• Login:
Welcome, Register Here
follow PropertyTalk on facebook follow PropertyTalk on twitter Newsletter follow PropertyTalk on LinkedIn follow PropertyTalk on facebook
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 114
  1. #21

    Default

    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.
    Homes For Sale in USA I | Home Loans I | Home Renovation Tips

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Whangarei
    Posts
    5,867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firsttimecaller View Post
    ... 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!

    Quote Originally Posted by firsttimecaller View Post
    ... 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by firsttimecaller View Post
    ... 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by firsttimecaller View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by firsttimecaller View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by firsttimecaller View Post
    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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,701

    Default

    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.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Whangarei
    Posts
    5,867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McDuck View Post
    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".

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McDuck View Post
    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.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drelly View Post
    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.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by speights boy View Post
    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.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Whangarei
    Posts
    5,867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McDuck View Post
    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?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drelly View Post
    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.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McDuck View Post
    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?


 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. DATING & MARRIAGE (written by kids)...
    By Josko in forum Forum Funnies
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-10-2010, 02:27 AM
  2. Joint tenant wanting "out" : coz marriage ends?
    By Scare_Rab in forum Tenant Stuff (NZ)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 14-09-2009, 11:56 AM
  3. On marriage...
    By Josko in forum Forum Funnies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17-10-2008, 10:13 AM
  4. Aaahh! Marriage - that most revered state!
    By Josko in forum Forum Funnies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 09:10 AM
  5. The Ten Commandments of Marriage
    By Scarface in forum Forum Funnies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-05-2006, 02:31 PM
  6. Marriage
    By muppet in forum Forum Funnies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 24-02-2004, 11:10 PM
  7. Milk, Marriage and Pigs.
    By muppet in forum Forum Funnies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19-02-2004, 10:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •