I believe in gay marriage

[HenryDorsetCase]

The sexuality of Adolf Hitler has long been a matter of historical and scholarly debate. ...

that seems like a lot of trouble to go to to invoke Godwins Law. I'm just saying.

[HenryDorsetCase]

F Even if it were true an argument from tradition is a logical fallacy. IE if X is traditional it is better than Y..

I dunno, man. It allows Harley Davidson to sell a lot of Harley Davidsons.

[husaberg]

that seems like a lot of trouble to go to to invoke Godwins Law. I'm just saying.

Wasn't me. I just put it in context. Someone else invoked the Godwin analogy.

Mein Kampf?

What would Hitler say?

Gib es mir, großer Junge.

But to tell you the truth i think the analogy is flawed. It should now be the thread is dead when someone quotes the Godwin theory

[oldrider]

For those of you saying Civil Union and Marriage entitles the same rights...

So what?
Heterosexuals can be in a defacto relationship, civil union, or marriage and be treated the same by the state.
Homosexuals can be in a defacto relationship or civil union.

Basically giving homosexuals the rights of marriage but refusing to call it marriage is false generosity.
Here are your rights but we're uncomfortable in calling your partnership a marriage so you can be 'civil unioned'.

When you meet people do you want to say you're married, or civil unioned? Do you want to call them your wife/husband or civil partner?

For those spouting that marriage has been heterosexual for thousands of years... Even if it were true an argument from tradition is a logical fallacy. IE if X is traditional it is better than Y. You have to state reasons why it's better to keep marriage as exclusive for heterosexuals, as far as I'm concerned I haven't heard any good, rational arguments against it.

Today marriage no longer involves the binding of man with property, the brides family doesn't have to pay the groom a dowry, the soul purpose of marriage isn't children, there's no such thing as illegitimate children in our society any more. Marriage has become the binding of people who are simply in love, which I thinks great. So allow those who love eachother to marry and stop with all the anger, hate and bigotry.

When you meet people do you want to say you're married, or civil unioned? Do you want to call them your wife/husband or civil partner?

Good point actually, simple but true!

I have been thinking about this from the point of view of a person in a Civil Union and have to admit that it does sound a bit daft I.E.

My partner and I have been Civil unioned now for 48 years instead of married for 48 years!

I disagree that anyone with a contrary view should automatically be branded as full of anger, hate and bigitory, it does nothing to sell your argument either!

Actually I have learned quite a lot out of this thread despite the large proportion of emotional crap thrown around but of course that is the way of KB.

When the dust settles (and that will only happen if the bill is passed) I will be interested to see just what harm/benefit it does (if any) to the "status quo"!

True! Marriage of today can not really be compared to marriage of yesterday, it is indeed a completely different beast and has changed considerably even in the last 20 years.

My feeling is (as previously stated) that the politicians will pass the bill anyway.

[HenryDorsetCase]

most marriages could best be described as "uncivil unions" couldnt they?

[Drew]

most marriages could best be described as "uncivil unions" couldnt they?

Yip, gender doesn't come into that.

[Road kill]

most marriages could best be described as "uncivil unions" couldnt they?

How do you work that out ?

[Drew]

How do you work that out ?

Read what he said a couple times, and try not over think it.

[oldrider]

most marriages could best be described as "uncivil unions" couldnt they?

Unfortunately that is probably true these days, so why do those that don't have it want it so much? I'm still a bit confused by that!

[mashman]

Unfortunately that is probably true these days, so why do those that don't have it want it so much? I'm still a bit confused by that!

Are you saying that people get married just so that they can get a divorce?

[Winston001]

For those of you saying Civil Union and Marriage entitles the same rights...

So what?


Basically giving homosexuals the rights of marriage but refusing to call it marriage is false generosity.
Here are your rights but we're uncomfortable in calling your partnership a marriage so you can be 'civil unioned'.


For those spouting that marriage has been heterosexual for thousands of years... Even if it were true an argument from tradition is a logical fallacy.

