I believe in gay marriage

[blairnz]

Of course gay marriage should be legal. It's immoral that it can't be. Through-out civilisations and through-out nature it is occuring. They should be able to marry, adopt, and do the same daft stuff straight people can do.

[Edbear]

[QUOTE=Quasievil;1130377917]Marriage is not a civil contract it is a union in the eyes of the church, the politicizing of Marriage is new to the modern era

Gays dont and should get the right to marrige as it belittles those that are married, marrige is and always should be a union between a man and a woman................end of story!!
Why do Gays need marriage? they have civil union for fucks sake, the world has gone mad, whats the POINT ???

Whats next marry your Mother, your sister, I mean why not with your rationals ?

You plonkers would subscribe to this !!

<[QUOTE]

You are right mostly. Marriage was, while not exclusively a religious act, more of society, and often varying according to the race or nation's views.

In more recent times it became desirable for many nations to have the marriage legally recognised in order to provide protections for the parties in the relationship. So it became law to have the union legally registered and thereby come under legal protections.

With the increase in many foregoing marriage and legal registration primarily to get out of the legal requirements, countries such as NZ have widened the law to include those in a de-facto relationship for two years or more. So as was the case where men could avoid sharing their property with their common-law wife, they now had to do so.

This change caused some consternation when many men broke off their relationship just prior to the two, (originally three), years being up and along with that an increase in pre-nuptual agreements. For a while it was very messy.

[Quasievil]

Please advise specifically how allowing same sex couples to marry "belittles those who are married".

Sure, why should a couple who choose to be married (a man and a woman) have there rights shared with a man and another man who choose to stick their penises up each others bums ? the sanctity of marriage will be tarnished with this, homos are weird, homos are not natural, why should they enjoy the benefit of Marriage what advantage would they get from it? merely to say that they are being discriminated against is not an argument and wont stop the discrimination as it will always continue, a Male sticking his penis up another mans bum will always be grounds for discrimination as its not natural!!!!!!

Can you please tell me why a Brother should not marry his Sister ??

[mashman]

Can you please tell me why a Brother should not marry his Sister ??

Because you aren't a great example of the resulting offspring... marriage would just encourage it.

[HenryDorsetCase]

You are right mostly. Marriage was, while not exclusively a religious act, more of society, and often varying according to the race or nation's views.

In more recent times it became desirable for many nations to have the marriage legally recognised in order to provide protections for the parties in the relationship. So it became law to have the union legally registered and thereby come under legal protections.

With the increase in many foregoing marriage and legal registration primarily to get out of the legal requirements, countries such as NZ have widened the law to include those in a de-facto relationship for two years or more. So as was the case where men could avoid sharing their property with their common-law wife, they now had to do so.

This change caused some consternation when many men broke off their relationship just prior to the two, (originally three), years being up and along with that an increase in pre-nuptual agreements. For a while it was very messy.

It is still three. It has never been other than three. It was three before the law was changed and the MPA76 only applied to married couples. It is three now that the provisions around relationship property have been widened to include those in "de facto" relationships. Trust me on this, its my job to know. If you are in a de facto relationship with someone for less than three years it is by definition a "relationship of short duration" and the practical consequence of that is it is EASIER (but by no means certain) that if your relationship ends that you will exit with what you put in. After three years the statutory presumption is that all assets are part of the relationship property pool and that at the end of the relationship the pool is split equally, no matter who introduced what asset to the pool. There are circumstances in which a disparate share can be awarded, and some interesting caselaw around just what cunts people can be to people they previously were in a relationship with. In my experience the level of vitriol doesnt change according to whether people wer married or de facto. I've done a few same-sex ones as well: no difference. In fact they were among the more civilised ones.


There are no statistics I have seen which support your position that people "broke off their relatiohsip just prior to the [sic] two years being up"

By the way you do realise that this: "Forego marriage .... primarily to get out the legal requirements" is a tautology?

[Quasievil]

Because you aren't a great example of the resulting offspring... marriage would just encourage it.

Not really an answer, more of a side step

[HenryDorsetCase]

Sure, why should a couple who choose to be married (a man and a woman) have there rights shared with a man and another man who choose to stick their penises up each others bums ? the sanctity of marriage will be tarnished with this, homos are weird, homos are not natural, why should they enjoy the benefit of Marriage what advantage would they get from it? merely to say that they are being discriminated against is not an argument and wont stop the discrimination as it will always continue, a Male sticking his penis up another mans bum will always be grounds for discrimination as its not natural!!!!!!

Can you please tell me why a Brother should not marry his Sister ??

apart from Mr Mashman's answer (which is hilarious, and presumably, on point) the obvious answer is that close relatives should not marry because the risk of hamful genetic mutation is increased. That risk does not exist with a same sex couple.

As long as they are consenting adults, as long as they dont do it in the street, as long as they dont try and force themselves on anyone, who are you to tell anyone what to do, how to act? It is disgusting.

Why are you fixated on anal sex? To descend to the level this "debate" is at, one presumes you've tried it and didnt like it, thus qualifying you to comment?

[Quasievil]

Why are you fixated on anal sex? To descend to the level this "debate" is at, one presumes you've tried it and didnt like it, thus qualifying you to comment?

