Gay Marriage - why?

[drelly]

Not really, if you can't walk into the men's toilet because you're a woman are you being discriminated against? Not really because female toilets are also provided.

Is that really the best you can do? I raised quite a few points in response to your views and you respond with a toilet analogy???

[McDuck]

Is that really the best you can do? I raised quite a few points in response to your views and you respond with a toilet analogy???

Just watching the parliamentary proceedings around the topic. Seems an abuse of position, pushing a private agenda instead of doing your job. If she wants to marry her girlfriend, why do I have to hear about it? Should that nonsense really be at our expense? So your given the privilege of being in parliament and that’s what you come up with?

[drelly]

Just watching the parliamentary proceedings around the topic. Seems an abuse of position, pushing a private agenda instead of doing your job. If she wants to marry her girlfriend, why do I have to hear about it? Should that nonsense really be at our expense? So your given the privilege of being in parliament and that’s what you come up with?

Being involved in a social issue doesn't make it an agenda.

[firsttimecaller]

Is that really the best you can do? I raised quite a few points in response to your views and you respond with a toilet analogy???

HAHA, don't knock the toilet analogy, it's pretty much what my entire argument is about.

I appreciate your lengthy reply, I raised this issue not because I have strong feelings about it, but because I am curious. Should the bill get passed, then so be it. I fully support gay people being granted the same rights as heterosexuals. My argument was more about semantics and classifications.

I did spend time writing a reply but deleted it all, it's not an easy subject to broach without sounding like a bigot. There are only two issues I still don't have a valid answer for. One is along the same lines McDuck - why are we back here again, talking about this in parliament? Why was the Civil Union Act acceptable before, but it no longer is now? Many gay people have had Civil Unions - if the Act was not up to scratch then why did Gay people accept it and participate in it? They should have held their ground and said no, this is not good enough - we deserve the same rights as married couples. What happens to Civil Unions when the Marriage Act is modified to allow same-sex marriages?
What would be wrong with continuing to beat down the path of Civil Unions to make them more in line with marriages?

Secondly, just like males and females are different, so would be homosexual and heterosexual couples. Does everything need to come under the same umbrella? In traditional marriages where children are involved, if a couple gets divorced often the rights over the children default to the mother. What happens when you have two mother's or two father's?

If a homosexual couple migrate to another country, will their relationship status be recognised? If not then it is already in a different category to heterosexual marriage. It will not be universal, it will be something that applies only to New Zealand.

[firsttimecaller]

Btw, if I don't give you a satisfactory reply after you next pick apart my argument, it's because my other half is giving me a hard time about spending so much time on the internet about this topic. If you satisfactorily answer all my questions I won't have any need to argue with you!

[Moses Opondo]

What is there in a name.Probably the religious folk should abandon the name marriage and start something new and even patent it if possible.

[drelly]

... it's not an easy subject to broach without sounding like a bigot.

That's probably because the only possible argument anyone could have against it is because they're bigotted!

... why are we back here again, talking about this in parliament?

Because it's pretty lame that we still have laws in effect because of religious dogma.

... if the Act was not up to scratch then why did Gay people accept it and participate in it? They should have held their ground and said no, this is not good enough - we deserve the same rights as married couples.

Because it was a first step that led to equal rights now.

What would be wrong with continuing to beat down the path of Civil Unions to make them more in line with marriages?

Nothing wrong in the same way that there is nothing wrong with a drinking fountain that says "Blacks Only". It's not the fountain that is the problem.

Does everything need to come under the same umbrella? In traditional marriages where children are involved, if a couple gets divorced often the rights over the children default to the mother. What happens when you have two mother's or two father's?

Don't know but that's detail for the bureaucrats.

If a homosexual couple migrate to another country, will their relationship status be recognised? If not then it is already in a different category to heterosexual marriage. It will not be universal, it will be something that applies only to New Zealand.

If they went to Iran, they'd probably be beheaded... so there's your answer right there.

[McDuck]

As a compromise, perhaps we could write the word marriage with the quote marks when it’s a gay union…like, they are “married”…

And when it’s said on the news the announcer could use the air quotes hand signals to indicate a gay union.

Or we could simply rename all heterosexual marriages as “civil unions” instead.

Now I’ve just become resentful that some politician is wasting government time trying to impress their girlfriend… by mucking around with definitions. Manipulation, bullying and social engineering are a sour spoonful, no matter what lobby group tries to shove their lifestyle it in your face.

