people were having those opinions. Those same people will still have the same opinions.

Katman

21st April 2013, 15:15

The change in laws would not have changed the opinions of ... or the reasons those people were having those opinions. Those same people will still have the same opinions.

Yeah, just look at Smokeu.

Thing is, who wants to look like him in 20 years time?

FJRider

21st April 2013, 15:24

Yeah, just look at Smokeu.

Thing is, who wants to looks like him in 20 years time?

Start another poll and ask. But I'm guessing ... you don't really want to know.

Sadly ... he does have the right to be like that. Regardless on how stupid, inane ... or simply obnoxious as it is.

husaberg

21st April 2013, 15:58

Well it has to be changed, otherwise it would no longer be applicable in light of the culture/law changes. Are you opposed to all changes? or just this one?

Bogan you missed a couple of pages. What i are pointing out is in reference to the claims that the word has always meant a relationship regardless of sexual orientation, when it has only ever meant a formal relationship between a man and a women.

I don't like in this case the change of the meaning of the word. Any bill that gives equal rights of adaption regardless of orientation etc for sure i totally support this.(This is where the civil union was, i believe compromised) It is just the change in word meaning i don't.

Katman

21st April 2013, 16:07

I don't like in this case the change of the meaning of the word. Any bill that gives equal rights of adaption regardless of orientation etc for sure i totally support this.(This is where the civil union was, i believe compromised) It is just the change in word meaning i don't.

So it appears you place greater importance on the couple being different sex than the couple commiting to love and support one another.

I think your definition of marriage leaves a lot to be desired.

bogan

21st April 2013, 16:09

Bogan you missed a couple of pages. What i are pointing out is in reference to the claims that the word has always meant a relationship regardless of sexual orientation, when it has only ever meant a formal relationship between a man and a women.

I don't like in this case the change of the meaning of the word. Any bill that gives equal rights of adaption regardless of orientation etc for sure i totally support this.(This is where the civil union was, i believe compromised) It is just the change in word meaning i don't.

I think we are all aware of that, hence the discussion about the adjustment of its meaning. It still means the same thing for those already included by the definition, so I'm wondering why people object to this change. Or is it just on principal the the meaning of words shouldn't ever be changed or updated?

husaberg

21st April 2013, 16:14

So it appears you place greater importance on the couple being different sex than the couple commiting to love and support one another.

I think your definition of marriage leaves a lot to be desired.

As always if anyone disagrees with the minority they are attacked with the insinuation that you must therefore be a bigot.
Subversion, i thought that was meant to be the domain exclusively of the bigots.

Read the polls the public opinion is evenly divided. Far more so than people want to admit. Why is that?

Asked what best fitted their view on marriage law, 48 per cent of those polled said marriage should remain between a man and a woman - an increase of 7.5 percentage points from a poll last June.

I think we are all aware of that, hence the discussion about the adjustment of its meaning. It still means the same thing for those already included by the definition, so I'm wondering why people object to this change. Or is it just on principal the the meaning of words shouldn't ever be changed or updated?
I don't know ask the other 48% of the population that agree with my point of view.

A fridge is a fridge, an oven is an oven, and never a fridge will an oven be................

Katman

21st April 2013, 16:17

As always if anyone disagrees with the minority they are attacked with the insinuation that you must therefore be a bigot.
Subversion, i thought that was meant to be the domain exclusively of the bigots.

Read the polls the public opinion is evenly divided. Far more so than people want to admit. Why is that?

Dude, that wasn't an attack.

It was merely an observation.

husaberg

21st April 2013, 16:26

Dude, that wasn't an attack.

It was merely an observation.

With an insulation, as was your last reply. that picked one part and ignored the sentiment cause it suited your opinion.

So it appears you place greater importance on the couple being different sex than the couple commiting to love and support one another.

I think your definition of marriage leaves a lot to be desired.

This is what you replied to my quote i have included the whole quote.

Well it has to be changed, otherwise it would no longer be applicable in light of the culture/law changes. Are you opposed to all changes? or just this one?

Bogan you missed a couple of pages. What i are pointing out is in reference to the claims that the word has always meant a relationship regardless of sexual orientation, when it has only ever meant a formal relationship between a man and a women.

