Get Some
General => General Chat => Intellectual Discussion => Topic started by: Tandoori on August 28, 2012, 11:04:40 pm
-
(http://gyazo.com/4a135b417bd8ac37bdfc829f80771593)
I mean if Banksy is even coming out in support of the bill (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10830040), then I think this may go the full course.
From a personal standpoint, I find it a pretty damn compelling argument by the proponents of Louisa Wall's bill. I am yet to find anything that is nearly as substantial in the claims of those who would oppose it.
-
I don't understand why anyone would want to get married.
-
I don't understand why anyone would want to get married.
For the presents, you get loads of present when you get married.
Then you got to sell em all to pay for the wedding.
-
or lose half of them in the divorce
-
I don't understand why anyone would want to get married.
I'll let you know in 4 months
kk
-
Awesome feed and open bar :D
Just have to forget you're the one paying for it.
-
Awesome feed and open bar :D
Just have to forget you're the one paying for it.
That's why there's an open Bar ;)
-
The last public poll I saw showed NZ still sitting at roughly 54-55% against gay marriage.
I thought we were a little more open minded than that.
-
The last public poll I saw showed NZ still sitting at roughly 54-55% against gay marriage.
I thought we were a little more open minded than that.
Luckly these decisions are in the hands of our politicians, and not in the hands of the New Zealand public.
-
The last public poll I saw showed NZ still sitting at roughly 54-55% against gay marriage.
I thought we were a little more open minded than that.
I thought it was 60-something in favour, and of that, the youth generation (under 30?) was 90% in favour.
Also http://www.familyfirst.co.nz/
-
Is it that important, Just another off topic bill for the public to take their mind away from other more important issues.
Put it through it makes no difference whatsoever, just rename civil union to marriage.
-
Is it that important, Just another off topic bill for the public to take their mind away from other more important issues.
Put it through it makes no difference whatsoever, just rename civil union to marriage.
(http://iforce.co.nz/i/bh12bqnt.nnb.jpg)
-
Is it that important, Just another off topic bill for the public to take their mind away from other more important issues.
Put it through it makes no difference whatsoever, just rename civil union to marriage.
I think it's a very important step that needs to be taken, with regards to adopting kids. At the moment a civil union can't do a joint adoption.
It'll be awesome 10 years from now, we'll have kids growing up with parents in a same-sex realationship, and all the other kids at school will be totaly OK with that.
-
I think it's a very important step that needs to be taken, with regards to adopting kids. At the moment a civil union can't do a joint adoption.
It'll be awesome 10 years from now, we'll have kids growing up with parents in a same-sex relationships, and all the other kids at school will be totally OK with that.
Will they? hardly a valid point (the kids part).
Ok so that's something that should of been written into the civil union bill as well, I'm not against gay marriage at all, personally don't care about marriage, I just don't think we should be wasting so much time around it, why did the government bother with civil union if that wasn't good enough, just more wasted tax payers money on another pointless exercises. For all I care sign the fucking thing, and lets get on with getting this country out of debt.
Re your the only one going full retard mate.
-
No time or money is being wasted.
-
Ok so that's something that should of been written into the civil union bill as well, I'm not against gay marriage at all, personally don't care about marriage, I just don't think we should be wasting so much time around it, why did the government bother with civil union if that wasn't good enough, just more wasted tax payers money on another pointless exercises. For all I care sign the fucking thing, and lets get on with getting this country out of debt.
Should haves don't solve problems. Regardless of what should have happened in the past, this bill still needs to be voted on. Even if you don't care about it, marriage still has alot of legal aspects which are relevent to many New Zealanders.
It's not a waste of time or money.
-
Will they? hardly a valid point (the kids part).
Ok so that's something that should of been written into the civil union bill as well, I'm not against gay marriage at all, personally don't care about marriage, I just don't think we should be wasting so much time around it, why did the government bother with civil union if that wasn't good enough, just more wasted tax payers money on another pointless exercises. For all I care sign the fucking thing, and lets get on with getting this country out of debt.
Re your the only one going full retard mate.
I agree that the government would have little mandate to submit such a bill - none of the coalition parties campaigned on marriage equality, and it would arguably stretch their mandate to submit a government bill with regard to this issue.
But it's important to remember that this bill is not a government bill. That is to say: most bills that come before the house are Government Bills (written and submitted by the governing party / coalition) - they generally get preference in the order of parliamentary business.
Louisa Wall's bill is a private member's bill, which means it has been drawn from a ballot - and now parliament must decide whether or not to support it through the 1st,2nd and third readings.
Because this is a conscience vote (MPs each vote according to their personal preference [read: how much lobbying they receive]), it really has very little to do with the government at all - they're just the ones who will have to execute the legislation; which, in this case, should be a relatively simple/low-cost process.
If the government had wanted to address this issue, they could have easily submitted a bill amending the Civil Union Legislation, but Louisa Wall has made an effort to address the issue at-large (marriage) and that is the bill which has come before the house.
Also remember that Civil Union legislation was actually passed by an older parliament with a much different make-up.
At the crux of this bill is the sticky issue of equality, and how that is to be interpreted by legislation. Determining this is not a fruitless exercise - and by comparison to many other facets of the inquisitorial institution that is Parliament, it's actually quite cheap. The tax-payer is not being vexatiously fleeced here.
-
I see your point, but is this not just about the fact of the legal entitlements but around the status or name marriage. Please don't take this the wrong way but if it was based solely on the legal implications then we would just be reforming the civil union act.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/New_York_City_Proposition_8_Protest_outside_LDS_temple_20.jpg/450px-New_York_City_Proposition_8_Protest_outside_LDS_temple_20.jpg)
-
The girl on the left is for sale.
-
Will they? hardly a valid point (the kids part).