Yeah I gave one to Drew (which makes him Gay btw) it was ok, but I wasnt his first so he is a bit ............mmmm shall we say expansive down there

[Edbear]

It is still three. It has never been other than three. It was three before the law was changed and the MPA76 only applied to married couples. It is three now that the provisions around relationship property have been widened to include those in "de facto" relationships. Trust me on this, its my job to know. If you are in a de facto relationship with someone for less than three years it is by definition a "relationship of short duration" and the practical consequence of that is it is EASIER (but by no means certain) that if your relationship ends that you will exit with what you put in. After three years the statutory presumption is that all assets are part of the relationship property pool and that at the end of the relationship the pool is split equally, no matter who introduced what asset to the pool. There are circumstances in which a disparate share can be awarded, and some interesting caselaw around just what cunts people can be to people they previously were in a relationship with. In my experience the level of vitriol doesnt change according to whether people wer married or de facto. I've done a few same-sex ones as well: no difference. In fact they were among the more civilised ones.


There are no statistics I have seen which support your position that people "broke off their relatiohsip just prior to the [sic] two years being up"

By the way you do realise that this: "Forego marriage .... primarily to get out the legal requirements" is a tautology?

I accept your knowledge of it. I am not sure why I thought it had ben reduced to two.

More anecdotal evidence from talk at the time about breaking off relationships. I have not seen any confirmed specs about this as it would not really have been openly admitted to.

Tautology has a couple of meanings but again it was anecdotal, not "official." Actually not a lot that went on was official back in the day...

Sure, why should a couple who choose to be married (a man and a woman) have there rights shared with a man and another man who choose to stick their penises up each others bums ? the sanctity of marriage will be tarnished with this, homos are weird, homos are not natural, why should they enjoy the benefit of Marriage what advantage would they get from it? merely to say that they are being discriminated against is not an argument and wont stop the discrimination as it will always continue, a Male sticking his penis up another mans bum will always be grounds for discrimination as its not natural!!!!!!

Can you please tell me why a Brother should not marry his Sister ??

Too dangerous physically with too much that could go wrong genetically.

[Quasievil]

apart from Mr Mashman's answer (which is hilarious, and presumably, on point) the obvious answer is that close relatives should not marry because the risk of hamful genetic mutation is increased. That risk does not exist with a same sex couple.

Hang on thats Discriminatory !!! you cant discriminate against people purely because of this, thats not acceptable at all !!!

[Quasievil]

Too dangerous physically with too much that could go wrong genetically.

Again youre discriminating against these people, if they love each other why cant they be married ?

[HenryDorsetCase]

I accept your knowledge of it. I am not sure why I thought it had ben reduced to two.

Its a common misconception, and I understand it traces back to a New Zealand Womens Weekly article in 1975 or 1976 discussing the introduction of the Matrimonial Property Act 1976 and the changes from teh Matrimonial Property Act 1963 (I think it was). If I remember what I read properly, the select committee had referred to a two year window, which was widely discussed at the time: but the legislation as passed had the three year timescale. But the NZWW published two, and it took root, and its still a very commonly held misconception. I think the paper I read on it was in a Lor journal or one of the books on it (which we lost in the EQ so I cant even give a proper reference)

Meaning of relationship of short duration (s2E Property (Relationships) Act 1976)

(1) In this Act, relationship of short duration means,—

(a) in relation to a marriage, a marriage in which the husband and wife have lived together as husband and wife—

(i) for a period of less than 3 years; or

(ii) for a period of 3 years or longer, if the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the marriage, considers it just to treat the marriage as a relationship of short duration:

(ab) in relation to a civil union, a civil union in which the civil union partners have lived together as civil union partners—

(i) for a period of less than 3 years; or

(ii) for a period of 3 years or longer, if the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the civil union, considers it just to treat the civil union as a relationship of short duration:

(b) in relation to a de facto relationship, a de facto relationship in which the de facto partners have lived together as de facto partners—

(i) for a period of less than 3 years; or

(ii) for a period of 3 years or longer, if the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the de facto relationship, considers it just to treat the de facto relationship as a relationship of short duration.

(2) For the purposes of paragraphs (a)(i), (ab)(i), and (b)(i) of subsection (1), in computing the period for which the parties have lived together as husband and wife, civil union partners, or as de facto partners, the court may exclude a period of resumed cohabitation that has the motive of reconciliation and is no longer than 3 months.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Again youre discriminating against these people, if they love each other why cant they be married ?

see, we agree.

[Quasievil]

So I take it from your lack of answers that you have no response, other than a discriminatory one. Its clear to me in that case that the concept of Gays being permitted to Marry is ok purely for the reason that it is currently fashionable to allow it, rather than accepting the fact that its simply not required.

I hereby declare that the "Nos" have it and have won this argument. Gays should not get the right to marry, they have all they need already.

Long live decent family values !!

[Edbear]

Again youre discriminating against these people, if they love each other why cant they be married ?

Ah, I think I see your point, is that a worry...?

Its a common misconception, and I understand it traces back to a New Zealand Womens Weekly article in 1975 or 1976 discussing the introduction of the Matrimonial Property Act 1976 and the changes from teh Matrimonial Property Act 1963 (I think it was). If I remember what I read properly, the select committee had referred to a two year window, which was widely discussed at the time: but the legislation as passed had the three year timescale. But the NZWW published two, and it took root, and its still a very commonly held misconception. I think the paper I read on it was in a Lor journal or one of the books on it (which we lost in the EQ so I cant even give a proper reference)

Okay, quite probably. It was a long time ago and my recent memory is about as water tight as a seive.