I don't like in this case the change of the meaning of the word. Any bill that gives equal rights of adaption regardless of orientation etc for sure i totally support this.(This is where the civil union was, i believe compromised) It is just the change in word meaning i don't.

bogan

21st April 2013, 16:32

I don't know ask the other 48% of the population that agree with my point of view.

A fridge is a fridge, an oven is an oven, and never a fridge will an oven be................

Well they're not here so I am asking you.

Exactly, which is why that is a really shit example, a gay couple can do everything that a straight couple can do. A better example is that ovens used to refer to the wood fired versions, now its electric elements and microwaves too; I wonder if they had to update the dictionary definition there?

Katman

21st April 2013, 16:33

With an insulation, as was your last reply. that picked one part and ignored the sentiment cause it suited your opinion.

Insulation?

Do you mean insinuation?

husaberg

21st April 2013, 16:41

Insulation?

Do you mean insinuation?

I certainly did, do you need more time for a response?

Well they're not here so I am asking you.

Exactly, which is why that is a really shit example, a gay couple can do everything that a straight couple can do. A better example is that ovens used to refer to the wood fired versions, now its electric elements and microwaves too; I wonder if they had to update the dictionary definition there?

Can't speak for the population.
I stand by the original analogy. An oven is still an oven. Fridge and oven Even though live in the kitchen and both have insulation,both are very important in food preparation, neither is more or less worthy than the other.

A truly enlighten society appreciate the differences in all its members. Rather than trying change things in an effort to make people feel better about their differences. Variety is the spice of life etc.

Katman

21st April 2013, 16:44

I certainly did, do you need more time for a response?

Dude, if you're struggling to understand the difference between retaining warmth and making a subtle suggestion, you're probably out of your depth here.

mashman

21st April 2013, 16:55

A truly enlightened society ACCEPTS the differences in all its members. Trying to change things in an effort to make people feel better about their differences. Variety is the spice of life etc.

Just a wee tweak there sir.

bogan

21st April 2013, 16:56

Can't speak for the population.
I stand by the original analogy. An oven is still an oven.
A truly enlighten society appreciate the differences in all its members. Rather than trying change things in an effort to make people feel less insecure about their differences

Yup, and due to changes in culture, its definition has been expanded to include the microwave ovens too.
Funny thing there, is it can be argued it's insecurities about differences that seem to be one of the big reasons there is so much opposition to it. A truly enlightened society treats all its members as equals, and that seems to be all they want.

husaberg

21st April 2013, 16:57

Dude, if you're struggling to understand the difference between retaining warmth and making a subtle suggestion, you're probably out of your depth here.

Spell check auto corrects words.
I certainly understand the difference. Do you understand how petty your augment you just put forward is. Maybe you should put forward a valid augment. fight the position rather than the player.
Need more time..........

Katman

21st April 2013, 17:03

fight the position rather than the player.

I'm a lover not a fighter.

husaberg

21st April 2013, 17:04

Yup, and due to changes in culture, its definition has been expanded to include the microwave ovens too.
Funny thing there, is it can be argued it's insecurities about differences that seem to be one of the big reasons there is so much opposition to it. A truly enlightened society treats all its members as equals, and that seems to be all they want.

No due to changes in technology microwaves came into being, Oven fits as they still heat the food.
Don't agree i doubt anyone, truly wishes to be the exact same as all members of society, do they really? same pay, same car, same job same clothes.................
An enlightened society celebrate the differences i feel.

husaberg

21st April 2013, 17:06

I'm a lover not a fighter.

Not surprised. KATMAN
I have a mate that can fix both for you, A gumboot and a razor blade will be required.

bogan

21st April 2013, 17:29

No due to changes in technology microwaves came into being, Oven fits as they still heat the food.
Don't agree i doubt anyone, truly wishes to be the exact same as all members of society, do they really? same pay, same car, same job same clothes.................
An enlightened society celebrate the differences i feel.

