I believe in gay marriage

[Madness]

How do you know that incest and beastiality won't be legal one day?

All you & your mum can do is live in hope.

[TINA RAY]

I want to marry Alison Mau and her girlfriend

I've had the girlfriend.....she was good...

..but I think I want mau.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Do you think Children should be adopted by flamboyant and openly GAY couples, should say drag queen couples have the right also to adopt children ?
Gay Rights has its limits...........end of story

Absolutely. Kids are kids, they'd get used to it.

I have been fascinated by the characterisation of people who support basic fairness for all (a traditionally Kiwi value) as gay rights activists. For one, if that cap fits, I'll proudly wear it.

[Madness]

I've had the girlfriend.....she was good...

..but I think I want mau.

Congratulations. Your first sensible post on KB. Keep it up, please.

[Road kill]

Great idea! Quasievil can be the party leader. I wonder if Road Kill will be keen to join.



I don't engage in beastiality and my genes are European so you won't get your way.

Probably agree on more than some would imagine huh.
After all KB is just a web site,not an open book.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I agree that as certain things become normal, it allows more extreme things get a foot in the door, but bestiality and inbreeding are about the only things that spring to mind as the next step from poof weddings, and that shit WILL NEVER be tolerated by society.

and for good reason. If you take as your basis the idea that two consenting adults can do whatever they want to and with each other in the privacy of their own home, you will see that it follows that informed consent is the key: beasts cannot give that consent, and neither can children.

Adult children: well, you'd have to wonder about pre age of consent issues, but in the absence of evidence of grooming, and provided there are no children, then informed adult consent: it follows that is OK, with those caveats.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I've had the girlfriend.....she was good...

Pix pls thx bye

[TINA RAY]

pix pls thx bye

ok ...........

[Swoop]

Surely the logical action here is abolish marriage! (as a legal standing, then everyone is either defacto or not, and anyone who wants to get 'married' is welcome to find a church that'll do the deed good luck with that faggots)

Marriage is only a con to generate more income for the church.
VISA and Mastercard also accepted.

[tigertim20]

I consider your response to this minor mistake as nothing more than an attempt at distraction.

You still haven't put forward any valid argument though as to why Team homo should be allowed to change the meaning of the word and institution of marriage to suit their agenda, fully knowing that it has a historical and clear meaning of a union between a man and woman and changing it will offend others. Your version of equality seems to be that it's ok for Team homo to offend team Heter but team Heter is not allowed to offend team homo.
*sigh*. I have put forward a number of argument, several of them have been ignored, presumably because they were read by people who were unable to form a legitimate counter-point. If you were to re-read my posts in this thread youll see I have provided a multitude of reasons, Im not going to span the board by reposting them
If it's just an unimportant word to you, then move on and create your own word and institution.
who said it was an unimportant word? the word stands for love, commitment, sacrifice and a promise to another person for life, the underlying meaning is obviously very important, hence why gay couples want the right to it.
I've had my say and tired of debating with people that refuse to accept that the other side deserves respect and has rights too. I'd say most heterosexuals, including myself, have been extending respect and supporting the rights of homosexuals for decades now. Shame the kindness doesn't get returned.
the kindness doesnt get returned? exactly what rights are gays preventing you from?

I was referring to a more physical approach and speaking generally. For example if one was in a bar and another man tried to kiss you or slip his hands down one's pants. Of course people will react differently as far as specifics go but I was making a point about the reality of how straight people feel which may contrast with their public views.

I have been hit on several times by gay people. Doesnt bother me, I simply inform them that I am in a relationship. Prior to being married I never even bothered to point out my sexuality, I simply said, sorry, Im in a relationship. never had a problem, never been violence or intent to violence. On several occasions the conversation has ended up dragging on for some time and a few drinks and all have had a good time.

Not at all, the point was that members here who are straight seem to be very vocal about how homosexuality is ok, which may well be and often is, in contrast to how they personally feel about it. Nothing more.

.

you talked earlier about how, in YOUR opinion, people support the theory, but would become violent if they found themselves in a situation where they were hit on by a person of the same sex. I have two responses, firstly, for me, that simply isnt true, and secondly, what evidence do you have to support such a preposterous, and clearly fictitious claim?

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.


Long live decent family values !!

decent values differ though dont they. You might not think twice about sitting on a table, but to Maorri, to do so is very very insulting and rude, your values argument is a tedious one, there is no clear set of values in life.
Im not sure if you have read the whole thread or joined for some entertainment, but if it is your intention to contribute honestkly to the debate, I strongly recommend having a read through from the first page. There has been some excellent discussion, and some thought provoking points from both sides. While I have not (and likely never will) changed my opinion, I have been brought to the realisation that some of my previous examples may not have a great deal of relevance. Perhaps you will enjoy the same benefit as i have?

So wouldn't it be easier to change the CU than the change the legal definition of the word married?

No, because you are still classifying them as different. You are creating a different term, which highlights a difference betyween them and other human beings. Do you point out that you are going to an interracial wedding? or do you simply say you are going to a wedding?