Ok so that's something that should of been written into the civil union bill as well, I'm not against gay marriage at all, personally don't care about marriage, I just don't think we should be wasting so much time around it, why did the government bother with civil union if that wasn't good enough, just more wasted tax payers money on another pointless exercises. For all I care sign the fucking thing, and lets get on with getting this country out of debt.
Re your the only one going full retard mate.
Let me guess, you're the type of douche nozzle that will groan and gripe at a routine police check, that the police should be out catching the bad guys instead of wasting time doing routine stops?
Also, not your mate.
-
Whoever said this was based solely on legal implications?
The driver for this bill has been 'equality'.
The 'relevance' stems from the legal implications of legislating equality, and thus it is relevant to all New Zealanders
Spacemonkey's point is that even if you don't care about the equality side, the implications it may have mean a significant amount of the population may have an interest in this bill. This vindicates is current limelight status, and the attention it is receiving from politicians.
-
Also remember that Civil Union legislation was actually passed by an older parliament with a much different make-up.
Like the majority of other legislation's that currently exist?
-
Like the majority of other legislation's that currently exist?
Yes.
-
Let me guess, you're the type of douche nozzle that will groan and gripe at a routine police check, that the police should be out catching the bad guys instead of wasting time doing routine stops?
Also, not your mate.
Oh shit really I'm gonna cry!
Any way Hori if I remember correctly you are doing political science? So I'm not going to try get into a debate, I will get owned, but as a citizen we are all entitled to our opinion, we are not always right and I will question, don't learn otherwise.
So in hindsight the civil union act was a complete waste of time and it should of been straight marriage from the start?
-
I would say the civil union act was a step in the right direction. And better then what was before, which was nothing.
-
as a citizen we are all entitled to our opinion, we are not always right and I will question, don't learn otherwise.
So in hindsight the civil union act was a complete waste of time and it should of been straight marriage from the start?
That's more or less the best approach you can take. The important thing to remember is the context within which political activity occurs.
For this reason, I would say that while the Civil Union Act didn't quite achieve full equality under the law, it was still worthwhile. Why? Because it was about as good as the government of the day could pass given the political environment.
It's through the normalisation of homosexual unions that we are now able to have the debate over marriage equality.
While for most of my generation, we'd see this as a 'no-brainer', it's actually a bit of an achievement given that it was only ~25 years ago that NZ legalized homosexuality.
-
Oh shit really I'm gonna cry!
That's pretty gay.
-
Ad homonem.
-
That's pretty gay.
Said the kettle to the stove, who was married to the pot.
The pot was silver as I recall.
-
Said the kettle to the stove, who was married to the pot.
The pot was silver as I recall.
I think you had a different type of pot.
-
I think you had a different type of pot.
Those that live in glass houses should not get stoned.
-
Those that live in glass houses should not get stoned.
But that's where the weed is.
DON'T TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE.
-
I try to keep myself to myself, but I would just like to say that the thread's poll results actually suprised me, in a good way.
-
I don't know if those who voted 'For' considered the possible side-effect that this legislation might mean Craigosaurus could be inflicted upon some innocent person, as he has been upon us.
:P
-
For those interested, the first reading of the bill is streaming now from:
http://www.parliament.nz/LiveBroadcast/house-384.asx
-
Thanks, Hori.
Great reading.
Can't say the same about what she's wearing though :\
-
Winston Peters is a populist scumbag, the model career-politician. Entertaining though.
-
Here's how I see it.
New Zealand leads by example in making gay marriage legal (or equal rights) great, one less fucked up thing for society to be wrong about, but it's a stepping stone on the way to utopia, next we should tackle stem cells or having a military (imo NZ doesn't need one - different argument, I may make a thread), and then finally we'll tackle religion and sort that out.
THEN
we can spend money on exploring space and actually get somewhere as a race.
so in summary: legalise gay marriage, go to new planet.
-
Stepping stone in the wrong direction imo.
Just like the space shuttle.
The only reason you need any kind of legal construct is to protect the rights of children.
-
The bibles aggen it, Gods aggen it, I'm aggen it and if you got any sense, you're aggen it.
-
A conscience vote on Labour MP Louisa Wall’s bill passed by 78 votes to 40 tonight before a packed public gallery at Parliament.
The bill will now be considered by a select committee before facing two further votes before it can pass in to law.
Interesting to see what comes out of the Select Committee process; that differential in votes must drop down a bit, but still looks like it's got the support to go through.
-
I wonder how many people support homosexuality just because they're not in the majority any more to be honest.
-
Here's how I see it.
New Zealand leads by example in making gay marriage legal (or equal rights) great, one less fucked up thing for society to be wrong about, but it's a stepping stone on the way to utopia, next we should tackle stem cells or having a military (imo NZ doesn't need one - different argument, I may make a thread), and then finally we'll tackle religion and sort that out.
THEN
we can spend money on exploring space and actually get somewhere as a race.
so in summary: legalise gay marriage, go to new planet.
Let he that desires Peace, Prepare for War.
Remember the Military does more than just fight wars. if there is a Natural Disaster - often the Military will be in within 24 hours, providing security, establishing field hospitals/Triage centres moving rubble/clearing road ways.
The Military also do a fantastic job of promoting NZ overseas - a lot of people outside of NZ know that NZ peacekeeping forces are some of the best in the world.
Plus its a very dangerous position to place all your defence needs in the hands of another country....
-
I don't really understand this law at all. Nor do I care enough to look into it.
I thought that with the civil union law, any couple could enjoy the same legal privileges as married couples. Equality for all.
Seems to me that this law is about allowing same sex couples to undergo a religious ceremony, that somewhere along the line the state got involved with, under a religion that doesn't exactly accept their union. What's stopping same sex couples holding weddings now anyway? Especially if this law isn't supposed to compel unwilling clergy to perform marriage rites for same sex couples; what will change?
Is it just removing the final point of difference. Same sex couples now get to use the word "married" to define their relationship; and that they will have a "marriage certificate."
Pass it. Who cares? I'm more interested in how the proposed liquor law got watered down to the shitty notion that the age at which youth have legal access to alcohol is what matters. Advertising, price, number of licenses, zoning, don't matter so long as the government gets to say it passed liquor reform without affecting it's own constituency.
-
I don't really understand this law at all. Nor do I care enough to look into it.
I thought that with the civil union law, any couple could enjoy the same legal privileges as married couples. Equality for all.
Seems to me that this law is about allowing same sex couples to undergo a religious ceremony, that somewhere along the line the state got involved with, under a religion that doesn't exactly accept their union. What's stopping same sex couples holding weddings now anyway? Especially if this law isn't supposed to compel unwilling clergy to perform marriage rites for same sex couples; what will change?
Is it just removing the final point of difference. Same sex couples now get to use the word "married" to define their relationship; and that they will have a "marriage certificate."
Pass it. Who cares? I'm more interested in how the proposed liquor law got watered down to the shitty notion that the age at which youth have legal access to alcohol is what matters. Advertising, price, number of licenses, zoning, don't matter so long as the government gets to say it passed liquor reform without affecting it's own constituency.
This bill is about your ignorance (and people like you). The fact that you admit that you don't even care enough to 'look into it' only compounds your ignorance.
It's not about religion at all.
I'm married, and now I have that status in society as being married. I have that right, yet someone else, who pays taxes and works just like me, doesn't. Only because they fell in love with someone who is of the same gender as themselves.
That doesn't sound equal to me.
-
Do I get points for pointing out it's "your" not "you're". No? Okay. Carry on.
Edit: Am I to understand that you are not ignorant and know what this law is about?
-
Interesting that Kilabee and Pe_Pa_Possum, the only 2 who have stated they outright oppose the bill, have chosen not to comment.
-
Interesting that Kilabee and Pe_Pa_Possum, the only 2 who have stated they outright oppose the bill, have chosen not to comment.
I have yet to see a truly compelling argument against this bill. Most that oppose it either trot out the "marriage has been the same for ever, just change the civil union", or "marriage is for making babies, which gay marriages cannot produce" or "first its same sex marriages, next a man can marry his horse"
-
I am actually really proud to see NZ doing this. Just goes to show what can happen in a country where most people arent really religious.
-
I am actually really proud to see NZ doing this. Just goes to show what can happen in a country where most people arent really religious.
One third isn't really 'most people'.
Also I disagree that the percentage of religion in a country has any significant effect on gay marriage. Both Canada and South Africa support gay marriage and they both have over a 70% religious population.
-
About 15% regularly attend church.
Also:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10714235
-
I'm a Jedi.
-
No effect on me, so I can let the concerned parties handle it.
-
One third isn't really 'most people'.
Also I disagree that the percentage of religion in a country has any significant effect on gay marriage. Both Canada and South Africa support gay marriage and they both have over a 70% religious population.
There's a difference between being a church going Christian and culturally identifying as Christian.
I think the percentage of church going Christians would make a huge difference to gay marriage as it is generally the Church that has a problem with these things.
-
I don't understand why anyone would want to get married.
totally agree with you on this - this is one of lifes experiences (as society sees marriage anyways) that I wont be doing. I have been with my other half for 14 years now and dont see a reason to change "status" I am already referred to as Mrs, i have the same rights as a married couple. If i want to formalise my love then it will just be myself Mr Fairy and little Fairy at some registry office - but i dont have any desire to get "married" or put on a show as i view it.
As for same sex marriage - all for it, why not? So many people dont even take their damn vows seriously and have already corrupted the institution that is marriage why not let same sex couples in and have equality?
-
There could be some really fascinating statistics surrounding the success of same sex marriage compared to different sex.....then again 50% of gay marriage's could end in divorce too.
-
What we won't have, is any unwanted pregnancies, that's for sure.
Any children to a Gay couple will be an active decision on both parties.
-
What we won't have, is any unwanted pregnancies, that's for sure.
Any children to a Gay couple will be an active decision on both parties.
As a slight side discussion - I am a bit conservative when it comes to Gay people raising kids - I have no problem with it so long as on the adoption form they have to specify a surrogate Mother/Father. My reasoning is just this:
I believe that a child forms a special bond with each of its parents - cases in point, when I was younger, I would always want to go to the Park/play football with my Dad but when I had hurt myself, I would always go see my Mum. I believe that having the balance of both inputs (male and Female perspective) is important - we have (although they are derogatory) phrases in the english language to describe some of these special bonds: Mummies Boy and Daddies Girl
And on the flip side, I believe that every Son needs a Dad to teach him how to be a Man and likewise every Deughter needs a Mother to teach her how to be a Woman.
Am I against Gay Adoption? - No. Do I believe that Most Gay parents would do a million times better than most of the scum of humanity who don't wear protection, get pregnant and then bring a child into the world when they aren't mentally, Financially and emotionally ready? - Yes I think Gay Parents would do a better job.
But I still think that a Child needs both the Male and Female Love/attention and input - so having a Gay couple with a sorrugate 3rd to provide that input is fine with me. And plus the child gets the Love of 3 parents instead of 2.
(yes feel free to call me a touch old fashioned, but I do strongly believe that, like most things in life, Balance is required)
-
I was fully for this bill but after a little thought...
I strongly dislike religion and I don't think state and religion should ever mix. I don't think that under any circumstances should any one person's beliefs be forced upon to someone else. The problem with this bill, while not intentional, is implicitly forcing a belief change onto religions which is kind of contradictory.
It's my understanding that the only difference between marriage and civil union is the name and the right to adopt. Let them adopt ffs or are gay couples simply upset because they don't like the term "civil union"??? What if we legally replaced references to marriage and had generic unions that are all legally equal regardless if religious, civil, or uncivil???
-
I agree to a point TDL, but I think it's a non-issue. Further, I'd say that making it mandatory to nominate a surrogate would be too intrusive.
Not well versed in the protocol of adoption in NZ, but I assume there's some decent vetting to ensure parents are suitable. I would suggest that most same-sex couples accept that each sex has an important part in shaping the mind of a child - and therefore, would make moves to ensure that base is covered. They're going to be aware of the issues and will, on their own accord, ensure those issues are mitigated.
There's conclusive evidence to suggest a number of parental practices can improve outcomes for children, but we don't have to incorporate them into policy or legislation, this would be one of those issues.
-
I was fully for this bill but after a little thought...
I strongly dislike religion and I don't think state and religion should ever mix. I don't think that under any circumstances should any one person's beliefs be forced upon to someone else. The problem with this bill, while not intentional, is implicitly forcing a belief change onto religions which is kind of contradictory.
It's my understanding that the only difference between marriage and civil union is the name and the right to adopt. Let them adopt ffs or are gay couples simply upset because they don't like the term "civil union"??? What if we legally replaced references to marriage and had generic unions that are all legally equal regardless if religious, civil, or uncivil???
Marriage, under law, is a function regulated and controlled by the State. There is no legal inclusion of a religious component of marriage in New Zealand. There is no 'forcing a belief change onto religions' here. Religions' will interpret Marriage however they wish, as they have done ever since this country started.
Arguing that there is, essentially argues that Religion has some (to date unfounded) claim to legal definitions of Marriage, which totally goes against the separation of Church & State.
-
As a slight side discussion - I am a bit conservative when it comes to Gay people raising kids - I have no problem with it so long as on the adoption form they have to specify a surrogate Mother/Father. My reasoning is just this:
I believe that a child forms a special bond with each of its parents - cases in point, when I was younger, I would always want to go to the Park/play football with my Dad but when I had hurt myself, I would always go see my Mum. I believe that having the balance of both inputs (male and Female perspective) is important - we have (although they are derogatory) phrases in the english language to describe some of these special bonds: Mummies Boy and Daddies Girl
And on the flip side, I believe that every Son needs a Dad to teach him how to be a Man and likewise every Daughter needs a Mother to teach her how to be a Woman.
Am I against Gay Adoption? - No. Do I believe that Most Gay parents would do a million times better than most of the scum of humanity who don't wear protection, get pregnant and then bring a child into the world when they aren't mentally, Financially and emotionally ready? - Yes I think Gay Parents would do a better job.
But I still think that a Child needs both the Male and Female Love/attention and input - so having a Gay couple with a surrogate 3rd to provide that input is fine with me. And plus the child gets the Love of 3 parents instead of 2.
(yes feel free to call me a touch old fashioned, but I do strongly believe that, like most things in life, Balance is required)
Had a long conversation with a gay friend about this, I would rather see children go to good homes instead of some of the scum out there, some adopted children in the past have ended up in the wrong situations.
But on the note of having an 'extra' I can see your point, It would be beneficial to have that in their lives especially when the subject of puberty rolls around. Who are they go to when they need to talk and their parents are of the opposite sex. But like most social circles there's always that go to person around, but being able to nominate that someone might not be such a bad idea.
-
Hot lesbian mothers, what could be wrong with that?
Think how jealous your friends would be.
-
I agree to a point TDL, but I think it's a non-issue. Further, I'd say that making it mandatory to nominate a surrogate would be too intrusive.
Not well versed in the protocol of adoption in NZ, but I assume there's some decent vetting to ensure parents are suitable. I would suggest that most same-sex couples accept that each sex has an important part in shaping the mind of a child - and therefore, would make moves to ensure that base is covered. They're going to be aware of the issues and will, on their own accord, ensure those issues are mitigated.
There's conclusive evidence to suggest a number of parental practices can improve outcomes for children, but we don't have to incorporate them into policy or legislation, this would be one of those issues.
Good Points, Good Points.
I agree that I am also not an expert in adoption, but I would put forward that there are situations/scenarios where a couple could have a child naturally but if they went to adopt - they would be declined for being in-elligible and those reasons wouldn't be considered intrusive. I would like to believe that my idea would also not be considered too intrusive - although good points that I think most Gay people would also see the value in having a member of the opposite Sex have a regular input into a young childs life.
But as I said - I am a little conservative in this area and rather than let it happen on a couples own accord - I would prefer that it be a requirement or even a weighted factor (ie you don't necessarily need to have one, but it is major plus points if you do kinda thing)
-
Good Points, Good Points.
I agree that I am also not an expert in adoption, but I would put forward that there are situations/scenarios where a couple could have a child naturally but if they went to adopt - they would be declined for being in-elligible and those reasons wouldn't be considered intrusive. I would like to believe that my idea would also not be considered too intrusive - although good points that I think most Gay people would also see the value in having a member of the opposite Sex have a regular input into a young childs life.
But as I said - I am a little conservative in this area and rather than let it happen on a couples own accord - I would prefer that it be a requirement or even a weighted factor (ie you don't necessarily need to have one, but it is major plus points if you do kinda thing)
I just dont get it, aren't there a lot of single parent families out there. I mean i am sure a fair share have some contact with their other parent, but there are kids out there who only have access to 1 parent. Should we bringing in a surrogate for them as well? While i am sure having both a male and female influence in your life, might help you growing up, i am sure kids will turn out fine with just the 1 parent (or 2 parents of the same sex).
-
I just dont get it, aren't there a lot of single parent families out there. I mean i am sure a fair share have some contact with their other parent, but there are kids out there who only have access to 1 parent. Should we bringing in a surrogate for them as well? While i am sure having both a male and female influence in your life, might help you growing up, i am sure kids will turn out fine with just the 1 parent (or 2 parents of the same sex).
If I had my way - the answer would be yes.
Don't get me wrong I am sure that there are a lot of Single parents who are single parents not through their own choice and do a fantastic job of raising their children. I always refer to Chris Rock's humourous rant on the subject: 'Just because it can be done, doesn't make it a good idea'
and with Adoption, I always feel that you should start with trying to give the Child the absolute best possible start in life (as opposed to putting them in a situation where it isn't optimum)
-
Having children shouldn't be some sort of inherent right anyway.
It's not like the world needs a whole lot more of them.
-
As a slight side discussion - I am a bit conservative when it comes to Gay people raising kids - I have no problem with it so long as on the adoption form they have to specify a surrogate Mother/Father. My reasoning is just this:
I believe that a child forms a special bond with each of its parents - cases in point, when I was younger, I would always want to go to the Park/play football with my Dad but when I had hurt myself, I would always go see my Mum. I believe that having the balance of both inputs (male and Female perspective) is important - we have (although they are derogatory) phrases in the english language to describe some of these special bonds: Mummies Boy and Daddies Girl
And on the flip side, I believe that every Son needs a Dad to teach him how to be a Man and likewise every Deughter needs a Mother to teach her how to be a Woman.
Am I against Gay Adoption? - No. Do I believe that Most Gay parents would do a million times better than most of the scum of humanity who don't wear protection, get pregnant and then bring a child into the world when they aren't mentally, Financially and emotionally ready? - Yes I think Gay Parents would do a better job.
But I still think that a Child needs both the Male and Female Love/attention and input - so having a Gay couple with a sorrugate 3rd to provide that input is fine with me. And plus the child gets the Love of 3 parents instead of 2.
(yes feel free to call me a touch old fashioned, but I do strongly believe that, like most things in life, Balance is required)
very old fashioned indeed however why should this only be applied to same sex couples? there are plenty of hetero marriages who have children split up and one parent disappears or the amount of hetero couples who find their pregnant and majority speaking the father bails off.
i know plenty of children who were raised by one parent and have zero contact with the other and have turned out ok myself and my hubby included. Mr Fairy was raised by his mum and his mum taught him how to be a man. She was rugby league coach for years and frankly did a better job in teaching him how to be a man. i dont believe "enforcing" a surrogate will mean shit at all. If you want children and you want to ensure they are raised in a loving supportive household then it doesnt matter whether your parents are from the same sex or not its the desire and the want.
i know plenty of hetero parents that treat their kids like shit - you read about it daily.
i think you will find same sex couples are better prepared for children they cant have naturally with their partners - they have better financial backup theyve been and lived out the experiences they wanted (unlike many hetero couples who suddenly find suprise pregnancies)
im sorry but i clearly disagree with your views
i also strongly disagree with the church too who deem this revolting as far as im concerned churches who for decades have swept sexual offending and abuse of children under their filthy rugs for decades have no right to say that same sex marriage would destroy the holy sanctity of marriage and the church. Religious representatives have been bringing down the house of god on their own for years
-
very old fashioned indeed however why should this only be applied to same sex couples? there are plenty of hetero marriages who have children split up and one parent disappears or the amount of hetero couples who find their pregnant and majority speaking the father bails off.
i know plenty of children who were raised by one parent and have zero contact with the other and have turned out ok myself and my hubby included. Mr Fairy was raised by his mum and his mum taught him how to be a man. She was rugby league coach for years and frankly did a better job in teaching him how to be a man. i dont believe "enforcing" a surrogate will mean shit at all. If you want children and you want to ensure they are raised in a loving supportive household then it doesnt matter whether your parents are from the same sex or not its the desire and the want.
i know plenty of hetero parents that treat their kids like shit - you read about it daily.
i think you will find same sex couples are better prepared for children they cant have naturally with their partners - they have better financial backup theyve been and lived out the experiences they wanted (unlike many hetero couples who suddenly find suprise pregnancies)
im sorry but i clearly disagree with your views
Fair-y Nuff (excuse the Pun, that was terrible)
As above - if I had my way, every child would have a Mother and a Father. The difference is between Hetero couples and Same Sex couples is that in the majority of cases - you can't stop a Hetero couple from having a child (I mean that in a legal/biological way) whereas for a Gay couple (without the use of Sperm Donors, Turkey Basters or Surrogate mothers) there isn't the option to concieve naturally. From this point of view - they have to have outside assistance to raise a child and for me as a condition of recieving that outside assistance would be to make sure that the child has the best possible start in life.
Again - not trying to knock on single parents who do and continue to do a Fantastic job given bad circumstances, but when it comes to adoption I believe we should do our best to avoid bad circumstances from the word go.
I also agree that there are plenty of children who do have a Mother and Father yet aren't raised in a loving environment (personally, These so-called parents almost make me want to believe in Hell and eternal damnation for their deriliction of what I consider one of the most important duties any human being has)
As for Religon - If they stopped focussing on about 4 lines in the Bible (most of which were over-ruled by Jesus in the New testement Anyway) and started focussing more on the central tenants of Christianity:
Believing God is God
Believing Jesus was his son and died for your sins
Love thy Neighbor as thyself
Believing Jesus is the path the Salvation
Then the world would be a much much better place. However too many seem to get hung up on out of context quotes and missing the message of the Bible and end up being IMO not very christian at all.
-
As a slight side discussion - I am a bit conservative when it comes to Gay people raising kids - I have no problem with it so long as on the adoption form they have to specify a surrogate Mother/Father. My reasoning is just this:
I believe that a child forms a special bond with each of its parents - cases in point, when I was younger, I would always want to go to the Park/play football with my Dad but when I had hurt myself, I would always go see my Mum. I believe that having the balance of both inputs (male and Female perspective) is important - we have (although they are derogatory) phrases in the english language to describe some of these special bonds: Mummies Boy and Daddies Girl
And on the flip side, I believe that every Son needs a Dad to teach him how to be a Man and likewise every Deughter needs a Mother to teach her how to be a Woman.
Am I against Gay Adoption? - No. Do I believe that Most Gay parents would do a million times better than most of the scum of humanity who don't wear protection, get pregnant and then bring a child into the world when they aren't mentally, Financially and emotionally ready? - Yes I think Gay Parents would do a better job.
