I believe in gay marriage

[bogan]

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_]

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

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

[Katman]

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]

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_]

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]

[Katman]

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_]

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

I have no idea

[Katman]

I have no idea

I ain't gonna argue with you.

[husaberg]

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"
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

[husaberg]

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

You sound a bit upset? someone stand on your tail?

I ain't gonna argue with you.

Oh the cat got your tongue

[_Shrek_]

I ain't gonna argue with you.

[bogan]

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"
it threw out the human rights bit first...Said it was a non issue...........

And I listed my reason for seeing it as such, you seem reluctant to list yours against the change of meaning other than it is change itself; and considering the number of other changes the english language endures each year it seems and absurd reason to pick. You don't see equality regardless of sexual orientation as offering much? Or do you think they are already treated as equals?

That's the point I was making, it was examining the meaning as it was written, not what society currently thinks it should mean, the times, they do change. Edit, okay looks like I remembered that first bit wrong, the later seems to be ticking along well though.

[husaberg]

I am not reluctant to list anything as i keep saying and you keep trying to minimise "the meaning of the word"
There can be different customs and equality while must they be mutually exclusive.
As for society support it appears evenly divided (which you continually choose to ignore) and there was no vote other than by the mp's.

You seem to be looking for a smoking gun It like you are searching for me to say something derogatory against homosexuals or something... why?

[bogan]

I am not reluctant to list anything as i keep saying and you keep trying to minimise "the meaning of the word"
There can be different customs and equality while must they be mutually exclusive.
As for society support it appears evenly divided (which you continually choose to ignore) and there was no vote other than by the mp's.

You seem to be looking for a smoking gun It like you are searching for me to say something derogatory against homosexuals or something... why?

I'm merely putting it in perspective, word meanings change a lot. To be opposed to this change so much more strongly than the myriad of other word definition updates each year suggests there is more to it than just because it is change; that is the point you are not listing.
The mark of true equality, is where both parties know they are equals and are treated as such, can you honestly say you think that is the case here?
Why should an evenly divided society opinion have a bearing on the points at hand? it doesn't give to weight to either side of the debate so why shouldn't it be ignored?
As I said above, being opposed to it solely on the grounds that a word's meaning is being changed seems a bit weak.