You make good points.

In New Zealand the concept of marriage has become very blurred with civil union and de facto couples having almost exactly the same rights and obligations. So why not abolish marriage as a legal concept altogether? Clearly it serves no useful purpose any more.

Lets just have civil unions for everyone and de facto for those who want to live with their nieces...

[husaberg]

For those of you saying Civil Union and Marriage entitles the same rights...

So what?
Heterosexuals can be in a defacto relationship, civil union, or marriage and be treated the same by the state.
Homosexuals can be in a defacto relationship or civil union.

Basically giving homosexuals the rights of marriage but refusing to call it marriage is false generosity.
Here are your rights but we're uncomfortable in calling your partnership a marriage so you can be 'civil unioned'.

When you meet people do you want to say you're married, or civil unioned? Do you want to call them your wife/husband or civil partner?

For those spouting that marriage has been heterosexual for thousands of years... Even if it were true an argument from tradition is a logical fallacy. IE if X is traditional it is better than Y. You have to state reasons why it's better to keep marriage as exclusive for heterosexuals, as far as I'm concerned I haven't heard any good, rational arguments against it.

You make good points.

In New Zealand the concept of marriage has become very blurred with civil union and de facto couples having almost exactly the same rights and obligations. So why not abolish marriage as a legal concept altogether? Clearly it serves no useful purpose any more.

Mmm.... food for thought some great points but....


You argue against tradition but yet somehow say it time to change the rules so more people can become part of one of histories longer lived ones. Marriage.
So whats up with that.
If traditions are so bad why do people what to be part of them.

As i have said before on the whole i have no problem with it, but its the use of the word. The changes meaning that this entails so maybe i am just a dinosaur.

[superman]

Mmm.... food for thought some great points but....


You argue against tradition but yet somehow say it time to change the rules so more people can become part of one of histories longer lived ones. Marriage.

It was a long lived institution for select families to run empires and countries. The name of equality has tried to give split power to all people within a country, extending this institution of voting to women despite it being 'non-traditional' does not ruin the tradition of running a country despite voting having always been carried out by males. The institution of voting was also not diminished when it was extended from male land owners to all males.

No doubt it was diminished in socially conservative eyes... but I don't see it as workable to think of anything as rigid in human culture.

[husaberg]

It was a long lived institution for select families to run empires and countries. The name of equality has tried to give split power to all people within a country, extending this institution of voting to women despite it being 'non-traditional' does not ruin the tradition of running a country despite voting having always been carried out by males. The institution of voting was also not diminished when it was extended from male land owners to all males.

No doubt it was diminished in socially conservative eyes... but I don't see it as workable to think of anything as rigid in human culture.

Neither do i but do you see where i are coming from. I can honstly say that the i don't think the use of the word Marriage to be socially unjust like the examples you have presented. That's my opinion and i accept other peoples will vary greatly from this.

A question, at the end of a civil union ceremony. What do they declare the participants. I can honestly say I have no idea?

Are they not husband and wife , husband and husband,wife and wife for each individual situation or are they solely declared partners?

Ie the terms Husband and the term Wife exclusive only to marriage?

[superman]

Neither do i but do you see where i are coming from.

A question at the end of of a civil union ceremony what do they declare the participants i can honestly say i don't know?

Re they not husband and wife , husband and husband,wife and wife for each individual situation or are they solely declared partners?
Ie the terms Husband and the term Wife exclusive only to marriage?

"The legal requirements are:

• The marriage must be performed in the presence of a Registered Marriage or Civil Union Celebrant or Registrar of Marriages at one of the places specified on the marriage licence.
• The full legal names of both parties to the marriage must be stated somewhere in the ceremony.
• The marriage must be performed in the presence of at least two witnesses; and
• During the ceremony, and before at least two witnesses, each party must say the words "I AB take you CD, to be my legal wife/husband" or words to similar effect.
• Both parties, witnesses and Marriage Celebrant/Registrar sign the registration forms"

'words to similar effect' is very vague...