Indeed, and technology is a product of society. A microwave oven fits the changes as the rest of the description still applies, sound familiar?
Treated as equals, with equal rights and opportunities is what the statement means, not clones, I'm surprised you haven't heard it before and got the meaning from that.
Celebration has to be mutual though, and before that they must be accepted into society. Evidently they felt the segregationist civil union thing wasn't enough.

husaberg

21st April 2013, 17:46

Indeed, and technology is a product of society. A microwave oven fits the changes as the rest of the description still applies, sound familiar?
Treated as equals, with equal rights and opportunities is what the statement means, not clones, I'm surprised you haven't heard it before and got the meaning from that.
Celebration has to be mutual though, and before that they must be accepted into society. Evidently they felt the segregationist civil union thing wasn't enough.

If everyone was always treated the same, it won't work now will it. People will always demand to be treated differently because of their differences.
Due to anti-discrimination laws people expected to be treated different. As a kneejerk overreaction i guess
All the people that choose to be part of a civil union were treated the same it wasn't exclusively the domain of same sex couples, now was it.

Celebration by definition is not discrimination so its is unlikely not to be mutual.
Its unlikely we will agree. I see where you are coming from but i don't agree the change was anything but a pandering to a well meaning vocal minority on the basis that marriage was being excluded to a percentage of a population based on their sexual orientation.

Should same sex marriages have preferential adoption rights and fertility treatments now based on the fact they are infertile together.
After-all its only fair that they would.

Boy scouts, they have to go, and the guides too they are just too sexually discriminate arn't they.

reggie1198

21st April 2013, 17:49

So given a choice what kid wants to go to school and have everybody know that daddy and daddy are a couple of turd tappers,,or mummy and mummy are a couple of rug munchers,both of which have already proven to everybody that they simply can't function in the real world without special conditions and considerations from the rest of society.

So kids from poor homes, where mum or dad is on the dole/dpb/sickness bene, should be to embarrassed to show up at school, they have proven that they can't function in the real world without special conditions and considerations from the rest of us.

Katman

21st April 2013, 17:54

Should same sex marriages have preferential adoption rights and fertility treatments now based on the fact they are infertile together.

Not preferential but I'm certain that a same sex marriage could provide an equally stable environment for adoption.

husaberg

21st April 2013, 18:02

Not preferential but I'm certain that a same sex marriage could provide an equally stable environment for adoption.

I am totally sure they would. but they would have to go further up the list due to their innate lack of fertility (together) wouldn't they?
They would have to be considered less fertile than an average infertile hetro couple surely.....

Katman

21st April 2013, 18:06

I am totally sure they would. but they would have to go further up the list due to their lack of fertility wouldn't they?
They would have to be considered less fertile than an average infertile hetro couple surely.....

Methinks you're inventing scenarios to try to suit your argument.

Same sex marriages are capable of providing the same degree of stability for children as different sex marriages are.

Why you would think that their "lack of fertility" would suddenly move them up the eligibility list bewilders me.

huff3r

21st April 2013, 18:12

All the people that choose to be part of a civil union were treated the same it wasn't exclusively the domain of same sex couples, now was it.

So it's ok for couples of the same, or the opposite sex to have a civil union, but marriage should be exclusive to the opposite sex couples?

And your oven/fridge argument is ridiculous. A couple does the same thing as any other couple, regardless of the composition. An oven and a fridge do completely opposite things. Not really a relevant comparison, the oven/microwave argument is far more suitable.

Just let them get married in peace, yeah the definition has changed, well guess what, several others have too over the past few millennia.

I can't see what the big deal is! Seems like people are making a fuss just because they want to. Or just because they don't like Gays. I haven't seen any actual convincing arguments yet.

Although lets be honest, arguing on an internet forum is about as likely to cause change, as it is to cause me to obtain an icecream. Unfortunately I don't have an icecream yet....:Oi:

FJRider

21st April 2013, 18:14

Not preferential but I'm certain that a same sex marriage could provide an equally stable environment for adoption.

Not ALL married relationships can guarantee a stable environment for adoption. A same sex relationship will not automatically ensure any greater degree of stability ... than a male/female relationship would.

huff3r

21st April 2013, 18:15

Virago

21st April 2013, 18:18

...Celebration by definition is not discrimination so its is unlikely not to be mutual...

To be mutual, both group would have to agree to the differentiation. Personally, I doubt that will happen.

...Should same sex marriages have preferential adoption rights and fertility treatments now based on the fact they are infertile together. After-all its only fair that they would...

I am totally sure they would. but they would have to go further up the list due to their innate lack of fertility (together) wouldn't they?
They would have to be considered less fertile than an average infertile hetro couple surely.....

That's altogether rather fanciful - you're desperately grasping at straws.. There is nothing to suggest that same sex couples will receive preferential family planning assistance. Nor should they.

Kickaha

21st April 2013, 18:18

Unfortunately I don't have an icecream yet....:Oi:
If you could get an icecream what flavour would it be?

huff3r

21st April 2013, 18:20

If you could get an icecream what flavour would it be?

I'm not racist, I'll take chocolate or vanilla! :bleh:

bogan

21st April 2013, 18:22

If everyone was always treated the same, it won't work now will it. People will always demand to be treated differently because of their differences.
Due to anti-discrimination laws people expected to be treated different. As a kneejerk overreaction i guess
All the people that choose to be part of a civil union were treated the same it wasn't exclusively the domain of same sex couples, now was it.

Celebration by definition is not discrimination so its is unlikely not to be mutual.
Its unlikely we will agree. I see where you are coming from but i don't agree the change was anything but a pandering to a well meaning vocal minority on the basis that marriage was being excluded to a percentage of a population based on their sexual orientation.

Should same sex marriages have preferential adoption rights and fertility treatments now based on the fact they are infertile together.
After-all its only fair that they would.

Boy scouts, they have to go, and the guides too they are just too sexually discriminate arn't they.

Treated as equals is not identical to being treated the same. Its about evaluating their needs as being of equal importance to your own.
No, but marriage was exclusively the domain of traditional couples, and that's the issue, why the segregation for something that gives the same rights? Or why not do away with marriage as a legal term and make civil union the only binding thing? It seems tptb would rather just change the definition of the word in likely thousands of legal documents already, to encompass another group. I don't have a problem with either approach.

Exaclty, how can a society claim to be celebrating some members differences when those members are not happy with their current standing within that society? It doesn't sound mutual at all.
Vocal minority? What are the figures again?

Not sure why they would get fertility treatments, don't think that will help. Adoption rights, why should they get preferential treatment there either? They should be judged to the same criteria as the rest of the applicants.

Has it devolved into a slipper slope, the sky is falling argument again? Well, credit for not bring in pedos I guess.

Katman

21st April 2013, 18:23

A same sex relationship will not automatically ensure any greater degree of stability ... than a male/female relationship would.

Whoever said it would?

I merely suggested that a same sex marriage wouldn't necessarily offer any less stability.

mashman

21st April 2013, 18:26

Should same sex marriages have preferential adoption rights and fertility treatments now based on the fact they are infertile together.

Not all mixed sex couples can have kids ya know. Maybe there should be a law against a male gay couple donating sperm to a female gay couple just in case they breed a new breed of thoroughbred gay?

Virago

21st April 2013, 18:30

...And your oven/fridge argument is ridiculous. A couple does the same thing as any other couple, regardless of the composition. An oven and a fridge do completely opposite things...

This unfortunately raises the key issue - whether or not same-sex couples are "different" - some quite obviously think they are.

"I don't have any problem with them, but they are different. Let's give their relationships a special title to celebrate that difference."

The problem - people don't want to be "celebrated" while being segregated and patronised.

FJRider

21st April 2013, 18:38

Should same sex marriages have preferential adoption rights and fertility treatments now based on the fact they are infertile together.
After-all its only fair that they would.

One of the main reasons the legislation changes were pushed for ... was the basic equal right to apply to adopt a child into their family relationship. Not for preference. Their right to apply is not (and never will be) a guarantee their application will be approved .... just because they are in a "married" relationship.
Infertility treatment is given to infertile people. If fertility tests were done on the respective partners in a relationship were done ... and both were found fertile ... no further action could be taken.
Any preference based on their being a same sex couple would be an abuse of the basic rights they fought to overcome.

Boy scouts, they have to go, and the guides too they are just too sexually discriminate arn't they.

You are a bit behind the times ... girls have been IN scouts for quite some time. And are one of the larger youth movements in this country because of this. And few males have applied to join the Guide movement. Not enough (vocal enough) to cause any civil rights issues ...

husaberg

21st April 2013, 18:45

Methinks you're inventing scenarios to try to suit your argument.

