I believe in gay marriage

[HenryDorsetCase]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[HenryDorsetCase]

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]

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...

[Oscar]

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]

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]

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

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