Civil unions were just the first step. The GayNZ website shows what is coming and the thought processes at work here.Change in society as a whole will happen as we push forward with claiming legal recognition to the right of [gay] Marriage in New Zealand.Full "equality" will not occur until "gay marriage" is implemented in "backward" New Zealand. Riiiight ...
Never mind that the confusion over marriage and it's purpose, which is to provide a safe environment for the creation and raising of children.
Related Link: United Nations Principles of Good Governance ~ GayNZ
I'm not across the 'gay marriage' issue.
ReplyDeleteCan some-one please explain to me what the difference is between a civil union and a 'gay marriage'. What exactly do gay people want out of a 'marriage' that they don't get from a civil union?
I thought this issue was dead and field cleared of conservative corpses?
ReplyDeleteIsn't a civil union equivalent to marriage and vice versa?
That vice versa is important because it is now assumed that people are anything but married!
When was the last time you heard any public person, politician, news columnist, or any other media say 'husband', 'wife', or even 'de facto' instead of 'partner'? It's a dead duck.
Next on the consumerist shopping list: legally obliging obstetricians to deliver the exact child you have selected from the AI catalogue. (see Aussie AI-lesbian story)
Yes, I saw that story Greg. The phrase 'selfish idiots' came to mind. Especially when one of the complaints (in addition to getting more children than ordered) seemed to be 'morning sickness'.
ReplyDeleteFletch looks at pic
ReplyDeleteHow come fat people are never gay? You never seem to see any in the media, anyway.... The guy in the pic looks very Aryan.
...it's purpose, which is to provide a safe environment for the creation and raising of children.
ReplyDeleteYes, which is why infertile people aren't allowed to get married.
I have not checked my marriage license of late, but isn't there a space to fill in that says:
ReplyDeleteBride.......?
All of our persecuted and oppressed pillow-biting citizens will not be happy until this line is erased.
I doubt, though, they have the capacity to be embarassed, even if one of them did have to complete that blank in order to enter into a state of wedded bliss.
Anon, normally until a couple opens themselves up to children they have no idea whether or not they are fertile or not. So the benefit of the doubt is assumed and has always been assumed.
ReplyDeleteHi Lucyna - so do you think its wrong to marry someone you love if you happen to know they're infertile?
ReplyDeleteDanyl, no, I don't think it is wrong.
ReplyDeleteBut how could you marry someone who couldn't produce children when you believe that the purpose of marriage 'is to provide a safe environment for the creation and raising of children'?
ReplyDeleteDanyl, theoretically (as I am married and we've had children) I wouldn't marry someone whom I knew was infertile.
ReplyDeleteDanyl, theoretically (as I am married and we've had children) I wouldn't marry someone whom I knew was infertile.
ReplyDeleteHow fascinating. So - hypothetically - if your husband had been infertile and you'd found out about it prior to the wedding you would have ended the relationship?
And here's another hypothetical - lets say someone is born infertile (for whatever reason). Since they shouldn't get married (because marriage is about fertility) and you think sex outside of marriage is sinful should that person just remain single and celibate their entire life?
Danyl,
ReplyDeleteNo, I wouldn't have ended the relationship. I got married when I was 25, and back then even though I wanted children, I wouldn't have minded too much if having them was impossible.
So, I'm not saying that the infertile ought not to get married, because if they can find someone that will cope with that, more power to them.
In answer to your last question - anyone who cannot get married for any reason ought to stay celibate and single.
Okay, so just to sum up your consistent and well though out position:
ReplyDeletePeople should never have sex outside of marriage, but . . .
Gay people cannot get married because marriage is about children and they can't have any, but . . .
Straight infertile people who cannot have children should get married - and more power to them!
Danyl, you shouldn't use your lack of understanding as an excuse to be rude.
ReplyDeleteDanyl, I never said gay people couldn't get married. They can get married today on the same conditions as everyone else - marry a person of the opposite sex that is willing to commit to them.
ReplyDeleteI'm not really sure what the obsession with infertile people is about, either.
Danyl, you shouldn't use your lack of understanding as an excuse to be rude.
ReplyDeleteTouche.
I'm not really sure what the obsession with infertile people is about, either.
I guess I should be surprised. Let's walk through it slowly.
You insist that gay people should not get married because marriage is about procreation. Logically that should also mean that infertile people should not get married, because they're just as incapable of having kids as gay people are.