Same sex marriages are capable of providing the same degree of stability for children as different sex marriages are.
Yes as i have said repeatedly

Why you would think that their "lack of fertility" would suddenly move them up the eligibility list bewilders me.

Last I checked there was a shortage of willing adopters, and an abundance of children up for adoption, so I can't understand why there would even be an eligibility list?!
there is........and yes overall there may be a shortage but not for the cute little babies............

Couples are required make an application to CYF . they will have to have a police check, a medical check and supply references.
They will be interviewed and ranked, and you are pretty naive to think it is a first come first served process.

Katman

21st April 2013, 18:53

They will be interviewed and ranked, and you are pretty naive to think it is a first come first served process.

Naivity aside, you'd be rather stupid to think that simply being in a same sex marriage will give a couple any greater degree of eligibility.

husaberg

21st April 2013, 19:00

One of the main reasons the legislation changes were pushed for ... was the basic equal right to apply to adopt a child into their family relationship. Not for preference. Their right to apply is not (and never will be) a guarantee their application will be approved .... just because they are in a "married" relationship.
Infertility treatment is given to infertile people. If fertility tests were done on the respective partners in a relationship were done ... and both were found fertile ... no further action could be taken.
Any preference based on their being a same sex couple would be an abuse of the basic rights they fought to overcome.

The problem as i see it was the adoption process whist not excluding only allowed or one member of the couple to adopt.
preference is sadly inevitable to how how progressive we have became. Look at the education system for a classic example. the falure rate of males is criminal...........

You are a bit behind the times ... girls have been IN scouts for quite some time. And are one of the larger youth movements in this country because of this. And few males have applied to join the Guide movement. Not enough (vocal enough) to cause any civil rights issues ...
Makes me feel a little sad to hear that...........

huff3r

21st April 2013, 19:01

Makes me a little sad to hear that...........

Even worse, soon the USA Boy Scouts might even let gays in!

husaberg

21st April 2013, 19:05

Naivity aside, you'd be rather stupid to think that simply being in a same sex marriage will give a couple any greater degree of eligibility.

No you would be rather stupid to not realise that fertility is a factor in assessing the ranking of applicants. Your naivety is also apparent in the fact that you can't accept there will be targets to ensure there is no hint of any degree on discrimination.

Even worse, soon the USA Boy Scouts might even let gays in!

I hope they always did as long as they are boys whats the issue?

Katman

21st April 2013, 19:12

No you would be rather stupid to not realise that fertility is a factor in assessing the ranking of applicants. Your naivety is also apparent in the fact that you can't accept there will be targets to ensure there is no hint of any degree on discrimination.

<img src="http://www.stockphotopro.com/photo-thumbs-2/APRD65.jpg"/>

bogan

21st April 2013, 19:14

Has it devolved into a slippery slope, the sky is falling argument again? Well, credit for not bring in pedos I guess.

Guess so, pity that.

Virago

21st April 2013, 19:16

...I hope they always did as long as they are boys whats the issue?

The bible - which forms part of their code of conduct. Come out as gay - you're out of the scouts.

husaberg

21st April 2013, 19:19

<img src="http://www.stockphotopro.com/photo-thumbs-2/APRD65.jpg"/>

http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/aa-liberal-intolerance.jpg

huff3r

21st April 2013, 19:20

I hope they always did as long as they are boys whats the issue?

Surely you are not that naive?

Boy Scouts of America to allow gay youth (http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/8576201/Boy-Scouts-of-America-to-allow-gay-youth)

FJRider

21st April 2013, 19:22

The problem as i see it was the adoption process whist not excluding only allowed or one member of the couple to adopt.
preference is sadly inevitable to how how progressive we have became. Look at the education system for a classic example. the falure rate of males is criminal...........

The failure rates of males in the education system ... is more to do with what said males preferences to what their time and energies were to be spent on. Criminal activities probably do feature.

Makes me feel a little sad to hear that...........

As I am an old scout leader ... I was too ...

husaberg

21st April 2013, 19:22

Surely you are not that naive?

