Same sex marriage

[Fern]

Same sex marriage was passed into law in New Zealand on the 19 August, 13, by 77 votes to 44.
New Zealand will be the first country in Oceania and the fifteenth overall to allow same-sex couples to marry.
The argument 'for' has been, why shouldn't every couple have the opportunity to enter into a marriage like heterosexual couples if they so wish.
Growing up in a conservative era, I've always seen marriage as a relationship between male & female but that has been slowly eroded over the years. When Helen Clarke, past leader of the Labour party, was the prime minister, they passed into law, 'a heterosexual couple who had been in a relationship (partners) for 6 years or more, if they split up were entitled to the same property rights as a married couple.'
This came into being to try and stem the flow of so many couples entering into a 'partnership' breaking up after a short period of time, leaving behind kids and one partner perhaps, out of pocket. As to its success who knows.
In 2004 to appease the gay rights brigade, of which Helen Clarke our illustrious leader at the time was/is part of, brought in the 'civil union';

Civil union has been legal in New Zealand since 26 April 2005. The Civil Union Act 2004 to establish the institution of civil union for same-sex and opposite-sex couples was passed by the Parliament on 9 December 2004. The Act has been described as very similar to the Marriage Act 1955 with references to "marriage" replaced by "civil union". A companion bill, the Relationships (Statutory References) Act, was passed shortly thereafter on 15 March 2005, to remove discriminatory provisions on the basis of relationship status from a range of statutes and regulations. As a result of these bills, all couples in New Zealand, whether married, in a civil union, or in a de facto partnership, now generally enjoy the same rights and undertake the same obligations. These rights extend to immigration, next-of-kin status, social welfare, matrimonial property and other areas. Non-married couples are not however permitted to adopt children, although people in non-marital relationships can adopt as individuals.

Within a few years it wasn't long before Civil union relationships were not enough for the 'gays' they wanted any relationship they entered into to be acknowledged as a marriage , (if they so wished) with all the rights of a heterosexual marriage, hence we now have the 'same sex marriage law.'
Quite a number of people see this as 'taking away' something special that was between a male and female. For myself I can't say that it doesn't bother me, but as the saying goes, 'we must move with the times'. Maybe now we won't be subjected to the half naked gay parades flaunting their sexuality, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[SeaBreeze]

I don't care about same sex marriage very much either way, I suppose it's fine for homosexuals to share the same benefits and rights through marriage as heterosexuals. I don't feel threatened by it at all, even having grown up with the belief that marriage was between a man and a woman. Like you say, the times are changing, and I see more and more people coming out with their sexual preferences every year.

As accepting as I am to one's right to choose their own lifestyle, I have to be honest about hearing of adoptions by gay couples. In the back of my mind, I feel that babies and children shouldn't be in the family, unless already there by one of the adults in the union. It kind of bugs me to see a bisexual couple adopt children, Neil Patrick Harris comes to mind.

I've also heard of homosexual men having their sperm mixed up, so neither of them really knew who the father was, and having a woman artificially inseminated for money to have a child for them...stuff like that I will never be comfortable with. Not saying it's right, but it is what I feel. I have concern for the children involved, whether warranted or not.

I grew up in a large city, where I was exposed to many homosexual people, sometimes they kept a very low profile, and other times dress and acted in a flamboyant manner, which I think added to some people's negative views. I had a good friend when I was a teenager who was gay, and she was the nicest person ever. She respected my heterosexuality, and was just a nice person to hang out with, along with my other friends. As far as the parades, IMO, they do more harm than good for the gay community.

 

[Murphy]

Gays should experience how miserable a marriage can be like the rest of us, however I am totally against 2 homosexual men adopting a child.

But why do gay men find it necessary to shove their sexuality in everyones face? We have a radio announcer here whose behaviour on a bus trip, I am told, was disgusting

 

[Diwundrin]

My mild resentment of the gay marriage issue is more with the politicizing of it than with the personal aspects. The amount of attention the 'cause' receives is out of all proportion to the amount of people affected.

Not even all gays like the idea of 'gay marriage', just a few very vocal, pigheaded ones. I have a gay friend who'm I've known for over 30 years, and he's just bewildered by this current trend. He's had a few short term affairs, and a couple which lasted more years than many heterosexual marriages do and just doesn't see the necessity, or the benefit, in making the arrangement 'legal'. His attitude is why complicate what he views as freedom to live a chosen lifestyle unencumbered by the legalities and responsibilities accrued by official marriages.

To paraphrase the bard "methinks they protest too much." I may think a bit strange, (shaddup) but to me it's more about exercising some right to be seen as special and somehow superior than to be accepted. Do they really believe that they have the emotional attachment angle cornered? Or don't they trust each other enough to stay together without a piece of paper? Or then again, is it just about money and rights of inheritance and access to a deceased partner's estate??
Hell, don't we all get into tangles over those things? We don't hear of too many problems being cured by marriage.

I've just got this thing about fringe and splinter groups demanding equal rights to something they essentially already have.
That can only mean that they want more than equality, they want their views to over-ride those of the majority and be formalized as 'special'.
To be blunt I resent them trying to push me around as though I'm some lesser, and dumber being because I'm not into what they are. That just makes my stubborn genes kick into overdrive.

They demand tolerance, respect, and the right to behave, and say, as they like from the hetero majority , but play the martyr when verbal fire is returned, and spit taunts over any who disagree with their belief that they're something wonderful. They're not. They're just different.

I chose not to marry, and chose never to have children, so I'm free to say I can't for the life of me understand why anyone marries at all other than to adhere to an outdated culture of legitimizing children. Gay marriage doesn't even do that so what purpose does it serve in today's changed society??

Too pragmatic? Should my heart be between my ears like the others who judge priorities on emotional grounds? Dunno, but it just seems a storm in a teacup to me.

As to demanding to be able to adopt children. C'mon. If homosexuality is so 'normal' then why can't they accept it's drawbacks? Why are they so anxious to pretend that they are the heteros that they accuse of discriminating against them?
A lot of heterosexual people are deprived of producing the children they desperately want too, it's not just them. They ain't anything special. Why don't they want to be truly equal in coping with that disadvantage too? What exactly are they trying to prove at the cost of an infant who has no say in the matter??

 

[Warrigal]

As to demanding to be able to adopt children. C'mon. If homosexuality is so 'normal' then why can't they accept it's drawbacks? Why are they so anxious to pretend that they are the heteros that they accuse of discriminating against them?

A lot of heterosexual people are deprived of producing the children they desperately want too, it's not just them. They ain't anything special. Why don't they want to be truly equal in coping with that disadvantage too? What exactly are they trying to prove at the cost of an infant who has no say in the matter??

I thought like this until I had lengthy discussions with a lesbian couple on another forum. Slowly I began to realise that, just like mainstream heterosexual people, the same sex attracted folk are anything but uniform in their beliefs, needs and desires. Some have no desire for marriage and even despise it as an oppressive and anachronistic institution. Others see it as the validation of their commitment to each other. These people are the ones who feel discriminated against by the status quo. I can see their point. If I was denied the opportunity for a legal marriage for some reason that seemed irrational to me then I would probably feel the same. Actually, I know I would.

In addition I came to realise that children are already present in many of these unions, especially lesbian unions. One or both of the women may have had a child by a previous marriage or by AID. However the family is formed it is still a family but if the birth mother dies then the other parent has no claim to her child or children at all. The family can be split up, the children claimed by grandparents or estranged fathers. A court would probably decide the best outcome for the children but the timing, at the time of bereavement, couldn't be worse. It would be better for all concerned if the arrangements could be hammered out prior to a death as part of an application to adopt each others children.

As for gay men adopting other people's children, for some time now they have been allowed to be foster parents and are often the only ones prepared to look after some of the many handicapped children surrendered by their biological parents.

As for marriage being between a man and a woman only, I certainly see it in those terms and it is on this fundamental coupling that is the principal foundation for a viable society but there is room for other arrangements too. Single people, communes and same sex couples, all enrich civilised society in their own way. In no way do any of these detract from my marriage to my husband so why should I insist that society push them to the margins. Let all take their place in the centre and feel welcome.

