I believe in gay marriage

[husaberg]

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

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/showth...ight=#post9864

The GN is truly unacceptable.

[Brett]

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]

The GN is truly unacceptable.

Best bike Suzuki ever built

[husaberg]

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_]

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]

& 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_...-releases.aspx

[Virago]

& 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]

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]

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/...ectid=10803393

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

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

[husaberg]

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]

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]

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]

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-se...in_New_Zealand

[td]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% [/td]


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]

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]

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?