Boy Scouts of America to allow gay youth (http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/8576201/Boy-Scouts-of-America-to-allow-gay-youth)

America home of the Free....

Well the Gun control liberal anyway. must say i never knew the Mormon were tied up, but it is the states afterall

husaberg

21st April 2013, 19:29

The failure rates of males in the education system ... is more to do with what said males preferences to what their time and energies were to be spent on. Criminal activities probably do feature.

I see it more as the tailoring of the whole education system to suit the females (which were previously prejudiced against) it is just it has now gone to far, and no one has the ball to fix it.

Katman

21st April 2013, 19:35

I see it more as the tailoring of the whole education system to suit the females (which were previously prejudiced against) it is just it has now gone to far, and no one has the ball to fix it.

Back in 1976 my Form 1 year was the first to have sewing and cooking as compulsory subjects for boys and woodwork and metalwork compulsory for girls. From memory it was a big deal back then.

I suppose I've had a number of years to get used to the whole gender melting pot idea.

husaberg

21st April 2013, 19:58

Back in 1976 my Form 1 year was the first to have sewing and cooking as compulsory subjects for boys and woodwork and metalwork compulsory for girls. From memory it was a big deal back then.

I suppose I've had a number of years to get used to the whole gender melting pot idea.

Have a look at the disparity between male and female achievement at school and figure out why.
Better still so a silly of the cuff remark. But try to be witty this time.

Katman

21st April 2013, 20:00

Better still so a silly of the cuff remark. But try to be witty this time.

I probably would - if I could figure out what the fuck you're trying to say.

husaberg

21st April 2013, 20:19

I probably would - if I could figure out what the fuck you're trying to say.

Sorry your cognitive skills are your issue not mine. Perhaps if you took the time to read the posts rather than just react based on a preconceived notion of what you think they say or mean. Your last one about your home ec was a classic case in point.

The failure rates of males in the education system ... is more to do with what said males preferences to what their time and energies were to be spent on. Criminal activities probably do feature.

I see it more as the tailoring of the whole education system to suit the females (which were previously prejudiced against) it is just it has now gone to far, and no one has the ball to fix it.

Back in 1976 my Form 1 year was the first to have sewing and cooking as compulsory subjects for boys and woodwork and metalwork compulsory for girls. From memory it was a big deal back then.

I suppose I've had a number of years to get used to the whole gender melting pot idea.

Katman

21st April 2013, 20:26

Sorry your cognitive skills are your issue not mine.

As is your intolerance.

bogan

21st April 2013, 20:30

husaberg

21st April 2013, 20:46

http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/aa-liberal-intolerance.jpg

I think his point was you've derailed the discussion by clutching at straws that are of no relevance, instead of debating the intelligent responses you pick out the snide or sarcastic ones. Which certainly makes it seem like you can't effectively back own position in the debate.

No his point is to ignore any point that doesn't suit him, snide or sarcastic i don't agree. i have made far far less sarcastic remarks katman has.
Everytime i have stated my opinion it have been attacked as ignorant or intolerant. Which is rather ironic

I don't know how many times i have had to post a quote again after a twisting of a word (not by you) to suit a If you don't agree you must therefor be a bigot agenda.

This law does not have the widespread support of the people that people like to imply it has. If anyone like me says they don't agree, In classic tradition of politically correct minority then they must be a bigot. I guess half of New Zealand ill-informed Must be bigots but which half is it?

At the end of the day the point is Moot the law has been passed but not yet enacted. There was no vote by the people of New Zealand on the mater .Half of which don't agree with you either.

Katman

21st April 2013, 20:48

No his point is to ignore any point that doesn't suit him, snide or sarcastic i don't agree. i have made far far less sarcastic remarks katman has.
Everytime i have stated my opinion it have been attacked as ignorant or intolerant. Which is rather ironic

I don't know how many times i have had to post a quote again after a twisting of a word (not by you) to suit a If you don't agree you must therefor be a bigot agenda.

This law does not have the widespread support of the people that people like to imply it has. If anyone like me says they don't agree, In classic tradition of politically correct minority then they must be a bigot. I guess half of New Zealand ill-informed Must be bigots but which half is it?

You're a sensitive wee thing, aren't you?

husaberg

21st April 2013, 20:53

You're a sensitive wee thing, aren't you?