But I still think that a Child needs both the Male and Female Love/attention and input - so having a Gay couple with a sorrugate 3rd to provide that input is fine with me. And plus the child gets the Love of 3 parents instead of 2.
(yes feel free to call me a touch old fashioned, but I do strongly believe that, like most things in life, Balance is required)
Not every child has the luxury of their mother and father being there, divorced parents or the child of a milkman.
I know quite a few whom were raised by only their mothers who definitely didn't need a father to teach them how to be a man, and others that were only raised by their father that did not need a woman to teach them how to be a woman. Sex should have nothing to do with how parents raise their children.
I do see how you mean two men or two woman raising a child cannot always offer the same balance of experience and gender specific things to a child but these solo parents raising children do a fucking good job of it most of the time and more than prove to me that two same sex parents can raise a wonderful child.
In regards to all the sunday christians comments about this bill, as mentioned above if they actually bothered to focus on the four lines instead of adding a fifth one in "hate all homosexual people" then all this ridiculousness would be over and done with by now
-
From the Herald article today on a protest in Auckland. A picture is worth a thousand words, but I think this needs only four: Never go full retard.
(http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201243/102712HOSJADGAY03_620x413.jpg)
-
Maybe they be trollin?
-
Or mantally retarded
-
From the Herald article today on a protest in Auckland. A picture is worth a thousand words, but I think this needs only four: Never go full retard.
([url]http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201243/102712HOSJADGAY03_620x413.jpg[/url])
Just think, those two grown men at one point would have looked at those signs and thought "Yes, this sign conveys my message in the way I wish to convey it, I am happy to be seen in public holding this."
-
I'm having hard time deciding which sign is worse.
-
I bet they can't even lift
-
The spelling is reflective of a low English literacy level, probably due to poor education; not a lack of intelligence. The content of the signs however...
-
The spelling is reflective of a low English literacy level, probably due to poor education; not a lack of intelligence. The content of the signs however...
I would be willing to bet that their views are highly influenced by the English translation of a book which they read and want everyone to read and study/learn from. So therefore no excuse for poor spelling and grammar.
-
I would be willing to bet that their views are highly influenced by the English translation of a book which they read and want everyone to read and study/learn from. So therefore no excuse for poor spelling and grammar.
The bible? Isn't that just some empty shell people quote in fights like wikipedia?
-
Marriage is only for humane beings....
Isn't beating your kids and "smashing you bro" classed as "inhumane"
I put a stereotype in your stereotype with a little bit of stereotype.
-
I would be willing to bet that their views are highly influenced by the English translation of a book which they read and want everyone to read and study/learn from. So therefore no excuse for poor spelling and grammar.
I disagree because I speculate that their church probably employs a more oral / aural method to spread their views.
-
I disagree because I speculate that their church probably employs a more oral / aural method to spread their views.
its highly disgusting how many Christians, especially those that get on their high horses about the Bible vs Anything - haven't read the bible cover to cover. and then those that have read more than 1 translation.
(because Ancient Arabic doesn't always translate nicely to english)
-
(because Ancient Arabic doesn't always translate nicely to english)
How well does it translate into Klingon?
Find out for yourself!
http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/Klingon/mark.new.html
-
Oh look, religion, don't we have a thread for this?
-
According to the guy on the right, all MP's support gay and lesbis.
Thats fantastic news.
-
Something like 80%+ of under 35s support Gay Marriage, which is what the poll here seems to be showing almost exactly.
Seems like a basic human right, and certainly something we will consider a basic human right in the future.
-
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10868100
-
Awesome news
-
[url]http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10868100[/url]
So when is the big day?
-
wtf is the difference between civil union and marriage? It might be really obvious, but in all the debate and talk on tv, no one has even bothered to explain the difference. I personally couldnt care less, doens't bother me the slightlest. My brother is gay and all power to him. The ONLY issue I have, and I still have yet to make a decision is on gay adoption. I have no issues with man/man women/women adopting a kid or question their parenting abilities. nothing of the like. My only issue is that kids are c**ts at school. My mother has a minor disability and I was teased for it to no end, resulted in many a punch ups (at primary school). Nothing through intermediate or high school. Still, that is my issue, never said I'd vote against that or gay marriage.
-
Marriage sounds much more romantic then 'civil union'.
And husband/wife sounds better then 'civil union partner'
I think same-sex couples deserve the same romantic terms that apply to opposite-sex couples.
-
wtf is the difference between civil union and marriage?
Am pretty sure that the Legal rights and entitlements are the same but it more about the principle/equality (Same sex couples could only civil union, whereas heterosexual couples can marry or have a civil union)
-
I certainly hope there is more to it than that. There are a lot of people hours being consumed in Parliament for the sake of a name change....
-
I certainly hope there is more to it than that. There are a lot of people hours being consumed in Parliament for the sake of a name change....
I could be wrong here - but I believe that it is about affording the gay community the same rights as the non-gay community. While there is a difference in status between the 2 groups - there is discrimination and in-equality
-
I could be wrong here - but I believe that it is about affording the gay community the same rights as the non-gay community. While there is a difference in status between the 2 groups - there is discrimination and in-equality
I always thought marriage was a religious thing.
-
I always thought marriage was a religious thing.
That was one of the arguements against Gay Marriage - since Marriage was a religous institution, it wasn't subject to intepretation. My view however is that while marriage may have started as a religous institution (and there are grounds to argue whether it is) it is now a legal concept - thus is open to change/intepretation.
-
yeah, well im not against it. I won't go down the street collecting signatures in its support but it doesnt bother me. To be honest im sick of hearing about it. Brings me back to the days of the waterfront statium and the media storm over that.
-
The release of the Select Committee Report has resulted in good news for me...
(http://gyazo.com/716724277ef2d3087df8c6a6dcc5d696.png?1361935857)
I figure it's a pretty safe investment, unless the government delays the second reading I think this should be wrapped up before the end of the year.
