The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 'New Zealand!' is not an argument for same-sex marriage > Comments

'New Zealand!' is not an argument for same-sex marriage : Comments

By Blaise Joseph, published 22/4/2013

The same-sex marriage lobby tends to ignore reason and arguments in favour of meaningless platitudes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. All
So do any of those supporting the view that marriage is just about having children and therefore it's important to oppose same sex marriage put the same emphasis on opposing the marriages of heterosexual couples who can't have children without medical intervention (or who run a substantially increased risk of birth defects if they do so)?

Whats your reaction to the human interest stories that pop up from time to time of an elderly couple finding love in the retirement home and marrying? Disgust at the debasement of marriage or a contented sigh for their happyness?

What about friends in their 40's who finally meet someone and want to marry?

Would you see marriage for over 50's who's kids have all reached 18 disolved by the state?

Personally I think most of you are hiding behind children as a pathetic cover for your own issues with same sex relationships. It's not in the least bit honest or decent. Some display a disturbing interest in the physical details of other peoples sex lives and clearly spend far too much time thinking about it.

It's time to accept that marriage as a legal structure has probably never had the widespread idealised value that some want to ascribe to it.

For some it's a fantastic long term life experience, for many others a workable agreement that provides a degree of stability and for others a living hell that leaves them to some degree trapped in close proximity to a psychopath.

Best option.
- Get the government out of the business of registering relationships.

Alternatives - If the government insists in staying in the business then either make it a legally inforcable contract with specific meaning or remove any forms of discrimination in regard to gender or number involved.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 22 April 2013 12:47:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cathloic's
Gay marriage, bad
Pedo priest, not....

don't say it's for the kiddies.
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 22 April 2013 12:59:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Mr Joseph. Just because NZ has changed their marriage rules doesn't mean Australia should also join the very small percentage of the world's countries which have done the same.

Raising children is a serious responsibility that ideally requires their biological mother and father to be both involved - the way our Creator designed it. Parent separation, divorce or death sometimes upsets this ideal, but we should not legislate to deliberately make it likely (even more than at present)that children will not be related to one or both of their homosexual parents, due to surrogacy or adoption.

No doubt same-sex couples with children would argue that that are doing their best in child-raising, but I would argue that in the longer term the child would be disadvantaged, not only by probably not knowing their biological parents but also by not both having male and female parents while they are growing up.
Posted by MESSMATE, Monday, 22 April 2013 1:24:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two points:
First, I agree the interests of the State are served by providing for the welfare of children. It's therefore relevant that significant numbers of gay couples do have children (23% in one NZ study - Henrickson, 2005). Actually, playing Devil's advocate, I think there is a reasonable case (from the State's point of view) to define a marriage as two or more people who jointly have the care of one or more children. However, I think even childless marriage is arguably a social good. Marriage is a contract in which the parties undertake to look after each other (in sickness and in health, for richer for poorer), which must reduce the welfare burden of the State and therefore be in the interests of the State. More widely, marriage builds family ties which strengthens bonds further than just between the couple involved.

Second, civil unions, civil partnerships, registered relationships and all their ilk are a horrible kludgy mess. Why encourage every state to define their own unique legal relationships with no consistency or identifiable standard? Don't we want fewer and simpler laws rather than more, and more complex laws? Why define yet another official relationship type that is more-or-less "marriage"? For granting recognition to gay couples, extending access to marriage itself is really the only option that makes practical sense. It's inevitable because it's the only usable solution.
Posted by vejay, Monday, 22 April 2013 2:34:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
People don't realise that it's actually changing the definition of other people's marriages. So, an average Christian heterosexual 'married' couple out in the suburbs will have the definition of their union changed into something that is not recognised by their God.

The question to be answered by theologians is, will Christian couples be violating Biblical principles if they marry under the new definition?
Posted by progressive pat, Monday, 22 April 2013 2:40:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@pat
That's like saying that, if we changed the law to allow people to keep toucans as pets, people who previously had a pet cat or a dog will suffer because the definition of "pet" has changed. How could they bring themselves to get a pet cat knowing that some kinky people are getting toucans and brazenly calling them "pets"?

I don't get this argument. We never get this fuss when additions are made to the Crimes Act - oh no! the definition of "crime" has changed!
Posted by vejay, Monday, 22 April 2013 2:50:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy