So, Honda riders can marry now!

[huff3r]

Nothing has changed: you can only have one marriage on the go at a time. I have no idea why any guy would want more than one wife. They gang up on you when there's only one of them: with two you'd never get a word in edgeways.

Two words:
Seperate houses.

When one is shitty, and you end up in the doghouse so to speak, you just piss off to the other and can still get "secks" (of the non-butt variety).

[Swoop]

I have no idea why any guy would want more than one wife.

Fuck that.

Two Mother-in-laws?

[Banditbandit]

Naa bro ... find twins ... then you only have one mother-in-law ...

[Virago]

Some of hysterical responses to the passing of the bill have been quite interesting.

There are those who claim that children in same-sex households will now be abused, and that paedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, and incest will "be next". Not only is that hysterically funny, it is also a sad reflection on the claimants' view of homosexuality, that they perceive it as being in same league as these crimes. Thankfully, the majority of people have a little more common sense and civility.

By all means, you can believe that homosexuality is a sin before your God, that it is disgusting, that they're all kiddy-fiddlers. Your beliefs are your own, and you're welcome to them. But your right to those minority beliefs stops short of imposing them on others via our state laws.

Christian objections to homosexuality stem from obscure (and quite small) references in the bible, which are used to justify and legitimise their beliefs. As a side issue, the bible has a great deal more to say about judging others, but we won't go there, eh...? Many of those same passages make very odd suggestions about what’s right or wrong – such as the prohibition on the touching or consumption of pork, the stoning to death of non-virgin brides, the forced marriage of rape victims to their rapists, the acceptability of slavery (provided they’re from a neighbouring country), the forced marriage of a widow to her late husband’s brother (if she hasn’t yet borne a son), and the putting to death of anyone who works on the Sabbath. Do you think the bible passages could perhaps be being selectively paraded here?

I find it interesting that in this discussion, the opponents of the bill are portrayed as “Rednecks” and “Intolerant”. Whereas I don’t agree with them, most of the people opposing this bill are religious and are deeply offended by what they see as an attack on their beliefs.

In a country as supposedly PC and tolerant as NZ, this is somewhat disturbing.

The old double-standard false dichotomy, eh?

Intolerance of intolerance is hardly hypocritical. It's a bit like punching a peace campaigner and crying foul when they punch you back. People can't complain that they've lost the right to deny others their rights, surely?

You live in a very black and white world.
So you're happy with the intolerance of the Gay Community toward people whose Religious and Cultural beliefs put them at odds with the bill?
Are you saying that you're intolerant of people with different religious beliefs from you?

I don't have any religious beliefs either, but I think you'll find that freedom of religion is a basic civil right in this country...

Yes, religion is a basic civil right in this country - and long may that continue. But how far do those civil rights go? As far as blocking the civil rights of others?

Many have complained that the passing of the bill has infringed their right to religious belief. But what "right" have they lost? Only the "right" to dictate how others may live their lawful lives.

Religious "freedom", by its very nature, can only apply to the individual, and that has not changed. However, in this case, those individuals have lost their right to impose their beliefs through the state laws. If that offends them - tough. But they're still free to hold those beliefs, and live their lives in accordance with whatever moral code they choose to adopt.

...Marriage is a part of our religious and cultural heritage.
As a very wise man just said, why would Gay people wish to indulge in marriage when it comes from a Church & Society that has reviled them all these years?...

This has been well covered, but marriage has been around much longer than Christianity. Although Christians have for centuries claimed an erroneous moral ownership of the process and conduct of marriage, it is in fact nothing to do with them. They need to accept that.

[Oscar]

The old double-standard false dichotomy, eh?

Intolerance of intolerance is hardly hypocritical. It's a bit like punching a peace campaigner and crying foul when they punch you back. People can't complain that they've lost the right to deny others their rights, surely?

Quite so, but who punches first again?
If I express some disquiet about what is happening in a non-threatening manner, why is that intolerant?

Yes, religion is a basic civil right in this country - and long may that continue. But how far do those civil rights go? As far as blocking the civil rights of others?

Many have complained that the passing of the bill has infringed their right to religious belief. But what "right" have they lost? Only the "right" to dictate how others may live their lawful lives.

Religious "freedom", by its very nature, can only apply to the individual, and that has not changed. However, in this case, those individuals have lost their right to impose their beliefs through the state laws. If that offends them - tough. But they're still free to hold those beliefs, and live their lives in accordance with whatever moral code they choose to adopt.

