113 replies to this topic

[GraphicX]

well this is a contentious issue that's once again in the media spotlight now New Zealand has approved/legalised/recognised/allowed it.

what's your view on 2 dudes or 2 chicks becoming married ?

IMO: marriage is quite a simple thing, it's a union between a man & a woman.  that's the actual meaning of the word, to 'legalise' it you actually need to change the definition of the word, which to me, should be beyond the power of a government etc.

i'm not against gay people or anything.  i believe a true gay couple should receive the same legal rights/tax benefits etc of a legally married couple.  but to be married, as in actually married, that's something for a man & woman.

i am reluctant, i guess against, a gay couple adopting & raising children.  i'm strongly for a parent who has a child, who then enters into a gay relationship to raise their child (that's their god given right !).  but for a gay couple to seek & adopt a child i'm not in favor of.

i'm also not in favor of how the media is portraying the whole issue.  it presents it to the public as a natural progression, as though it's inevitable & that countries that have not made the change are behind the times.  almost as if countries without running water & a medicare system aren't up to speed.

so what's your take on all this ?

[KILL_DEM_ALL]

This song says what I think about it.

[Aromaci]

Allow it.

The definition of Marriage has always been changing. And who's definition? Religion's? Which religion? My God or your God? Who's God is the 'right' God? That's why we don't legislate based on Religious believe. It's not how it's done in the West. If we did that, interracial couples still couldn't marry (and slavery would be legal.)

Religion didn't 'invent' marriage.

If people want to get married it should be their right, everyone else can mind their own business. If they want to be legally recognised by the government as a couple and have the rights that come with it, OK, have at it.

[GraphicX]

does anyone know what legal rights they'd be entitled to, that they don't already receive under 'civil union' ?

[Aromaci]

GraphicX, on 19 April 2013 - 04:10 AM, said:

does anyone know what legal rights they'd be entitled to, that they don't already receive under 'civil union' ?

Civil Unions have different meanings in different places and can be confusing to many/places such as hospitals etc.

Plus calling it 'Civil Union' as apposed to Marriage suggests a 'Separate but equal' mentality.

[GraphicX]

but from a legal standpoint, civil union would have to have a definitive meaning, same as marriage does.  i was just curious as to what the differences may be between the two (it'd be similar to a defacto relationship or similar i'm guessing, but really don't know).

[straussy240]

Allow it

Society progress all the time - its not a media conspiracy or anything. I mean look at the USA decades ago when being an African american practically meant you did not have equal rights to white people. Nowadays its thing of the past (for most people)

I think it will be similar when in regards to gay/lesbian rights. A few decades from now or more we will look back and say look how things have changed and for the better because it is never right for one group of people to say it is not allowed to be who you are and show that by marrying their partner

[straussy240]

GraphicX, on 19 April 2013 - 04:24 AM, said:

but from a legal standpoint, civil union would have to have a definitive meaning, same as marriage does.  i was just curious as to what the differences may be between the two (it'd be similar to a defacto relationship or similar i'm guessing, but really don't know).

I don't know, but I bet if you use a separate definition then it will lead to legal loop holes that people will use to potential discriminate against people in a civil union. If both straight and gay couples are both married it is hard to discriminate them in the eyes of the law I would imagine

[Aromaci]

GraphicX, on 19 April 2013 - 04:24 AM, said:

but from a legal standpoint, civil union would have to have a definitive meaning, same as marriage does.

True but it's different everywhere you go and that's part of the problem. Plus Civil Unions and De Factos don't usually have legal standing outside of the state or country it was issued in, marriage does.

[Toddy]

I'm stoked the definition of marriage amendment bill passed in NZ.  Words evolve all the time and it's a shame it has taken so long in NZ.  

The biggest change for gay people in NZ is they will now have equal rights in adoption laws.  

[GasClown]

Allow it - people are 'usually' born gay - it's not a choice. I know gays, worked with them and also grew up with two gay (brothers) living right next door throughout my childhood (the third/eldest was straight). I can't stand to think of two men together - but they are all great people, some were full blown and some you wouldn't even know they were gay unless they told you.