Constructive as always.. You have added so so much to the debate so far.

Katman

21st April 2013, 20:55

Constructive as always.. You have added so so much to the debate so far.

I have the feeling that if I added any more you might not survive the night.

husaberg

21st April 2013, 21:02

I have the feeling that if I added any more you might not survive the night.
I have a feeling that you live under a bridge and run a toll booth for goats. business must be a little slow...........
Not that you would notice with your inability to add any thing useful.

bogan

21st April 2013, 21:22

This law does not have the widespread support of the people that people like to imply it has. If anyone like me says they don't agree, In classic tradition of politically correct minority then they must be a bigot. I guess half of New Zealand ill-informed Must be bigots but which half is it?

At the end of the day the point is Moot the law has been passed but not yet enacted. There was no vote by the people of New Zealand on the mater .Half of which don't agree with you either.

About half is fairly widespread imo, not a clear majority which is perhaps more what you meant. People like you saying they don't agree often don't seem to have any substance behind their points. Bringing things like the slippery slope argument into it suggest that the root is imply intolerance and they are clutching at straws to find something which backs that. Rather than looking at the points objectively and making a decision, or making their case in a clear and logical fashion.

husaberg

21st April 2013, 21:32

About half is fairly widespread imo, not a clear majority which is perhaps more what you meant. People like you saying they don't agree often don't seem to have any substance behind their points. Bringing things like the slippery slope argument into it suggest that the root is imply intolerance and they are clutching at straws to find something which backs that. Rather than looking at the points objectively and making a decision, or making their case in a clear and logical fashion.

no the last digipoll was like 49 for to 47% against with the rest undecided (correct latter) 49.6% vs 48% undecided 2.4%
I made my point like 30 pages back i are all for the equaling of "marriage" rights to all parties just the word change of use i object too. It has never, or was never meant the union of two people of the same sex. Can't see a valid reason, why it has to now.
It was taken to the high courts etc years ago they said the same thing.
Personally i was in favour of the homosexual law reform bill and the civil union bill I can't support this though.

The meaning of the word has been changed, it had never previously been used to describe a same sex couple previously in New Zealand.
I don't object to anything other than the word, Shit i was totally in favour of the civil union bill, in-fact it should have gone further to provide the same rights of adoption etc as Marriage.

Quilter v Attorney-GeneralThe case Quilter v Attorney-General had its origin in early 1996 when three female couples in long-term relationships were denied marriage licences by the Registrar-General because marriage under the common law was between one man and one woman. The case against the government was taken to the High Court in May 1996. The applicants argued that the Marriage Act did not prohibit same-sex marriage and that under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was prohibited.

In the High Court, both parties agreed that at the time the Marriage Act was written in the mid-1950s, marriage according to the common law was between one man and one woman, which explains why the Act did not specifically outlaw same-sex marriage. The applicants argued, however, that under the Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and sections 6 (Interpretation consistent with Bill of Rights to be preferred) and 19 (Freedom from discrimination) of the Bill of Rights Act, New Zealand prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and, therefore, the applicants should be allowed to marry. The government in response cited section 5 (Justified limitations) of the Bill of Right Act, which allowed rights and freedoms in the Bill of Rights to "be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". In its decision, the High Court sided with the government and common law and reiterated that marriage is between one man and one woman.

The High Court decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal (then New Zealand's highest court) in December 1997, which upheld the ruling.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand

Opinion pollsDate Conducted by Sample size In favour Against Undecided Margin of Error
13–19 December 2012Key Research 1000 53.9% 38.1% 8% ±3.1%
11–17 March 2013 Herald-DigiPoll 750 49.6% 48% 2.4% ±3.6%

The poles conducted show a very very slim margin in favour of same sex marriages but trending down. So why did they not put it to the voters to decide

bogan

21st April 2013, 21:56

no the last digipoll was like 49 for to 47% against with the rest undecided (correct latter)
I made my point like 30 pages back i are all for the equaling of "marriage" rights to all parties just the word change of use i object too. It has never, or was never meant the union of two people of the same sex. Can't see a valid reason, why it has to now.
It was taken to the high courts etc years ago they said the same thing.