 

[GDAD]

Having quite a few Gay friends, I am glad to hear what N.Z. have done.It give gay couple all the same legal rights as hetrsexual couple.
I see no problem in gay couples adopting children. Gay couple can can also have children with donor eggs & Sperm & a surroget womb.
In answer to Michael: I have seen more Hetrosexual people charged with sexual crimes against children than gays. Come to think of it
I can't really remember a Gay person being charged. DON'T CONFUSE A PAEDOPHILE WITH A GAY PERSON.

 

[rkunsaw]

As to demanding to be able to adopt children. C'mon. If homosexuality is so 'normal' then why can't they accept it's drawbacks? Why are they so anxious to pretend that they are the heteros that they accuse of discriminating against them?
A lot of heterosexual people are deprived of producing the children they desperately want too, it's not just them. They ain't anything special. Why don't they want to be truly equal in coping with that disadvantage too? What exactly are they trying to prove at the cost of an infant who has no say in the matter??


I fully agree with the above. Nature doesn't allow two of the same sex to reproduce. We shouldn't either.

 

[Jillaroo]

My honest opinion is that no matter what sex you are, no matter what partner you like, be it same sex or heterosexual we are all human beings with rights, what right have we to dictate to a couple in a same sex partnership that they can't be married and can't have children. We need to move with the times and accept people as they are not for what we try to make them be

 

[Pappy]

I know that I'm old fashion as hell, but growing up and through most of the first half of my life, I never heard or cared what other people did with their lives. It was, I figured, none of my business. I had a gay friend in the Army and he lived his life and I minded my own business.

It's when all this hub-bub about parades, TV, and throwing it in my face, almost daily, that I started to get a bad feeling about all this him and him and her and her. I don't CARE.!

Live your lives the way you want, please, just don!t keep reminding me constantly about how you want to live yours.

I told you I was old fashion at the beginning of this. I was a country boy and was taught to respect my elders and not judge folks who are different.

 

[TICA]

I thought like this until I had lengthy discussions with a lesbian couple on another forum. Slowly I began to realise that, just like mainstream heterosexual people, the same sex attracted folk are anything but uniform in their beliefs, needs and desires. Some have no desire for marriage and even despise it as an oppressive and anachronistic institution. Others see it as the validation of their commitment to each other. These people are the ones who feel discriminated against by the status quo. I can see their point. If I was denied the opportunity for a legal marriage for some reason that seemed irrational to me then I would probably feel the same. Actually, I know I would.

In addition I came to realise that children are already present in many of these unions, especially lesbian unions. One or both of the women may have had a child by a previous marriage or by AID. However the family is formed it is still a family but if the birth mother dies then the other parent has no claim to her child or children at all. The family can be split up, the children claimed by grandparents or estranged fathers. A court would probably decide the best outcome for the children but the timing, at the time of bereavement, couldn't be worse. It would be better for all concerned if the arrangements could be hammered out prior to a death as part of an application to adopt each others children.

As for gay men adopting other people's children, for some time now they have been allowed to be foster parents and are often the only ones prepared to look after some of the many handicapped children surrendered by their biological parents.

As for marriage being between a man and a woman only, I certainly see it in those terms and it is on this fundamental coupling that is the principal foundation for a viable society but there is room for other arrangements too. Single people, communes and same sex couples, all enrich civilised society in their own way. In no way do any of these detract from my marriage to my husband so why should I insist that society push them to the margins. Let all take their place in the centre and feel welcome.

Well said. Exactly my feelings on this subject!

 

[That Guy]

Well said. Exactly my feelings on this subject!

Agreed.

 

[JustBonee]

it's when all this hub-bub about parades, tv, and throwing it in my face, almost daily, that i started to get a bad feeling about all this him and him and her and her. I don't care.!

Live your lives the way you want, please, just don!t keep reminding me constantly about how you want to live yours.

Amen

 

[Knightofalbion]

I hold that the male with the female is the natural order of things... But that being said, if two people love each other with a pure heart and want to be together, then good luck to them. I wish them all the happiness in the world.

 

[Warrigal]

The view of my church is that people living in "right relationships" are fit for ordination. This includes married couples and same sex couples. It is promiscuity and infidelity (and a few other moral faults) that are the real barriers to leadership in the church. Of course, not everyone who wants to be a minister is accepted for ordination - they have to have a strong sense of calling and this must be endorsed by their worshipping congregation elders, but homosexuality per se is not a barrier in and of itself.

So if homosexual men and lesbian women may become ministers and marry other people, is it reasonable to deny them the marriage rite for themselves?

 

[Jackie22]

I thought like this until I had lengthy discussions with a lesbian couple on another forum. Slowly I began to realise that, just like mainstream heterosexual people, the same sex attracted folk are anything but uniform in their beliefs, needs and desires. Some have no desire for marriage and even despise it as an oppressive and anachronistic institution. Others see it as the validation of their commitment to each other. These people are the ones who feel discriminated against by the status quo. I can see their point. If I was denied the opportunity for a legal marriage for some reason that seemed irrational to me then I would probably feel the same. Actually, I know I would.

In addition I came to realise that children are already present in many of these unions, especially lesbian unions. One or both of the women may have had a child by a previous marriage or by AID. However the family is formed it is still a family but if the birth mother dies then the other parent has no claim to her child or children at all. The family can be split up, the children claimed by grandparents or estranged fathers. A court would probably decide the best outcome for the children but the timing, at the time of bereavement, couldn't be worse. It would be better for all concerned if the arrangements could be hammered out prior to a death as part of an application to adopt each others children.

As for gay men adopting other people's children, for some time now they have been allowed to be foster parents and are often the only ones prepared to look after some of the many handicapped children surrendered by their biological parents.

As for marriage being between a man and a woman only, I certainly see it in those terms and it is on this fundamental coupling that is the principal foundation for a viable society but there is room for other arrangements too. Single people, communes and same sex couples, all enrich civilised society in their own way. In no way do any of these detract from my marriage to my husband so why should I insist that society push them to the margins. Let all take their place in the centre and feel welcome.

another..'Well Said'

 

[Archer]

I don't care either way as long as they're happy....
I'm just waiting for the Hetero Parade so I can run down King William Street with my "goodies" on show and announce to the world that yes, there are hetero sexuals amongst us...Shock horror...!!...

 

[Ozarkgal]

I know that I'm old fashion as hell, but growing up and through most of the first half of my life, I never heard or cared what other people did with their lives. It was, I figured, none of my business. I had a gay friend in the Army and he lived his life and I minded my own business.

It's when all this hub-bub about parades, TV, and throwing it in my face, almost daily, that I started to get a bad feeling about all this him and him and her and her. I don't CARE.!

Live your lives the way you want, please, just don!t keep reminding me constantly about how you want to live yours.

I told you I was old fashion at the beginning of this. I was a country boy and was taught to respect my elders and not judge folks who are different.

Double Amen!

 

[Fern]

Talking about the church, Anglican & Catholic religions will not accept homosexuality, they at least are staying true to the church & Bible. I am not religious, but I fail to see how any church can preach from the Bible and accept homosexuality, that is so hypocritical.
I wonder how many are truly homosexuals and not just a lifestyle they have chosen for themselves which I believe is the truth of the matter.

 

[Anne]

Talking about the church, Anglican & Catholic religions will not accept homosexuality, they at least are staying true to the church & Bible. I am not religious, but I fail to see how any church can preach from the Bible and accept homosexuality, that is so hypocritical.
I wonder how many are truly homosexuals and not just a lifestyle they have chosen for themselves which I believe is the truth of the matter.

Fern, it was my understanding that homosexuality was not mentioned in the New Testament; only in the Old, where it was not treated lightly. I've not read the Bible in years (should, I guess), but that is what I recall also.

I don't feel I really can judge others, but I don't like the 'in your face' attitude of some groups, either...I agree that some have chosen that lifestyle for various reasons.

 

[Warrigal]

Allowing for the differences in language and translation, there are references to homosexual practices in the NT, all of them coming from letters Paul wrote to the early Christian churches.

Homosexuality in the New Testament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In the New Testament (NT) there are at least three passages that may refer directly to homosexual activity: Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:9–10. A fourth passage, Jude 1:7, is often interpreted as referring to homosexuality. None of the four gospels mentions the subject directly, and there is nothing about homosexuality in the Book of Acts, in Hebrews, in Revelation, or in the letters attributed to James, Peter, and John.

The New Testament refers to "sexual immorality" on multiple occasions including Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21, Acts 15:20 and 29, and many more. The definition of "sexual immorality" is disputed among scholars, but it is often included in lists along with adultery (e.g. Matthew 15:19) indicating it is much more than just adultery. Many scholars believe that everything in Leviticus referring to immoral "sexual relations" would be included in the New Testament's "sexual immorality". As such, homosexuality would be included in all of these passages which condemn sexual immorality.

The presumed references to 'homosexuality' itself in the NT hinge on the interpretation of three specific Greek words, arsenokoitēs (ἀρσενοκοίτης), malakos (μαλακός), and porneia.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] For example, according to the English Standard Version (ESV), the words translated by the phrase "men who practice homosexuality" (in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10), refer to the "passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts".[SUP][3][/SUP] While it is not disputed that the two Greek words concern sexual relations between men (and possibly between women) some academics interpret the relevant passages as a prohibition against pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality per se, but other scholars have presented counter arguments.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] The historical context of the passages has also been a subject of debate.

Jesus talked about marriage in the context of a question about divorce. The question was a kind of verbal trap from his detractors. Some people interpret his answer as a statement that divorce is forbidden by God.

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Society has given up trying to force couples to be married for life, no matter what. Hypocrisy ? Not really. The hypocrisy lies in all of the various ways that people have found to get around this seemingly absolute statement. I refer to having the marriage declared invalid by the church through annulment and to the wide spread acceptance of mistresses, with the wife sidelined by her husband.

For anyone interested, this link is to a site that talks about some of the background to the marriage/divorce issue. This may seem like a distraction from the OP but if we are to take the scriptural statements about homosexuality as absolutes, then we really ought to do the same for the divorce statements.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/guzik/commentaries/4019.htm

I neither endorse nor refute the arguments. I'm just trying to show that scholarly opinions vary and that context is all important. As it was in biblical times, so it is today.

 

[Ozarkgal]

Boy (formerly girl) meets girl (formerly boy)
They look like any other happy couple – but each is going through gender reassignment. Kate Hilpern hears an unusual love story.





Dang..this world gets more mixed up and crazier everyday.......

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/boy-formerly-girl-meets-girl-formerly-boy-8775000.html

 

[JustBonee]

Boy (formerly girl) meets girl (formerly boy)
They look like any other happy couple – but each is going through gender reassignment. Kate Hilpern hears an unusual love story.
Dang..this world gets more mixed up and crazier everyday.......

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/boy-formerly-girl-meets-girl-formerly-boy-8775000.html

:saywhat: ..Seems to me, they could have saved a lot of time and money if they had left things alone. ..(just my simple mind at work) :lol:

 

[MercyL]

I have always thought marriage was a religious institution. AS such, governing bodies in the USA really have no business granting certificates of marriage. Governments should grant certificates for civil unions for both hetero and homosexual couples. If the couple wants the marriage license, they should go to their church to have that ceremony.

As irritating as the practice is for some, this is why gay people remind us that their relationships are treated differently. The government, that taxes everyone, supports a religious institution that excludes a segment of the taxpaying public.

Nothing changes if the majority is comfortable with the status quo. The reminders remove that comfort leveling the effects of discrimination so that everyone is uncomfortable with the status quo.

 

[That Guy]

I had a hetrosexual friend who lived in a very homosexual community tell me he was a "closet straight" . . .

 

[GDAD]

Talking about the church, Anglican & Catholic religions will not accept homosexuality, they at least are staying true to the church & Bible. I am not religious, but I fail to see how any church can preach from the Bible and accept homosexuality, that is so hypocritical.
I wonder how many are truly homosexuals and not just a lifestyle they have chosen for themselves which I believe is the truth of the matter.

Fern; the Catholic Church is hypocritical, look at all the paedophilia that has been going on! They should practice what they preach!..
........I went to De La Salle school for six years here in Sydney.