-
The release of the Select Committee Report has resulted in good news for me...
([url]http://gyazo.com/716724277ef2d3087df8c6a6dcc5d696.png?1361935857[/url])
I figure it's a pretty safe investment, unless the government delays the second reading I think this should be wrapped up before the end of the year.
Going off on a tangent here, but stocks? At best they are derivatives, at worst it is a bet !
-
Going off on a tangent here, but stocks? At best they are derivatives, at worst it is a bet !
Pretty much betting, certainly not 'stocks'. I think the clearing-house means that the dynamic is a bit different to say the 'TAB', because you aren't always going to have a willing seller with these futures.
-
I don't think Civil Union's can adopt.
True?
-
I don't think Civil Union's can adopt.
True?
yes, though 1 person in the union can adopt, the other person cannot see the kid in hospital, sign as a parent etc
there's also some stuff about wills and contract law etc iirc
I'm sick of not knowing, I'll just fucking google it.
-
There ya go.
http://www.marriageequality.co.nz/why-marriage.html
-
There ya go.
[url]http://www.marriageequality.co.nz/why-marriage.html[/url]
Gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans couples want to get married
What is a bisexual couple?
-
What is a bisexual couple?
It's when they go to clubs more kinkier than the ones you go to.
-
I'm lol'ing at the term 'pan-sexual'.
Stop being special - you just want to fuck everyone, there's no need to put a title on that.
-
I'm lol'ing at the term 'pan-sexual'.
Stop being special - you just want to fuck everyone, there's no need to put a title on that.
Not quite - its more a state where a persons gender doesn't have any bearing on your physical attraction to them
-
Not quite - its more a state where a persons gender doesn't have any bearing on your physical attraction to them
That's not a thing. That's just being open minded and not allowing discrimination to depict your mate.
I'm a pan-microwave lover because I don't let the colour of the microwave depict what model I choose.
No, I just like microwaves.
-
I'm a pan-microwave lover because I don't let the colour of the microwave depict what model I choose.
No, I just like microwaves.
That's right, pan-sexual is someone who loves all cookware, not just microwaves.
-
Microwaves are not cookware.
They are infused with gypsy magic and perform miracles that science cannot duplicate.
-
I love my microwave, I would die without it (literally, would starve)
We have a special bond
wait.. does that make me?
dammit.
-
I love my microwave, I would die without it (literally, would starve)
We have a special bond
wait.. does that make me?
dammit.
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR THOSE OF US WHO WANT TO MARRY THEIR MICROWAVE!
-
Microwaves are not cookware.
They are infused with gypsy magic and perform miracles that science cannot duplicate.
MICROWAVES ARE COOKWARE TOO!
You cannot discriminate based on your bias against gypsy Magic
Equal Rights for Cookware - regardless of Magic status or Kitchen location
-
I like where this thread has gone.
I approve.
-
I like where this thread has gone.
I approve.
I approve of this approval
-
If we start allow people to marry their cookware, where will it end? Next people will want to marry their garden tools and then there will be a call to allow people to marry their white goods.
Let us not forget that the User Manual states that it is a sin for such marriages to occur.
-
Some people are just confused and go through a phase where they like sticking their dicks in microwaves.
-
Some people are just confused and go through a phase where they like sticking their dicks in microwaves.
not sure if the Pun there was intentional or not
but Genius
-
There's a Pun?
Now I feel stupid because I can't see it.
-
There's a Pun?
Now I feel stupid because I can't see it.
Tell-tale sign that you're a fry-pan-sexual-microwave.
-
There's a Pun?
Now I feel stupid because I can't see it.
Phase and Microwaves
There some science in there (that Microwave emitters sometime use Phase Shifters) but that makes the pun less witty.
-
Now I don't feel stupid. That was just lame.
-
Now I don't feel stupid. That was just lame.
Well we can't all be Astral Primates
-
Technically the waves in the microwaves are fucking you. very quickly.
-
They sure know how to excite my molecules.
-
...Now to end the other oppression why can I only have 1 wife?
-
...Now to end the other oppression why can I only have 1 wife?
Why would you want more than one wife and more importantly -
Why would you want to plan more than one wedding???
-
Why would you want to plan more than one wedding???
The husband doesn't need to plan the wedding.
He just needs to show up on time.
And pay for it.
-
More importantly why can't a spacemonkey get married to a human?
Why does New Zealand refuse to recognise the love between him and berg.
-
Absolutely.
Monkeys from space, and superhuman cyborgs such as myself should be allowed to officially have wild sex.
-
yay.
-
Did something happen?
-
Did something happen?
More wedding cakes to eat.
-
I fucking hate weddings.
Just buy a bunch of piss and invite your mates over. Less fucking around.
And cheaper.
-
Never been to one tbh, not my thing.
-
Not really any point unless they're a close friend.
-
Getting drunk at weddings and dancing with old ladies?
-
pyro is going to reply to himself at some stage and not only am I not going to notice, but I will think obble is talking to himself :s
-
pyro is going to reply to himself at some stage and not only am I not going to notice, but I will think obble is talking to himself :s
I will not!
-
I like weddings. Free feed and drinks.
Even that one time I had to pay for everyone else's food and drinks, the wedding was still pretty good.
-
I like weddings. Free feed and drinks.
Even that one time I had to pay for everyone else's food and drinks, the wedding was still pretty good.
I heard mine was better.
It had me at it.
-
I heard mine was better.
It had me at it.
Only you?
I'm not sure if that counts as a wedding.
-
Only you?
I'm not sure if that counts as a wedding.
Well - there was also the Bride, kinda hard to have a wedding without one....
-
Well - there was also the Bride, kinda hard to have a wedding without one....
not any more!
-
CHAOS IN THE STREETS.....................................................GAYS EVERYWHERE.............................................................................EVERYTHING ON FIRE..........................................................................................................