I cant believe some people think that the Government should be even making calls on our Countries Moral issues and issues like this, at least this should be a referendum, or even better the Government should keep out of it, they where not elected to make calls like this anyway.

Actually, I half agree with this point, I do not think that these types of decisions should be decided in a manner that affords someone political mileage, but the vote on this bill will not be a party by party vote, it is a conscience vote, which by my limited understanding means that each individual in govt places a vote which is secret, unless they choose to tell you how they voted, thus meanign that party lines and policies do not come into it.
These are the people that, like it or not, we elected into govt. If you voted, well you have contributed to the vote, for those that didnt vote, well theyve no right to complain!

so this is where all the gay's hang out??

welcome Honda rider!

It wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was illegal, too. So how come the majority of people support gay marriage, but not incest? I don't support either, but I just want to know why people think that same sex marriage is OK when family members engaging in sexual relations with one another is not. If both parties consent, and are both at or above the legal age of consent, then what's the difference?

incest is a whole extra argument, which has been touched on already as to how it differs, and you are right, being gay was illegal up untill 1986 in New Zealand. But have a look at the decisions of your home country surrounding rights and laws in recent history, then look me in the eye and tell me that law makes the most important distinction between right and wrong.

listen you small-minded bigoted prick. Two people signing the rest of their life with each other hardly contributes to the downturn of society!

I agree that as certain things become normal, it allows more extreme things get a foot in the door, but bestiality and inbreeding are about the only things that spring to mind as the next step from poof weddings, and that shit WILL NEVER be tolerated by society.

Ok, Ill bite!!
a few facts for you.

several states in america actually do allow beastiality, a few states go as for as to allow human-animal sexual relations to occur, ONLY if the animal is of a defined sex. furthermore, there have been several cases of people being legally wed to an animal (cats and dogs mostly, although I recall a sheep being wed to a person once too I think)

[HenryDorsetCase]

ok ...........

OP delivers!!!!

awesome!

jealous. any videos you'd like to share? For, um, science?

[Virago]

Funny thing is to note that most here and certainly the most vocal are not practising homosexuals. They will also, no doubt, deny how they personally feel about having sex with someone of their own gender.

These ones would be thus;

"Homosexuality if fine, there is nothing wrong with it!" but of course if another man tried it on with them there would be a swift and violent reaction...

Sez who? Speak for yourself.

If you're suggesting that you would react violently to an unwanted same-sex amorous advance, you may suddenly have an inkling about how others may feel about unwanted religious advances? Worth thinking about...

I was referring to a more physical approach and speaking generally. For example if one was in a bar and another man tried to kiss you or slip his hands down one's pants. Of course people will react differently as far as specifics go but I was making a point about the reality of how straight people feel which may contrast with their public views.

That's got nothing to do with homosexuality. It's sexual assault, and is likely to provoke a strong reaction - regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the parties.. What exactly is your point?

Why? Does a gay relationship get any better/stronger/deeper with the word marriage attached to it? 60% of marriages end in failure/divorce. Gays want that now too, do they? And when you say immoral, what then is moral?

Just because something occurs doesn't mean it's OK. Rape occurs but that doesn't mean it's legal, moral or natural, is it? War occurs both among men and animals, does that mean it's OK?

Is that a strong logical argument?

And divorce and cheat and lie just as straight people do...

What is it about marriage appeals again so much to gays that they want it so much? Can't be the social and moral benefits... Legal? So that they can adopt? Can divorce "like regular people"?

Would gays live longer? Love deeper? Stay faithful easier if they had the words marriage or married attached to them? I want to know...

I'm struggling to understand your point. You're suggesting that same-sex couples need to be protected from the horrors of marriage? While that is rather noble and community-minded of you, I'm sure that they would prefer the option of making that decision for themselves, despite your superior knowledge.

[Edbear]

Sez who? Speak for yourself.

If you're suggesting that you would react violently to an unwanted same-sex amorous advance, you may suddenly have an inkling about how others may feel about unwanted religious advances? Worth thinking about...



That's got nothing to do with homosexuality. It's sexual assault, and is likely to provoke a strong reaction - regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the parties.. What exactly is your point?



I'm struggling to understand your point. You're suggesting that same-sex couples need to be protected from the horrors of marriage? While that is rather noble and community-minded of you, I'm sure that they would prefer the option of making that decision for themselves, despite your superior knowledge.

I specifically stated my point in the second post you quoted which makes your post somewhat flawed. Do I really have to spell it out?

[Virago]

I specifically stated my point in the second post you quoted which makes your post somewhat flawed. Do I really have to spell it out?

Ed - try to concentrate, and do some research. Your second post suggests that a man might react adversely to a man sticking their hand down their pants? Is that somehow different to sticking their hand down a woman's pants? It's assault - of course there will likely be a strong reaction. What exactly is the connection to homosexuality?

[Madness]

Do I really have to spell it out?

Apparently.