Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
The Id3al Experience

Same-sex Marriage Bill passes

30 posts in this topic

I think a lot of countries will start passing it. Should anyway, what does it hurt.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gay couples should be allowed to marry and have the same rights as Heterosexual couples, a big pat on the back for the NZ parliament and one in the eye for the religious homophobic lobby.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the kind of bills we want passed. :tu:

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is wonderful, I love hearing news about good things that are happening in the world. This is definitely good news.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since so many people here in the U.S. seem to be against gays marriage, we should just create a new form of it called "Parriage" that has all of the same legal rights, but churches can refuse to perform for. Then the whole "Marriage is between a man and a women" garbage will become moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of our local churches is having a ceremony for a gay couple. It won't be official or legal, but it's going to be a big event.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.stuff.co....riage-legalised

Same sex marriage passed in the Beehive lastnight. History is made.

Fan-freaking-tastic!!!!!! Go New Zealand!

Mabon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My nephew and his husband have been together over 30 years. I think they have earned the right to be married. I'm sorry, but I think to call it anything else would be a slap in the face.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My nephew and his husband have been together over 30 years. I think they have earned the right to be married. I'm sorry, but I think to call it anything else would be a slap in the face.

That is awesome. They do deserve to be married and have all the rights and recognition of a married couple.

However, the whole being together for 30 years part makes me want to faint. I couldn't image being with anyone for that long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is awesome. They do deserve to be married and have all the rights and recognition of a married couple.

However, the whole being together for 30 years part makes me want to faint. I couldn't image being with anyone for that long.

ikr, thats almost twice my age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believe marriage is about love then it makes sense to marry gays too.

But it has to do with childbirth, so it makes no sense whatsoever. It was originally conceived to celebrate bringing life into the world, and the economic benefits as a privilege towards those ends.

They re-defined marriage to be "about love" before gays were even accepted in society - so in a way, gays aren't even getting married, it's just something we call marriage. The reason why conservatives are losing is because they failed to realize the real meaning of marriage and resorted to using the Bible as an argument, just constantly stating "Marriage is between a man and a woman.", not explaining WHY or even bothering to make the logical argument - in a way, they deserved to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of straight people get married without the intent of having kids though. What if the woman is 50+ years old? Is she only allowed to marry if she can give birth?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think marriage has evolved into love.

Yes, it may have started for childbirth purposes, but now, marriage is so much more than that.

Even if the conservatives brought that up, it's just about as ridiculous as fighting the "between man and woman" card.

For the time being, we still have a choice on who we marry and who we love. And in modern day society, a large majority marry for love and not so much baby making purposes.

Let freedom ring!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Plenty of straight people get married without the intent of having kids though.

In the past people didn't get married if they weren't going to have kids.

The thing is gays are right when they say modern people opposing gay marriage are hypocrites because modern people tend to accept the warped narrative anyway. Like I said, they deserved to lose.

I support actual traditional marriage. As it stands now though allowing gays to marry is like desecrating a corpse - it's mocking and unnecessary but hey, she's already dead.

it's just about as ridiculous as fighting the "between man and woman" card.

No it's not, but then again they'd bring it up in a vacuum devoid of any other traditions, so it would seem arbitrary. They make no effort to enforce traditional marriage anyway, gays or no gays. Modern conservatives are more loyal to money and Jesus than anything, not a real nationalist spirit.

The way I see it though is imagine if in the future people forgot that handicapped parking spaces were only for handicapped people, and then people started to say it was "unequal", forgetting the reason for their existence...so then there was a movement to allow non-handicapped people to use them. Sounds silly at first but it shows how semantic distortion can warp perceptions over time. Granted it would be more obvious but I can't think of a better analogy. Understand though how frustrated I am when someone claims I am "anti-equality" for my views, they don't understand how I see it from my own worldview - but as I said, I concede that modern conservatives have no moral highground and in a way deserve to lose for being such banal idiots.

Edited by Gravitorbox
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it though is imagine if in the future people forgot that handicapped parking spaces were only for handicapped people, and then people started to say it was "unequal", forgetting the reason for their existence...so then there was a movement to allow non-handicapped people to use them. Sounds silly at first but it shows how semantic distortion can warp perceptions over time. Granted it would be more obvious but I can't think of a better analogy. Understand though how frustrated I am when someone claims I am "anti-equality" for my views, they don't understand how I see it from my own worldview - but as I said, I concede that modern conservatives have no moral highground and in a way deserve to lose for being such banal idiots.

I think that analogy is wrong, Imo.

Comparing gay marriage and handycap parks is apples and oranges. Handycap people need them spaces so it is not far away from the areas they are trying to get to.

A man and a Woman, do not NEED to have a marriage only to them.... Its makes no difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What it comes down to for me is, I don't know what gives any person the right to choose who somebody else picks to love or marry. If they aren't trying to force you into a relationship of any kind, what difference does it make to you?

And the handicapped parking analogy was awful.

All legalizing same sex marriage is doing, is showing people that they have a choice. It's not a requirement.

But if your heart chooses someone of the same sex, the more power to you.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the past........

This is the key phrase. Societies move on. That's how progress is made.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Good on you New Zealand. :)

Edit: I'm just not sure what this has to do with philosophy or pyschology.

Edited by Likely Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If you believe marriage is about love then it makes sense to marry gays too.

But it has to do with childbirth, so it makes no sense whatsoever. It was originally conceived to celebrate bringing life into the world, and the economic benefits as a privilege towards those ends.

If it was still about childbirth, infertile couples could never get married. Unfortunately some people are still living in the past.

The way I see it though is imagine if in the future people forgot that handicapped parking spaces were only for handicapped people, and then people started to say it was "unequal", forgetting the reason for their existence...

No, you have it backwards. The majority are not handicapped this analogy would make more sense if it was the handicapped people who wanted to be entitled to the same benefits as the non-handicapped. Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hurray for New Zealand, good on them for voting this in!

In the past people didn't get married if they weren't going to have kids.

As has been said, the keywords in there are 'in the past'. The past is full of things that we'd not want back (ie slavery). You can't use the past to justify anything, because that ignores the realities of the now. It's also important to note 'in the past' that marital rape was legal and you couldn't divorce someone even if they were being abusive. Should we wind marriage back to a state where those things were acceptable? After all, that's what marriage was in the past and that's what matters right?

Bringing kids into it always puzzles me. Why? Well first, you don't need to get married to have kids. Marriage doesn't unlock the ability to have kids, so that arguement is (again) a moot one. An important thing to remember is that childrearing is more important than child birth. Infertile couples marry and adopt children (or opt for surrogacy/IVF) and they do it because they want children, not that they're required to do so to have ther marriage validated.

Since your view is marriage is about childbirth, what about those infertile couples that have children through those means?

The logic you use will, eventually, be consigned to the past.

Edited by shadowhive
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What it comes down to for me is, I don't know what gives any person the right to choose who somebody else picks to love or marry. If they aren't trying to force you into a relationship of any kind, what difference does it make to you?

This is called the "I don't have any principles mentality". It is nihilism.

And the handicapped parking analogy was awful.

You're taking it way too literally. It was to try and illustrate how retarded it was in the grand scheme of things. If we never re-defined marriage to be about love, no one would think not allowing homosexuals to marry was persecution. For example, in Japan nowadays there is no gay marriage and no one cares, because they still know what it means. To be fair, due to the fact that homosexuality was never really persecuted there, there isn't even a "gay" identity or any gay pride outside of what was imported from the west - from what I heard, they find the entire concept silly. This leads me to believe it is not even an organic social construct but just a reaction to oppression in most cases.

All legalizing same sex marriage is doing, is showing people that they have a choice. It's not a requirement.

Besides the point.

But if your heart chooses someone of the same sex, the more power to you.

No one is saying gay people can't have partners and love them. I'm simply saying that since marriage was about childbirth, wanting a marriage without wanting children is basically a form of entitlement. But as I said, I am going to hammer this home, marriage already stopped making sense before gay people were involved, so allowing them to marry at this point won't cause any real further damage. I would be lying however if I said I didn't find the entitlement so many gay people seem to have as incredibly irritating, however. But then again most people in modern society seem to lack sentimentality and are rather selfish.

This is the key phrase. Societies move on. That's how progress is made.

As has been said, the keywords in there are 'in the past'. The past is full of things that we'd not want back (ie slavery). You can't use the past to justify anything, because that ignores the realities of the now. It's also important to note 'in the past' that marital rape was legal and you couldn't divorce someone even if they were being abusive. Should we wind marriage back to a state where those things were acceptable? After all, that's what marriage was in the past and that's what matters right?

You are missing the point because in a way what I am saying is that, from your perspective, it makes more sense to eliminate marriage entirely than to re-define it like that. I've heard many other analogies made but they do not make sense, for example:

"If you believe in traditional marriage, you might as well not want interracial couples to marry!" - this doesn't make sense because allowing two people of a different race to marry does not violate the intended purpose of marriage in the first place. Two people of different races can have children. You can have children without marital rape as well, so the principle is still intact. The reason why something exists is just as valid as the thing itself, at least when we're discussing tradition.