Didn't they also say that a year ago 7.5% of those against were for it?

Thats a pretty weak point, the definition of many many words are updated with the times every year. Equality is a very valid reason imo, but perhaps of less importance to others.

Iirc the high courts decisions was based more on the legal interpretation of how it is currently worded, not the human rights and equality aspect of it.

_Shrek_

21st April 2013, 22:01

Yeah, but it's okay for me - I don't claim to live by the bible... :msn-wink:

then don't quote it!!! & because of a type-o on my part :Oops: that 200 should have been 2000 but it still doesn't change the fact it's wrong

Katman

21st April 2013, 22:10

no the last digipoll was like 49 for to 47% against with the rest undecided (correct latter) 49.6% vs 48% undecided 2.4%
I made my point like 30 pages back i are all for the equaling of "marriage" rights to all parties just the word change of use i object too. It has never, or was never meant the union of two people of the same sex. Can't see a valid reason, why it has to now.
It was taken to the high courts etc years ago they said the same thing.
Personally i was in favour of the homosexual law reform bill and the civil union bill I can't support this though.

I see many sleepless nights ahead of you.

Katman

21st April 2013, 22:15

then don't quote it!!!

What, you don't like bible quotes being thrown back at you?

Perhaps you're just bummed (see what I done there) that Virago has a better understanding of the bible than you do.

_Shrek_

21st April 2013, 22:19

What, you don't like bible quotes being thrown back at you?

Perhaps you're just bummed that Virago has a better understanding of the bible than you do.

where did I quote it? & how do you work it out that he has a better understanding?

or does the crystal ball you use realy work?

husaberg

21st April 2013, 22:22

http://www.jamboree.freedom-in-education.co.uk/images/literature/billy_goats_gruff.gif

Katman

21st April 2013, 22:24

where did I quote it?

What the fuck is this? A game of "I know you are, you said you are, but what am I"?

_Shrek_

21st April 2013, 22:25

What the fuck is this? A game of "I know you are, you said you are, but what am I"?

:wacko: I have no idea :bleh:

Katman

21st April 2013, 22:29

I have no idea

I ain't gonna argue with you.

husaberg

21st April 2013, 22:30

Didn't they also say that a year ago 7.5% of those against were for it?

Thats a pretty weak point, the definition of many many words are updated with the times every year. Equality is a very valid reason imo, but perhaps of less importance to others.

Iirc the high courts decisions was based more on the legal interpretation of how it is currently worded, not the human rights and equality aspect of it.

No Bogan you see it is a weak point. i don't see your point as offering much either.
it was in one pole a high of about 66 percent in favour of but has been trending down since.

It agreed with my "pretty weak point regarding the interpretation/meaning of the word":rolleyes:
it threw out the human rights bit first...Said it was a non issue...........

Quilter v Attorney-General

The case Quilter v Attorney-General had its origin in early 1996 when three female couples in long-term relationships were denied marriage licences by the Registrar-General because marriage under the common law was between one man and one woman. The case against the government was taken to the High Court in May 1996. The applicants argued that the Marriage Act did not prohibit same-sex marriage and that under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was prohibited.

In the High Court, both parties agreed that at the time the Marriage Act was written in the mid-1950s, marriage according to the common law was between one man and one woman, which explains why the Act did not specifically outlaw same-sex marriage. The applicants argued, however, that under the Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and sections 6 (Interpretation consistent with Bill of Rights to be preferred) and 19 (Freedom from discrimination) of the Bill of Rights Act, New Zealand prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and, therefore, the applicants should be allowed to marry. The government in response cited section 5 (Justified limitations) of the Bill of Right Act, which allowed rights and freedoms in the Bill of Rights to "be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". In its decision, the High Court sided with the government and common law and reiterated that marriage is between one man and one woman.

The High Court decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal (then New Zealand's highest court) in December 1997, which upheld the ruling.[3]
Ms. Juliet Joslin et al. v. New Zealand

On 30 November 1998, two couples involved in Quilter v Attorney-General sued New Zealand before the United Nations Human Rights Committee claiming that the country's ban on same-sex marriage violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, the Committee rejected the case on 17 July 2002.[4]

It was appealed and failed based on your points