Very true, but I would hope to think that we weren't a society that alienates people in that way without a bit more process.
As for your comment about "tough" - isn't it interesting that we in NZ tip-toe around certain cultures and ethnicities yet find it easy to insult others with impunity?
The vote in Parliament did not reflect the public opinion in this instance, as the last poll I saw had the public supporting the bill with a small majority. So I think a referendum may have been a more inclusive and final option.
Did any MP's survey their constituents? I would be very interested to know whether the average person in Manurewa supports Ms. Wall's bill.

This has been well covered, but marriage has been around much longer than Christianity. Although Christians have for centuries claimed an erroneous moral ownership of the process and conduct of marriage, it is in fact nothing to do with them. They need to accept that.

My original post referred to Judea-Christian tradition and I was talking about culture, as well as religion - in the case of most society's the two are almost impossible to separate.
In the finish, the law does not affect me in ant way, and I don't begrudge those with their newly found rights.
What does bother me is the sensationalist and shallow manner in which it was debated (by both sides).

[Katman]

In the finish, the law does not affect me in ant way, and I don't begrudge those with their newly found rights.
What does bother me is the sensationalist and shallow manner in which it was debated (by both sides).

And that's precisely why I have no problem with the new law. It doesn't make the slightest difference to me.

(I must have missed the sensationalism along the way - probably wan't paying attention).

[FJRider]

I don't have any religious beliefs either, but I think you'll find that freedom of religion is a basic civil right in this country.

The freedom to believe (without persecution) ... in your choice of religious belief ... is not an excuse/allowance for the breaking of any laws of the country that your religion may allow however.

As for confusing culture with religion, I'd like to see you separate them.
Did you have time off over Easter? Or did you refuse and keep working?

People confuse culture with lifestyle. Either (in my opinion) cannot in any way describe the other ..

[Virago]

...Very true, but I would hope to think that we weren't a society that alienates people in that way without a bit more process.
As for your comment about "tough" - isn't it interesting that we in NZ tip-toe around certain cultures and ethnicities yet find it easy to insult others with impunity?...

Point taken. But I think we need to differentiate between the right to an opinion, and a right to have an opinion enforced in law. As I've said, those who object on religious grounds have every right to do so. But to claim that their rights have been violated by the passage of the bill is another issue.

...The vote in Parliament did not reflect the public opinion in this instance, as the last poll I saw had the public supporting the bill with a small majority. So I think a referendum may have been a more inclusive and final option...

I’m guessing we were looking at different polls. EVERY poll I saw showed a two-thirds majority support for the bill – and there was some satisfaction in seeing a very similar majority in parliament. Real democracy in action for a change.

...My original post referred to Judea-Christian tradition and I was talking about culture, as well as religion - in the case of most society's the two are almost impossible to separate....

You’re probably right. But as societies change (and become more secular), laws which are based on pure Christian morals need to be looked at hard, and changed to reflect our changing society. Without such changes, we would still be stoning sinners to death and buying slaves.

[Oscar]

The freedom to believe (without persecution) ... in your choice of religious belief ... is not an excuse/allowance for the breaking of any laws of the country that your religion may allow however.

I never said it should be an excuse.

[FJRider]

And that's precisely why I have no problem with the new law. It doesn't make the slightest difference to me.

(I must have missed the sensationalism along the way - probably wan't paying attention).

With what I can gather .. it's not actually IN law yet ...

Same-sex marriages will become legal in New Zealand on 19 August 2013. A bill for the legalisation was passed by the New Zealand House of Representatives on 17 April 2013, 77 votes to 44 in its third reading and received Royal Assent on 19 April 2013, with entry into force 4 months later to allow time for the Department of Internal Affairs to make the necessary changes for marriage licensing.

[Katman]

With what I can gather .. it's not actually IN law yet ...

I'm sure there'll be action to try to disturb it.

[FJRider]

I'm sure there'll be action to try to disturb it.

And will have the same success rate ... as those attempting to prevent the placing of more WRB's around the countryside.

[FJRider]

But I think we need to differentiate between the right to an opinion, and a right to have an opinion enforced in law. As I've said, those who object on religious grounds have every right to do so. But to claim that their rights have been violated by the passage of the bill is another issue.

It's a funny thing about "Rights" ... the claiming of your rights are usually a last ditch effort to excuse your actions. Not defend them.

[Teflon]

Good for them.

[Angel_of_Metal]

Good for them.

This just made my week SO much better