Equality for the sake of equality and at the expense of everything else is something that irritates me. Marriage was a really sentimental tradition because naturally we'd find childbirth sacred because you know, according to nature that is practically the core meaning of life, or one of them: Survival; and this is more real than any religion because it is in accords with nature. Looking at it that way I don't need the Bible to justify it, and I think anyone who does is confiding themselves to losing the debate anyway, which is one of the reasons I am irritated by Christian conservatives. They shoot themselves in the foot when they bring religion into any debate.

Now I need to emphasize that I have very different philosophical and ideological views than most people here; my worldview is entirely different so I can agree to disagree. I don't think on an individualistic basis, but an organic one.

Bringing kids into it always puzzles me. Why? Well first, you don't need to get married to have kids. Marriage doesn't unlock the ability to have kids, so that arguement is (again) a moot one.

It is not moot because by this logic you don't agree with marriage anyway. You are saying that celebrating childbirth is irrelevant, ergo you are actually against marriage and you are really just advocating some unrelated civil union, but of course most of you also demand it be called marriage when it isn't for the sake of equality. In a way, no one in this thread actually believes in same-sex marriage, because the reason behind it is different.

To make another example I've had on more than one occasion someone bring up that the Native Americans had "same-sex marriage"; some ritual to bond two people for purposes unbeknownst to me. This illustrates my point because whatever reason they did it was not the same reason we did, so even if we decided to call it marriage because we lacked a closer analogy, it is not the same thing. Semantic distortion once again.

...actually, come to think of it, if you don't actually agree with traditional marriage then you might as well not have civil unions anyway, because in western society the entire concept of bonding two people like that is from marriage; it was the tradition of marriage that decided to give monetary benefits and bring two people together for the purpose of celebrating procreation in the first place, and that is where the entire narrative comes from. Leftists warped the narrative intent-wise. If we started over and for whatever reason did not develop that tradition then we would not develop the concept of the civil union for anyone.

The logic you use will, eventually, be consigned to the past.

Because modern society isn't logical. It thinks the principle of "equality" overcomes all other things, but that's another debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You are missing the point because in a way what I am saying is that, from your perspective, it makes more sense to eliminate marriage entirely than to re-define it like that. I've heard many other analogies made but they do not make sense, for example:

"If you believe in traditional marriage, you might as well not want interracial couples to marry!" - this doesn't make sense because allowing two people of a different race to marry does not violate the intended purpose of marriage in the first place. Two people of different races can have children. You can have children without marital rape as well, so the principle is still intact. The reason why something exists is just as valid as the thing itself, at least when we're discussing tradition.

Equality for the sake of equality and at the expense of everything else is something that irritates me. Marriage was a really sentimental tradition because naturally we'd find childbirth sacred because you know, according to nature that is practically the core meaning of life, or one of them: Survival; and this is more real than any religion because it is in accords with nature. Looking at it that way I don't need the Bible to justify it, and I think anyone who does is confiding themselves to losing the debate anyway, which is one of the reasons I am irritated by Christian conservatives. They shoot themselves in the foot when they bring religion into any debate.

Now I need to emphasize that I have very different philosophical and ideological views than most people here; my worldview is entirely different so I can agree to disagree. I don't think on an individualistic basis, but an organic one.

You sound like you practically worship 'traditional marriage' as you see it.

The reason why something exists in the first place is important, but the thing itself should be able to adapt with the times. Marriage today is not what it was when it was first created and you seem disappointed in that. Go back in time to that time and you'd probably be diappointed in how marriage originally was.

Nature can't really be used as justfcation, because so little of what we do falls into the realm of 'natural'.

Marriage has been 'redefined' from it's original meaning. It's not going to go back any time soon. So I suggest you try and deal with that.

It is not moot because by this logic you don't agree with marriage anyway. You are saying that celebrating childbirth is irrelevant, ergo you are actually against marriage and you are really just advocating some unrelated civil union, but of course most of you also demand it be called marriage when it isn't for the sake of equality. In a way, no one in this thread actually believes in same-sex marriage, because the reason behind it is different.

No, I'm not saying celebrating childbirth is irrelevent at all. I am saying that, since gay people do want (and can have children) denying them marriage even with your logic makes no sense. Same for infertile couples.

Like I say, it takes more to being a parent than just birthing a child.

To make another example I've had on more than one occasion someone bring up that the Native Americans had "same-sex marriage"; some ritual to bond two people for purposes unbeknownst to me. This illustrates my point because whatever reason they did it was not the same reason we did, so even if we decided to call it marriage because we lacked a closer analogy, it is not the same thing. Semantic distortion once again.