But you don't have a problem with infertile people getting married, just gays. This suggests that your stand against gay marriage has nothing to do with your definition of marriage - since you're willing to throw it out the window for non-gays - and is merely the usual dreary old bigotry.
Lucyna's already explained it, but put another way, the Catholic view is this:
ReplyDeleteMarriage is directed towards the union of man and woman. The couple then orient themselves to an outward look, in which their own desires do not necessarily come first all the time. The ultimate and final goal of marriage is the procreation of, and rearing of, children.
Homosexuals cannot produce children on their own. The intent and action of homosexual sex deliberately thwarts the procreative capacity and it is seen as a blessing.
Infertile heterosexual couples do not usually find out they are infertile until they cannot conceive. Their intent and actions are not deliberately thwarted. And it is seen as a burden.
Just because the biology of an infertile couple renders them childless, it does not change their intent from the outset, which is to have children. Couples who marry, and deliberately decide NOT to have children are not in reality married, and annulments have been granted by the RCC in such cases.
Anyone who throws ignorant charges of bigotry over this is usually too lazy or malicious to understand the meaning of the word intent.
And its not only the RCC who holds this position, plenty of non-Catholics also understand this principle.
The question is Danyl why do Gay people want to get married?
ReplyDeleteYou will never understand I suspect the real meaning of the Holy Sacrament of Marriage as it has been given to us.
It is a sacred thing and a lot more than the banalities of Tuxedos, wedding dresses and tiered wedding cakes.
In fact all that is just froth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletendrei,
ReplyDeleteMost gay people DONT want to get married, just like most gay people don't want a civil union. Gay couples only want to have the opportunity to get married - but wont choose to, It's about gay rights, not marriage rights for gay couples.
Most people dont remenber the Quilter gay marriage case - where at least one of the couples split up.
Gays maintain that they`d like the choice to marry - but a law dchange wont do it, some of them need to get partners.
Interesting comments thread.
ReplyDeleteI'm married and we have no children--we never intended to have them, for various reasons.
But we still see marriage as a binding commitment to one another, as a very public statement of our acceptance of the ideals of fidelity and duty. I don't view raising children as the be-all of marriage but I certainly see it as a safeguard for the family and essential if children are to have a sense of security.
Sure, many marriages fail--but then so do many de-facto relationships and the number of failed marriages is a poor argument to use against the institution.
Most gay people DONT want to get married, just like most gay people don't want a civil union. -Dave
ReplyDeleteThat could be true I think. I've read comments by various gay people in articles stating that the gay lifestyle is characterized by promiscuity and multiple partners and that relationships are often short-lived.
"Let me simply say that I have no moral objection to promiscuity…I enjoyed the '70's, I didn't think there was anything morally wrong with the lifestyle of the baths. I believe that for many people, promiscuity can be meaningful, liberating and fun. Gay liberation was founded . . . on a 'sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,' and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions" - Gay author Gabriel Rotello.
Some more quotes by 'gays' on marriage -
ReplyDelete----
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution."
—Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT magazine, December/January 1994, p. 161.
* * *
"[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new....Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past."
—Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families," The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.
* * *
"It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."
— Michelangelo Signorile, "I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do," OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30.
* * *
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. …In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.”
—Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.
-----
So, it seems that the gays have an agenda to be rid of marriage because they don't like it, rather than wanting to be married.
Fletch - do you think Hugh Hefners views about marriage represent all heterosexuals? Do Britney Spears? Do mine? Of course not, so why should the viewpoint of a bunch of random writers you've found on google reflect the viewpoint of all gay people?
ReplyDeleteThe question is Danyl why do Gay people want to get married?
Why did black people want to sit at the front of the bus? The question is not about why gay people want to get married (presumably for many of the same reasons straight people do) but what right does the state have to discriminate against them to prevent them from enjoying the same rights as everyone else?
You will never understand I suspect the real meaning of the Holy Sacrament of Marriage as it has been given to us.
Fair enough - I don't think you'll ever understand the meaning of dignity and self-respect so long as you continue to practice bigotry and discrimination and try to hide your intolerance behind a babble of superstitious gibberish.
Marriage is directed towards the union of man and woman. The couple then orient themselves to an outward look, in which their own desires do not necessarily come first all the time. The ultimate and final goal of marriage is the procreation of, and rearing of, children.