-
I'm a Bridegroomman!
-
OUTNUMBERED.................SO MANY GAYS...............................................................................THEY HAVE TAKEN THE CITY CENTRE....................................................WE ARE BARRICADED IN THE CHURCH...............................ONLY THE LORD CAN SAVE US.................................................................................................................................
-
Some of our politicians have a great sense of humour
"I received e-mails blaming our countries drought on this bill, yet it was pouring down in my electorate Papakura this morning. We had the most enormous big gay rainbow across us, it has to be a sign."
-
CHAOS IN THE BUMS
Ferksed.
-
I like weddings. Free feed and drinks.
Even that one time I had to pay for everyone else's food and drinks, the wedding was still pretty good.
Doesn't really outweight sitting around on your arse listening to hours upon hours of boring shit.
And usually they cost a lot of money in travel to attend, etc.
Well - there was also the Bride, kinda hard to have a wedding without one....
And witnesses and a celebrant.
All for something that is purely ceremonial excepting the legal bits like now she gets everything you own if you fuck it up (pun intended).
-
sitting around on your arse listening to hours upon hours of boring shit.
You are going to the wrong weddings..
At Darkvirus' wedding, I was having such a good time that two people found me passed out on the ground, had to carry me to a couch, where I slept for an hour, and then I resumed having said good time.
-
......the gays have almost completely overrun our church fortress............they are so empowered...................the government has collapsed and the gay masses have taken over.....meteors have begun falling and volcanoes erupting.......may this be a message to all other countries...........avoid legalising gay marriage at all costs!
-
......the gays have almost completely overrun our church fortress............they are so empowered...................the government has collapsed and the gay masses have taken over..... gay meteors have begun falling and gay volcanoes erupting pure gayness.......may this be a message to all other countries...........avoid legalising gay marriage at all costs!
Better.
-
Most amusing speech of the debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCDEiaoEP2U
-
Pretty disappointed that my electorate MP changed to 'No' for the last reading! Unsurprising though, he is the most incompetent member of the house, so far as I can tell.
-
You are going to the wrong weddings..
At Darkvirus' wedding, I was having such a good time that two people found me passed out on the ground, had to carry me to a couch, where I slept for an hour, and then I resumed having said good time.
That be in true Whangarei style!
-
Dear old mother was just going on about how disgusted she was that gays could be married.
I asked why that was a problem.
She said that it would encourage people who are not really gay to become gay.
I asked why that was a problem.
Silence.
Then I punched her in the face.
-
It's legal to slather peanut butter on my dick and balls and then use my dick to write journal entries about how much I don't like the wait times at KFC.
And you better believe I do it.
Your mother is right. Because it's legal, everyone is going to be gay.
Are you gay yet, Berg? I am. I have big gay peanut butter balls.
-
Any forum members keen? No one larger than 8", I cant fit any bigger than that.
-
It's legal to slather peanut butter on my dick and balls and then use my dick to write journal entries about how much I don't like the wait times at KFC.
How do you manage to have such delicate control of your dick and balls to achieve the precise movements required to write legibly?
When I try, all I get is a page covered in peanut butter splodges. The IRD sent back my tax return because they couldn't read a thing.
-
It's all about sphincter control.
Waking up, being too lazy to take a piss so you hold on for longer than you should because you don't want to get out of bed.
-
Pretty disappointed that my electorate MP changed to 'No' for the last reading! Unsurprising though, he is the most incompetent member of the house, so far as I can tell.
Write a letter explaining how pissed off you are with his vote etc, imply you are going to switch allegiance to Mana or similar, or even better get involved with the LEC and replace him.
-
I've been using a new editor to complete the cards for the New Zealand Politics: CCG (http://www.getsome.co.nz/index.php?topic=51391.msg1052462#msg1052462) and when looking for information about Same Sex Marriages, ran into exactly why Same Sex Marriages were never illegal in New Zealand
Here is a link to an older version of the law, notably Part 1 - Preliminary - Section 2 - Intepretation
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1955/0092/4.0/DLM292034.html (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1955/0092/4.0/DLM292034.html)
Notice that the word "Marriage" is not defined. BUT the law does contain all of the people who CANNOT get married e.g minors, people in a consanguineous relationship, non-humans, etc
The August 19 2013 amendment simply adds one line:
"marriage means the union of 2 people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity"
Hopefully they increase that number one day
-
I've been using a new editor to complete the cards for the New Zealand Politics: CCG ([url]http://www.getsome.co.nz/index.php?topic=51391.msg1052462#msg1052462[/url]) and when looking for information about Same Sex Marriages, ran into exactly why Same Sex Marriages were never illegal in New Zealand
Here is a link to an older version of the law, notably Part 1 - Preliminary - Section 2 - Intepretation
[url]http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1955/0092/4.0/DLM292034.html[/url] ([url]http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1955/0092/4.0/DLM292034.html[/url])
Notice that the word "Marriage" is not defined. BUT the law does contain all of the people who CANNOT get married e.g minors, people in a consanguineous relationship, non-humans, etc
The August 19 2013 amendment simply adds one line:
"marriage means the union of 2 people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity"
Hopefully they increase that number one day
I have to disagree Tiwaking. The Court of Appeal, in a 1997 decision called Quilter v the Attorney-General, ruled that the term 'Marriage' meant one man and one women, essentially on the basis that when Parliament passed the Marriage Act in 1955, that is what the term would have meant. That is what the 2013 amendment, in effect, overturned.
-
I have to disagree Tiwaking. The Court of Appeal, in a 1997 decision called Quilter v the Attorney-General, ruled that the term 'Marriage' meant one man and one women, essentially on the basis that when Parliament passed the Marriage Act in 1955, that is what the term would have meant. That is what the 2013 amendment, in effect, overturned.
This is pretty much the reason why Judicial power is not Legislative power, and never should be. I didnt vote for some judge to hate on the homos. We've got perfectly good Politicians for that