[drelly]

As a compromise, perhaps we could write the word marriage with the quote marks when it’s a gay union…like, they are “married”…

You could do that with lots of marriages Remember that marriage is not a christian invention. I don't think it is social engineering. More like social evolution. Calling it a "lifestyle" is a bit patronising. It's as much a "lifestyle" as being straight is to you... I assume. It's not a choice. And as for shoving it in faces.... when was the last time a homosexual knocked on your door and handed you some "literature". When was the last time you turned on the TV on a Sunday morning and were bombarded with people preaching a gay lifestyle? Gays don't "Evangelise". See... now that is how you use "quotes".

[speights boy]

Now I’ve just become resentful that some politician is wasting government time trying to impress their girlfriend…

It appears, by the results of the vote on the second reading of this bill, that the majority of Parliamentarians do not share your resentment.

[McDuck]

You could do that with lots of marriages Remember that marriage is not a christian invention. I don't think it is social engineering. More like social evolution. Calling it a "lifestyle" is a bit patronising. It's as much a "lifestyle" as being straight is to you... I assume. It's not a choice. And as for shoving it in faces.... when was the last time a homosexual knocked on your door and handed you some "literature". When was the last time you turned on the TV on a Sunday morning and were bombarded with people preaching a gay lifestyle? Gays don't "Evangelise". See... now that is how you use "quotes".

Lol, yes most People see it as an argument between the church and the occupants of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Personally for me, it’s an argument between a minority and practicality.

The general schemata of the universe has fitted homosexuals with parts and minds a bit out of kilter with the norms of social convention (and more importantly the longer reaching and more powerful general evolutionary convention).


Do I want them to feel marginalised? no. Do I want the whole system to be thwarted to fit the irregular?…. absolutely not.

I remember being similarly entertained by the young lady who refused to spell women with an “e” and insisted instead on the nomenclature “Wommin”. The reasoning being that women was a contraction of the words “womb” and “men”… a man with a womb.
As a “min” I found that interesting but impractical.

[McDuck]

It appears, by the results of the vote on the second reading of this bill, that the majority of Parliamentarians do not share your resentment.

Lol. It’s a funny old group.
You do what you have to do to make a deal
Is the makeup of that group representative of the rest of new Zealand?
I wonder sometimes. What I suspect strongly is that it started out as such, but over time the members become more and more isolated by from the general population and a new, out of kilter, micro world view is created.
It’s probably the second strongest mechanism in the corruption of those with power.

[drelly]

Lol, yes most People see it as an argument between the church and the occupants of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Personally for me, it’s an argument between a minority and practicality.

The general schemata of the universe has fitted homosexuals with parts and minds a bit out of kilter with the norms of social convention (and more importantly the longer reaching and more powerful general evolutionary convention).


Do I want them to feel marginalised? no. Do I want the whole system to be thwarted to fit the irregular?…. absolutely not.

I remember being similarly entertained by the young lady who refused to spell women with an “e” and insisted instead on the nomenclature “Wommin”. The reasoning being that women was a contraction of the words “womb” and “men”… a man with a womb.
As a “min” I found that interesting but impractical.

Ok, a few questions for you then...

1. Minority and practicality. What is impractical about allowing gays to marry?
2. "Social convention" is flexible. The "schemata of the universe" is FAR more varied when it comes to sexuality than we are. Some animals change sex, have sex with themselves and reverse reproductive roles. Don't you think?
3. What system is being "thwarted"? Disabled people are "irregular". What would you do with them?

[McDuck]

Ok, a few questions for you then...

1. Minority and practicality. What is impractical about allowing gays to marry?
2. "Social convention" is flexible. The "schemata of the universe" is FAR more varied when it comes to sexuality than we are. Some animals change sex, have sex with themselves and reverse reproductive roles. Don't you think?
3. What system is being "thwarted"? Disabled people are "irregular". What would you do with them?

Indeed, who knows the full knock on cultural effects of fiddling with our core institutions.
Even though only a few thousand years old, our social conventions are extremely complicated and interconnected. (Don’t forget that even economics is just one of many global social conventions).
My suspicion is that the closer to the core structure you play, the wider the social effect. I’m guessing that the butterfly effect will be demonstrated in certain cases.

[firsttimecaller]

The general schemata of the universe has fitted homosexuals with parts and minds a bit out of kilter with the norms of social convention (and more importantly the longer reaching and more powerful general evolutionary convention).
Do I want them to feel marginalised? no. Do I want the whole system to be thwarted to fit the irregular?…. absolutely not.

I like the way you write McDuck, and that's not just because you're the only person on my side.

Don't you think it's weird that many of the arguments have been comparing the discrimination of homosexual relationships to discriminating against people of a different race/colour yet we have a government who is happy to have a party dedicated to a particular race but not happy with having homosexuals allocated their own laws to govern their unique relationships?