I believe in gay marriage

[oldrider]

What will be will be, for me it is mind over matter ... I don't mind because for me it really doesn't matter!

Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one of their own! The sun has come out now that "is" important!

[Madness]

There is no such thing as gay marriage!

Yet. Hence the Bill being debated currently in parliament.

There are those that desire that same sex couples should be included in in the existing marriage process, so in the terms of your question, they would be a minority!

As Virago has stated, current public opinion polls show you're wrong.

My understanding of the issue (as you put it) is that provisions for same sex couple official and legal recognition was catered for with the introduction of "Civil Unions".

It provides official and legal recognition but at the same time puts those in Civil Union into a special group within society, which some believe isn't right.

The Civil Union ceremony also applies to heterosexual couples so it would appear that Civil Union should eventually establish it's self as the majority preference and displace marriage over time because Civil Union is all inclusive.

I struggle to imagine why any heterosexual couple would want to enter into an institution created as a stop-gap measure in providing equal rights to homosexuals. People like Helen Clark and her hubby might be the exception?

The only advantage in the claim for same sex couples to be included in the existing "marriage" process is to be able to use the name "marriage"!

The crux of the argument right there. You either think they deserve the right to do so or not. Who do you think the issue is more important to on a purely personal level?

If all the old arguments prior to Civil Union are correct Civil Union should be the way forward while marriage is scheduled to join the dinosaurs as the old guard dies off.

Why would so called modern enlightened self styled forward thinking people want to fight for the right to join with the dinosaurs?

Maybe there are gay couples who cherish the idea of marriage for what it means to them. Who is to say that allowing couples like this to marry won't somehow strengthen the institution within our society. Maybe the sky won't fall?

Or is the real agenda just a continuation of we want, we want, we want to be included where currently we are not ... just for the hell of it!

Like the blacks in America and South Africa you mean?

Adoption is not part of the same law and comes under an entirely different act so is not part of the same issue!

As I understand it there are two seperate Bills. The gay adoption Bill, also a Private Members Bill, will be rendered unwarranted if the gay marriage Bill passes.

[husaberg]

It provides official and legal recognition but at the same time puts those in Civil Union into a special group within society, which some believe isn't right.

Aren't they already in a special group of society group anyway?

Not meaning to be controversial or say its wrong or anything. because it how they choose to life ie either their choice and or who they are.I'm ok with that.
but but it is by no means the norm of society anyway. lets be clear here.

[Madness]

Aren't they already in a special group of society group anyway?

Not meaning to be controversial or say its wrong or anything. because it how they choose to life ie either their choice and or who they are.I'm ok with that.
but but it is by no means the norm of society anyway. lets be clear here.

Yes, they are in a special group by default because of their sexuality. The debate is about accepting this group as normal within a modern New Zealand society rather than precluding certain fundamental rights. It's an evolutionary process. No wonder Ed hates it.

[husaberg]

Yes, they are in a special group by default because of their sexuality. The debate is about accepting this group as normal within a modern New Zealand society rather than precluding certain fundamental rights. It's an evolutionary process. No wonder Ed hates it.

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.

[FJRider]

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.

To be disallowed on the grounds of race, religion, or sex ... Should be against basic human rights ... surely ... ???

Just because the "rules" always said that's the way it is ... shouldn't mean that's the way it always HAS to be ...

[oldrider]

Fair enough, no real problems with any of the points above except that the final decision on all this will be made by a very (my words) dubious "minority"!

A lot of people just want it dead and buried so that we can move on! .... Next?

[avgas]

Married Bum Sex.


Sorry what was the question?

[husaberg]

To be disallowed on the grounds of race, religion, or sex ... Should be against basic human rights ... surely ... ???

Just because the "rules" always said that's the way it is ... shouldn't mean that's the way it always HAS to be ...

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.

[HenryDorsetCase]

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.

"Marriage" as a concept in western cultural and political and sexual philosophy has been a moving feast since at least the Enlightenment. One example: Marriage used to include a concept whereby a wife's property rights were subsumed into her husbands property. In effect the wife was a chattel. Is that what "marriage" means now? Of course it isn't. This change is the latest in a changing institution.

And "marriage" to a muslim and a hindu are different things again:

You need to admit it: you are skeeved out by gay people. And thats YOUR problem.

[HenryDorsetCase]

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.

How does me marrying my life partner affect YOUR marriage again?

[husaberg]

"Marriage" as a concept in western cultural and political and sexual philosophy has been a moving feast since at least the Enlightenment. One example: Marriage used to include a concept whereby a wife's property rights were subsumed into her husbands property. In effect the wife was a chattel. Is that what "marriage" means now? Of course it isn't. This change is the latest in a changing institution.

And "marriage" to a muslim and a hindu are different things again:

You need to admit it: you are skeeved out by gay people. And thats YOUR problem.

Er... i could be for all i know. but as i have no idea what it means....what is "Skeeved"

take away weather Gay marriage it is right or wrong or weather any opinion is less valid or wrong.
The word marriage has for thousands of years been the joining of a man and a Women.
just as the Word Homosexual is the relationship of two people of the same sex.

if you read my posts above you will see i never actually was fundamentally opposed to it just the word meaning being changed.

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.

Aren't they already in a special group of society group anyway?

Not meaning to be controversial or say its wrong or anything. because it how they choose to life ie either their choice and or who they are.I'm ok with that.
but it is by no means the norm of society anyway. lets be clear here.

How does me marrying my life partner affect YOUR marriage again?

Not sure how i am expected to answer that.......so i will answer that with whats so wrong with Civil Union.

[mashman]

The word marriage has for thousands of years been the joining of a man and a Women.

the joining of a man to a (wo)man.

[mashman]

Married Bum Sex.


Sorry what was the question?

What should a wife be legally entitled to give her husband? Have fun

[FJRider]

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.

So ... if it has nothing to do with "Rights" ... then it is only legislation or law that is the issue. As such ... are drafted by the opinions and views of society.
Actually ... drafted by the representitives of that society ... that have been voted by majority ... into Goverment.