I believe in gay marriage

[Hans]

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]

They want to be married for exactly the same reasons as you wanted to be married.

So their kids aren't bastards?

[husaberg]

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...........

[mashman]

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 ). 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

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...........

Would that make calling them the significant other kinky?

[_Shrek_]

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.

no but it had the desired affect

[Berries]

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]

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]

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 ). 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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.