The obvious coda of this thread is that marriage means different things to different people. Catholics believe that the creator of the universe takes an obsessive interest in their sex life, so if you are a member of the Catholic faith then I've no doubt its very important not to have sex outside of marriage, get married to people of the same sex, ect ect. What I can't understand is why everybody should have to live according to the doctrines of this faith. I don't think you should have to live your life according to what I believe, so why should your beliefs have any legislative power over my life?
Some Hindus also have very odd notions about religion - some insist that wives should be burned alive when their husbands die, and can no doubt quote various snippets of their scripture to support this practice. Does that mean we should change our laws to allow such a custom?
Danyl,
ReplyDeleteI would guess that Fletch's point in posting those comments from gay writers (who are most likely activists as well), would be to show the direction they expect the expansion of the definition of marriage to take.
I agree with them. If you expand the definition of marriage to become almost meaningless, then you effectively destroy it.
No, everyone should not have to live as a Catholic. However, Catholic doctrine on marriage and what society actually practised were very similar in the recent past. The divergence started to occur in the 1930's with the Anglicans deciding that contraception within marriage wasn't so bad after all. That started a roller-coaster of changes to where we are today - debating gay marriage.
No, we should not allow wife-burning. It's so obviously wrong, that to even consider it on the same level as what we are already talking about is to show a very confused mind.
we should not allow wife-burning. It's so obviously wrong, that to even consider it on the same level as what we are already talking about is to show a very confused mind.
ReplyDeleteSince wife-burning was practiced for many thousands of years in the most populous country on earth its not 'obviously' wrong at all - the people who practiced it did so on the understanding that it purged a couple of all sin and guaranteed their salvation in the afterworld. In that context it made perfect sense.
To me having women die a hideous death based on some superstitious nonsense is obviously wrong - but discriminating against gay people based on some other set of superstitious nonsense is also obviously wrong.
If you expand the definition of marriage to become almost meaningless, then you effectively destroy it.
I think the opposite will happen - keeping marriage as an exclusive, discriminatory institution will only weaken it, extending the franchise will ensure that it has an enduring role in society.
Gay marriage will happen sooner or later - I suspect you already know this - and it won't affect the sanctity or value of your own marriage in the slightest.
Gay marriage will happen sooner or later - I suspect you already know this - and it won't affect the sanctity or value of your own marriage in the slightest.
ReplyDeleteInteresting assertion. Totally baseless and without fact though.
Presumably Tips will find it hard to maintain interest in his wife when there are legions of hot young boys he can run off and marry, but I doubt this holds true for many people.
ReplyDeleteDanyl, you see yourself getting married anytime soon?
ReplyDeleteDanyl, you see yourself getting married anytime soon?
ReplyDeleteFebruary 9th.
Whether or not gay marrige "Will happen sooner or later" its is not moral. Only the madness of moral relativism could come to the conclusion that the relationshiip status of 2 men or 2 women is equal to that of a man and a woman. The fact is that they are not equal and nature has designed it to be this way
ReplyDeleteDanyl,
ReplyDeleteI didn't pick that coming. Congratulations.
Church wedding or registry office?
And do you see marriage as something you do for life or until you fall out of love?
Danyl Why did black people want to sit at the front of the bus?
ReplyDeleteWho says they did? And now they can sit at the front of the bus, why do they still mostly sit down the back?
They'll say it's got nothing to do with children until you allow gay marriage, then they'll be demanding to raise children, then it'll be 3-parent families, then 4. On and on it'll go.
ReplyDeleteBy the way i don't have a 'partner', i'm not in some sort of business arrangement, i have a wife.
"By the way i don't have a 'partner', i'm not in some sort of business arrangement, i have a wife."
ReplyDeleteGood one,MK. Same here and it's good to hear the term used.
You will never understand I suspect the real meaning of the Holy Sacrament of Marriage as it has been given to us.
ReplyDeleteIt is a sacred thing and a lot more than the banalities of Tuxedos, wedding dresses and tiered wedding cakes.
So if its a holy sacrament would that extend to banning civil weddings ?
I suspect the main difference between the two is the remaining common law and statutory rights attaching to marriage, particularly in the case of statute these are unlikely to apply to civil unions.
Some earlier posts reminded me of some classic Monty Python dialogue:
ReplyDeleteFRANCIS
Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry.
REG
What's the point?
FRANCIS
What?
REG
What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?
FRANCIS
It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG
It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.