Marriage Equality Bill passes in New Zealand.

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


And currently 31 states I bellieve have amended their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

If the Court overturns this then there's no reason they wouldn't also overturn the state laws regarding incestual marriage. In fact, they would be guilty of discrimination if they let it stand.




posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
The inter species / alien angle is an interesting one...

As far as a marriage post mortem, the person can certainly consent while they're still alive.

In the case of a ritual marriage ceremony where split personalities are involved, all parties are consenting. All personalities within a physical body are just as real and valid.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnderGetty
The inter species / alien angle is an interesting one...

As far as a marriage post mortem, the person can certainly consent while they're still alive.

In the case of a ritual marriage ceremony where split personalities are involved, all parties are consenting. All personalities within a physical body are just as real and valid.


A post-mortem marriage would never be allowed because it would need to be taken to court and there is no "standing to sue."

A court, well the Supreme Court anyways, will not hear a case unless one of the parties has something either to directly gain or lose in the case. In the issue of a non-living human there is none so they would not hear it.

Multiple personalities also would not hold up since that condition is considered a mental disease and therefore no court would find the person to be sane enough to decide on a marriage issue for themselves.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
There is an awful lot of people nowadays with a diagnosed mental disease. It doesn't exclude them from marriage.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnderGetty
There is an awful lot of people nowadays with a diagnosed mental disease. It doesn't exclude them from marriage.


Granted and I certainly do not know what the court uses to distinguish a person as mentally incapable of deciding on their own about marriage.

I'm sure if someone claimed they were multiple people and wanted multiple marriage licenses though that it may raise some eyebrows.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
haha yeah now that would be a day in court!



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Good for New Zealand!
If gay couples want to be legally married it should be their right to do so, debatting why they need a formal wedding made legal is ridiculous, why do straight people feel the need to? It's a choice, each to their own as long as they are consenting adults.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 



Originally posted by micmerci
This is about entitlement, benefits, and money. Anyone who says differently is kidding themselves.


So, are you saying that I married my opposite-gender partner for money, benefits and entitlements?


Yay, NZ!!!
Hopefully, the US will catch up soon.


edit on 4/17/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
And currently 31 states I bellieve have amended their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

If the Court overturns this then there's no reason they wouldn't also overturn the state laws regarding incestual marriage. In fact, they would be guilty of discrimination if they let it stand.


This bunk again? Let's face it. The world is growing up. If the US wants to remain backwards fine. I'm certainly going to remember this the next time an American tells me to butt out it's not my country.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I actually don't care whether it passes or not, I have no horse in that race so to say. It will not affect me in the slightest.

I am just bringing up following actions which I believe will occur once homosexual marriage is legally accepted. It is for others to decide if they wish to open that pandora's box.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweetstuff
Good for New Zealand!
If gay couples want to be legally married it should be their right to do so, debatting why they need a formal wedding made legal is ridiculous, why do straight people feel the need to? It's a choice, each to their own as long as they are consenting adults.


Well, people get married for a reason surely. Anything else is like walking through life like a sheep. I can't see how it is ridiculous to expect a justification.

Why do straight people choose to get married?

Well I can think of one very good reason immediately - to make a lifelong covenant with God, to become one flesh, and live as He intended.

I don't really understand why people of no particular faith go through a marriage ceremony (or why ministers conduct such ceremonies) but there you go - such is the world.

The word marriage actually has a very definite meaning but again, in this dumbed down world where people no longer know the difference (or care) between such words as enormity and enormousness, all I can do is marvel at the enormity of this day.
edit on 17-4-2013 by UnderGetty because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Well homosexuality was never considered that big of a deal in almost all of the ancient cultures. It was readily accepted and not shunned and it wasn't until the rise of the great religions we have today, all of which appeared in a very short timeframe, that is was frowned upon.

I'd imagine that as the world becomes more secular that we are returning to a previous moral standard where it is considered acceptable. I'm sure this will last until the next great spiritual enlightenment period.

Human evolution in societal terms is nothing if not predictable.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Peak humanity then?



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by micmerci
 



Originally posted by micmerci
This is about entitlement, benefits, and money. Anyone who says differently is kidding themselves.


So, are you saying that I married my opposite-gender partner for money, benefits and entitlements?


Yay, NZ!!!
Hopefully, the US will catch up soon.


edit on 4/17/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)


No, I am saying that when it comes down to it, this particular group is miffed because they are not receiving the same employment benefits as hetero couples. (By stating this fact, does not mean I have an opinion on the matter) But proponents are dressing it up with flowery statements about equality and civil rights. I just think all parties should be honest and say that the big push is really about money$$.

I don't want to come across as biased or with a certain tone in my response. I think those that oppose on a civil level (outside of religion) also oppose for monetary reasons.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
At the end of the day, I couldn't care less about incestos wanting to get married. However it poses a biological threat when offspring come into play (birth defects/quality of life), which then poses a societal threat (potential burden on health care system/weakens the gene pool). Homo sex does neither, as a) children can't be born and b) the absence of a gene set won't weaken the gene the pool. Therefore homo marriage can't be compared to incesto marriage.

Anyone who uses religion as an argument has intellectually failed.

Congratulations enzed on being more progressive than us, your big Australian siblings (no we don't want to marry you and have freak ausnz kids).



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by izero
At the end of the day, I couldn't care less about incestos wanting to get married. However it poses a biological threat when offspring come into play (birth defects/quality of life), which then poses a societal threat (potential burden on health care system/weakens the gene pool). Homo sex does neither, as a) children can't be born and b) the absence of a gene set won't weaken the gene the pool. Therefore homo marriage can't be compared to incesto marriage.

Anyone who uses religion as an argument has intellectually failed.

Congratulations enzed on being more progressive than us, your big Australian siblings (no we don't want to marry you and have freak ausnz kids).


But if someone in the relationship is sterile that would negate that portion of the argument. I also believe the courts have settled law that you can not deny a marriage because of a possible risk to future children. It had to do with an HIV case I believe.

Also important to note is the fact that incestual relationships date just about as far back as homosexual ones do and was openly practiced among the ruling elite for a very long time.
edit on 17-4-2013 by Hopechest because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
If they are sterile then there is no issue, however it is a caveat. That courts are allowing people with serious genetic defects or deadly transmittable diseases to breed is immensely irresponsible and immoral (plenty of parentless 3rd world children out there)and very obviously a decision based on emotion. The fact is that homosexuality does no harm the the gene pool, the reduction of people breeding is a positive and the homos can act as surrogates. The only way incestos can be the same is if at least one partner is sterile (note this doesn't mean that I believe a incest couple will definitely produce a defective offspring but it due to lack of genetic variation there are high risks).

I am aware that historically royal families are highly incestuous, I don't think the practice is as common now however.

Like I said I don't care about anyone getting married, really couldn't care if a dude wanted to marry a hatstand... The only concern that should be investigated is breeding.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 



Originally posted by Hopechest
I am just bringing up following actions which I believe will occur once homosexual marriage is legally accepted. It is for others to decide if they wish to open that pandora's box.


Why would gay marriage be a "gateway" to incestual marriage? Any more than mixed race marriage, or atheistic for example? Seems if a brother wanted to marry a sister, they would have been fighting for it all along. They're not waiting around for gay marriage to become legal.

Your argument doesn't make sense (as with 99.9% of anti-gay arguments)
edit on 4/17/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by homeslice
 


In New Zealand this change in the word marriage was pushed through without a mandate or public support. .
The gay Mp's pushing this bill are all in there personal relationships that they denied and said they were being discriminated against.
The only public support was from the ignorant people that believed the gay MP's campaign that their "love was illegal" and that they were not allowed state sanctioned personal relationships in NZ.

Maybe these gay politicians who forced the change in a social institution will stop lying about, denying and invalidating their personal relationships.
It was always about power, as these gay Mp's ( and their lawyer partners) had everything others had in their a state sanctioned personal relationships in NZ.
It is funny to me that they invalidated their own personal relationships, told lies that NZ didsn't allow their personal relationships, separated themselves from the public made themselves unpopular to get.... an openly gay PM.
The desire for power makes people crazy.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by BDBinc
 


Without public support? Almost everybody I know supports this. The very few I do know that dont support this are basing their opinion on the ridiculous religion they blindly follow.

"The only public support was from the ignorant people that believed the gay MP's campaign that their "love was illegal" and that they were not allowed state sanctioned personal relationships in NZ. "

Are you kidding?





new topics
top topics
 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join