[Axe99]

Big complicated issue here - quick response is allow it, but have some random thoughts, in no particular order, for larks :

• My general rule of thumb on pretty much anything is that if it's not hurting anyone else, then let it roll.  So by all means get married, that hardly hurts anyone.  Adoption is more complicated, because you've got to keep the rights of the child in mind, but given the large incidence of single-parenthood in Australia (and I'm guessing there's a fair bit of it in NZ, but correct me if I'm wrong Kiwis), then in most cases I'd say having two same-sex parents would be better than just having one parent.  However, there's likely to be a social stigma attached to having same sex parents for a while, while social values slowly shift, and that could affect the child.  On balance, I'd say go let it happen, but I'd like parents/school to make an effort to make sure the adopted kid doesn't cop it at school and so on.

• Marriage is a social institution - it's something we, as humans, made up.  It predates organised religion as well, although depending on your (the "your" here is a very general one) beliefs, just because it predated the organisation of religion doesn't mean it predates God's/the Gods influence on it (so, depending on your point of view, we may have made it up while being guided divinely). If we're coming from a position of atheism or agnosticism, then the definition of the word is neither here nor there, that stuff changes all the time, don't worry about it. If we're coming from a religious position, it gets more complicated, but my personal view is that when it comes to setting social rules, we should be as broad as possible, given the huge range of social beliefs available.  There's nothing stopping gay people from a religion that frowns upon same-sex marriage not getting married, so allowing it doesn't compromise anyone's religious behaviour. Plus, Australia is a secular State - there's a separation of State and Religion - so we really shouldn't be legislating in line with particular religious beliefs.

• "almost as if countries without running water & a medicare system aren't up to speed." I'd argue that countries without running water and an organised health system aren't up to speed .  Obviously, gets more complex and ideological when talking about particular nature of that health system, but running water is a pretty reliable sign of progress.  I hear they even have it in Tasmania now .

[Jykel]

The ancient celtic/wiccan rituals of handfasting (engagement) & subsequent ring binding were pre-medieval, and adopted by faction of early Catholism in Britain.  

So we are talking about an old Celtic/Pagan ritual anyway, in which part of the contract was the act of sexual intercourse, and a strict year and a day handfasting (engagement).  Even back then, the ritual differed between different celts and gaelic communities.  Pagan were not as strict, so the rules were not so hard and fast (some Gaelic cultures having 10 degrees of marriage type). Polygamy was widespread,  and homosexual unions occurred, but were not considered marriage (as marriage back then was focused on the protection and rights for children, and they could not bare any).  (it wasnt a good life for children not bound to parents back then, and family lines and inheritance were very very important.)  

So the definition, ritual & customs obviously change with the times, vary between cultures, etc.  Each generation will refine it, like our current generation is doing.

I expect in another generation or three it will change again when someone wants to marry a cyber-organism

Change is inevitable, roll with it

[KILL_DEM_ALL]

I'm not gay and I don't know any gay people and I don't see anything wrong with homosexual couples adopting children.

Social wise - yeah the child/children will get bullied but kids get bullied anyway.

As for parents, it doesn't matter how many parents you have, it all depends on how they are with children etc. They deserve the chance at parenthood.

[Okeefeiscrazy]

Allow it

I don't think I need to say anything as most of you have already covered a good chunk of it.

But honestly why not, there is no problem there.

[Saintsy]

Pretty much what okee said.
Give one actual good reason (none religious reason might i add) why this shouldnt happen? I've got many gay/lesbian friends so i'm all for this for them.

GraphicX, on 19 April 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:

but for a gay couple to seek & adopt a child i'm not in favor of.

Can i ask why?

[ati]

Im in NZ and glad for it to happened but sadly imo its an on going issue like racism etc... My close friend is gay but this bill will not help her coming out any easier(coming from religious family etc).
As for mum and dad issue my mum raised me up all by herself..I would like to think that two loving parents is better than none!

[Dragonmyballs]

Allow it and allow them to adopt a child if they so seek to I know a few gay&lesbian couples and there some of the happiest people I know.
When it come to rising a child as long as they have the desire to love cherish them above all else thats all that is needed I would rather see a gay&lesbian couple adopt a child after months if not years of planning than a couple who go out and do it on a whim and have no love for that child as one of my close friends went though

[Okeefeiscrazy]

Dragonmyballs, on 19 April 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

Allow it and allow them to adopt a child if they so seek to I know a few gay&lesbian couples and there some of the happiest people I know.
When it come to rising a child as long as they have the desire to love cherish them above all else thats all that is needed I would rather see a gay&lesbian couple adopt a child after months if not years of planning than a couple who go out and do it on a whim and have no love for that child as one of my close friends went though

Dragon has a heart?

[Dragonmyballs]

Okeefeiscrazy, on 19 April 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

Dragon has a heart?

yeah its a transplant