Marriage Equality Bill passes in New Zealand.

Good news, not that this effects me directly. Although one of my identical twin sisters is gay (which was no surprise to anyone).

I mean why should anyone else care if two guys or two girls want to get married? Go for it i say.

Good work New Zealand.

www.stuff.co.nz...

Marriage equality? Things get worse everyday.

So theres now equality for marriage, which is not even about equality, but an old religious ceremony between a man and a woman? Surely just banning marriage would fit the bill for ''equality'' more?

I mean why should anyone else care if two guys or two girls want to get married? Go for it i say.

Well it contradicts the whole point of marriage.But hey, if they want to play about and pretend to be married.....well......thats their foolish mistake.

reply to post by Viking9019


Its not about the religious crap. Many weddings have no association with any religion. Just a sign of love or commitment or whatever. Some people just want to get married (for some reason).

This is about societies acceptance of the gay community.

reply to post by homeslice


I am proud to be a kiwi today!. Although I am not gay, I have friends that are and it's a step in the right direction

Marriage is about love and commitment, I don't see why it should be different for which ever team you bat for at the end of the day we all get married for the same reason.

Originally posted by homeslice
reply to post by Viking9019

 

Its not about the religious crap. Many weddings have no association with any religion. Just a sign of love or commitment or whatever. Some people just want to get married (for some reason).

This is about societies acceptance of the gay community.

This is about government acceptance of the gay community. This is about entitlement, benefits, and money. Anyone who says differently is kidding themselves.

reply to post by Viking9019


Good god listen to yourself.

How does it affect you? It doesn't. Yet you'd rather see marriage banned for everyone than let gay people get married.

Man.. pretty low vision you have I say.

How about not giving a toss? or .. maybe not the best wording..

How about just don't bother? It's not really a problem if two people want to do something that everyone else does. It's only an issue to god, right? well let him come down and say "Not having none of you funny bunnies messing with my rules ok? none of it. My children."

Or if he's too busy, send that jesus guy.. but tell him not to wear a dress, it might confuse the issue.

Thank christ I'm not religious... god imagine the sort of BS I'd be screaming then...

Originally posted by micmerci
This is about government acceptance of the gay community. This is about entitlement, benefits, and money. Anyone who says differently is kidding themselves.

Which a man and a woman get under this government scheme.

Defacto relationships don't get it.

a union based on sex.. well thats pretty much last century if you ask me.

I know I would be pissed off if someone said "Oi you, you can't do that!" and then went on to say justify it with some religious based arrogance. And that is where the entire problem is.

Religious people. You know the sort that say "Oh I don't hate gay people, I pray for them."

they really should be in the dunce corner in this day and age, not in positions to rule over peoples lives.

It doesn't seem like full marriage rights to me. Just more crap to shut people up for a while.Whats with all this slow spoon feeding and leaving it on pause? They either want to legalize gay marriage or they don't.

reply to post by winofiend


My objection is based on the way supporters are trying to present the issue. They are dressing it up with phrases like"love" and "equality" when in reality it is about benefits and money. Let's drop the charade, and call it what it is- a money grab.

My position is that church and state should be separate and whatever the people vote in should stand as the law of the land. The problem for this in the U.S. is that if DOMA is reinterpreted, state will be infringing on church. Any church that has tax-free status under the IRS code will be required to perform weddings for same-sex couples. Just as I feel that the church can not force it's will upon government, I think government should not be permitted to force it's will on a church. It is only fair that it goes both ways.

Well done you Kiwi's
Hopefully one by one all the other countries will follow suit.

I'd seriously like to know what rights, under the law, marriage gives a gay couple in NZ that they didn't have before.

New Zealand law is very clear that the civil union and de facto relationships are considered equal to marriage.

There was never anything stopping gay couples in New Zealand holding a ceremony to celebrate their union.

In light of this, I seriously can not see how anyone can say that marriage has nothing to do with religion, or the marriage ceremony is not connected to spiritual beliefs.

I also struggle to understand the motivation behind a gay couple desiring to be married seeing as they already have every right and privilege under the law, they are free to hold a ceremony, they can adopt children etc.

I'm not being argumentative here. I seriously don't get it.

As far as North America is concerned, maybe it's a different situation. Reading the post above about the implications for churches etc makes sense. I know of many, many churches across Canada who are changing their policy on holding marriage ceremonies in response to this legislation.

As a church is private property, they have the right to choose who and who they do not rent out their buildings to. This means the churches are introducing policy where they only make their premises and ministers available to people who are members of their congregation and affiliated congregations.

The unintended consequence of this legislation is that the everyday heterosexual couple who wishes to be married in a church will be prevented from doing so. Not a bad thing at all in my opinion, but it's likely to enrage a lot of the majority.

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by winofiend

 

My objection is based on the way supporters are trying to present the issue. They are dressing it up with phrases like"love" and "equality" when in reality it is about benefits and money. Let's drop the charade, and call it what it is- a money grab.

Please explain this "money-grab." Who would be getting money from this? The state, county, or city for issuing marriage licenses, for a fee? There is the benefit for couples for having their spouse designated as a next-of-kin for hospital visitation rights and ability to make medical for the other if one is incapacitated by illness or accident but I don't see where that costs anyone anything. That a same-sex couple may become eligible to cover their spouse on their insurance policy may be a benefit but going from a single coverage to a family plan is often around triple the cost, so I suppose there is a sort of money-grab going on there if it costs triple to double the coverage.

What else, you don't suppose there can be "love" or "equality" among same-sex couples? I am heterosexual so maybe I just don't fully grasp the mechanics of that as well as yourself, so please help by explaining what you mean. There may be a minor tax benefit available being able to file jointly with a non-working spouse, sort of an "equality" thing with conventional marriage arrangements, but for two working people it is generally to their advantage to file separate tax returns. I don't see the money-grab you speak of.

My position is that church and state should be separate and whatever the people vote in should stand as the law of the land. The problem for this in the U.S. is that if DOMA is reinterpreted, state will be infringing on church. Any church that has tax-free status under the IRS code will be required to perform weddings for same-sex couples. Just as I feel that the church can not force it's will upon government, I think government should not be permitted to force it's will on a church. It is only fair that it goes both ways.

Marriage is a civil contract, licensed by local government. Churches often perform marriage ceremonies, though that is not required, and they generally do not do so for free. Since a church's services are not required I doubt they would be compelled by law to conduct that ceremony, they do not issue the licenses. Churches do often perform the service for members of their congregation, from people whom they collect those tax-free offerings, so if they receive offerings from people they disapprove of I guess guess there is a sort of money-grab going on there.

Please, elaborate on this fraud or scam you speak of.

Congrats, Kiwis!

And after homosexuality is granted around the world the next group will be up to bat.

Incestuous German brother and sister fight to stay married

Patrick Stuebing, 31, and his sister Susan Karolewski, 23 are married. They claim that it should not be illegal for them to marry because they didn’t know each other as children. Patrick was adopted by another family at a very young age and wasn’t reunited with his biological family until he was 18.

bentcorner.com...

Even if they did know each other as children, I can't see why an incestuous relationship gets treated differently to any other.

In fact any relationship involving more than one consenting entity should be treated equally under the law.

If prejudice is removed, it must be removed completely.

Originally posted by UnderGetty
Even if they did know each other as children, I can't see why an incestuous relationship gets treated differently to any other. In fact any relationship involving more than one consenting entity should be treated equally under the law.

edit on 17-4-2013 by UnderGetty because: (no reason given)

That is a very fair argument so I suppose it wasn't directed at people that have your mindset. It was more towards the people that believe once you allow gay marriage that other types of groups will not demand the same rights when they use the exact same arguments.

Everything the homosexual community is using as an argument to base their right to marriage on can also be applied to those who wish to have an incestual marriage. If I were a lawyer representing two family members who wished to be married I would base my entire argument on the fact that gay marriage has been accepted.

It would be discriminatory to not allow other groups beyond homosexuals once that marriage barrier is broken.

I would go so far as to ask why stop at incest?

Originally posted by UnderGetty
I would go so far as to ask why stop at incest?

Well because that is really the only other group that includes the same arguments as homosexuals.

Two consenting adults.

Anything else goes outside of the realm such as beastiality, minor relationships or marrying something like a rock who cannot be consenting.

Nothing else would stand up in court but the incestual issue would have to be granted.

How about parents marrying children when the children are of age?
What if a person wishes to be married post mortem?
Then there are the implications of multiple partners and artificial (synthetic) partners.

Actually, there are ritual unions / marriages that should also be considered here.

It may seem totally ridiculous but so did same sex marriage a decade or two ago.

Originally posted by UnderGetty
How about parents marrying children when the children are of age?
What if a person wishes to be married post mortem?
Then there are the implications of multiple partners and artificial (synthetic) partners.

Actually, there are ritual unions / marriages that should also be considered here.

It may seem totally ridiculous but so did same sex marriage a decade or two ago.

edit on 17-4-2013 by UnderGetty because: (no reason given)

Oh yes, I forgot about polygamy, that would also need to be legalized once homosexual unions are passed into law.

Parent and child (if child is a legal adult) would certainly qualify but post-mortem would not as it does not involve two consenting adults.

reply to post by Hopechest


Right now I may be inclined to draw the line at species, limiting marriage to a union between two consenting (and consentable) humans. But if we discover Bigfoot and Yeti or find the Alpha Centauris particularly appealing I might have to reconsider.

I am not opposed to larger unions beyond joining just two persons together but that would require some new legal restructuring to accommodate that sort of union and would have new legal definitions along with it. Current marriage laws would appear to works just as well now for joining any two persons regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, whatever.

When the Supreme Court removed racial discrimination from marriage agreements across the land it upset a number of people who couldn't bear to see inter-racial couples together, but we moved along as a nation despite those objections and are probably better for it.

In the US consanguinity is banned in over half the states between first cousins, though it has been suggested that over 10% of marriages are between first and second cousins. en.wikipedia.org...