...actually, come to think of it, if you don't actually agree with traditional marriage then you might as well not have civil unions anyway, because in western society the entire concept of bonding two people like that is from marriage; it was the tradition of marriage that decided to give monetary benefits and bring two people together for the purpose of celebrating procreation in the first place, and that is where the entire narrative comes from. Leftists warped the narrative intent-wise. If we started over and for whatever reason did not develop that tradition then we would not develop the concept of the civil union for anyone.

Ah, but we're not Native Americans are we?

I'm for the 'tradtional marriage' in the ense that I am for hetrosexual couples consentually marrying regardless of if they want or are able to produce children. Being pro-same sex marriage is not being 'against' that form of marriage.

If you want marriage to be for the purposes of child raising (not just child bearing) than youur arguement falls apart. Inferile and gay people can have children and denying their families the same rights doesn't seem fair on either the cuple of the children.

It seems odd that you venerate procreation and childbirth, yet not child raising.

Because modern society isn't logical. It thinks the principle of "equality" overcomes all other things, but that's another debate.

Is any society truly logical?

I'd rather have equality than none.

Edited by shadowhive
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sound like you practically worship 'traditional marriage' as you see it.

As part of an overall worldview? Sure, you could say that.

The reason why something exists in the first place is important, but the thing itself should be able to adapt with the times. Marriage today is not what it was when it was first created and you seem disappointed in that. Go back in time to that time and you'd probably be diappointed in how marriage originally was.

I don't like the mentality of the current times. So me "being okay with something adapting to modern times" is a moot point.

Nature can't really be used as justfcation, because so little of what we do falls into the realm of 'natural'.

From my philosophical perspective my interpretation and definition of nature is consistent.

Marriage has been 'redefined' from it's original meaning. It's not going to go back any time soon. So I suggest you try and deal with that.

"You should accept things you do not like and not have any real principles."

No, I'm not saying celebrating childbirth is irrelevent at all. I am saying that, since gay people do want (and can have children) denying them marriage even with your logic makes no sense. Same for infertile couples.

This may be the only thing close to a point anyone has actually made here, but the reason why people support gay marriage is still for the wrong reasons. I don't oppose gay marriage to oppose gays, I oppose it to be consistent with supporting marriage that at least matches the core principle definition of it.

Allowing multiracial couples to marry does not contradict the core principle of marriage. Allowing marriage with gender equality does not contradict the core principle of marriage. Allowing marriage without marital rape does not violate it, but allowing people to get married when they do not choose to have kids does. You know and I know that the entire reason people support gay marriage has little to nothing to do with applying said principles to gay adoption or artificial insemination, because as I said, people do not consider marriage to be about childbirth anymore.

In a way, it is completely understandable why gay marriage is being proposed, because if you believe marriage is about love then yes, it is discrimination to not marry gays, or at least there is no reason NOT to. But I do not accept that narrative, because I do not accept leftist trends whose sole purpose is to eliminate core values and a healthy worldview that isn't based on individualism, entitlement, and hedonism.

Ah, but we're not Native Americans are we?

No, we are not (which is another reason why people using Native Americans to justify gay marriage is nonsensical). I used the Native American analogy as an example of semantic distortion - how people say things are the same regardless of considering the reasons behind them.

I'm for the 'tradtional marriage' in the ense that I am for hetrosexual couples consentually marrying regardless of if they want or are able to produce children. Being pro-same sex marriage is not being 'against' that form of marriage.

Yes except to be completely consistent to that ends you would not consider marriage without childbirth fair or sensible. Then you'd also consider giving people economic and tax benefits if they don't plan to have children as even unfair to people who do, since that was intended as a privilege.

Inferile and gay people can have children and denying their families the same rights doesn't seem fair on either the cuple of the children.

Perhaps I would allow marriage if they chose to adopt, or get artifically inseminated. That is actually something worth considering.

Is any society truly logical?

Nowadays? Nope. It's at least far more neurotic and entitled than it was in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two separate issues here - legal state/government marriage and marriage recognized by a religious group

Legal state/government marriage gives each individual certain rights and decision making abilities. These include medical decisions, monetary decisions, legal decisions and the ability to execute these decisions regarding their partners. In short - its a legal contract. Any consenting citizen of legal age should have the same rights.

Religious marriage - symbolic only to that religion and it's adherents. No legal gains. Not recognized unless a governmental issued contract is executed by those with the authority FROM THE GOVERNMENT is issued.

So...legal marriage by NZ is AWESOME!

Don't really care what religions do.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.