Imperator Fish has provided this handy chart that explores the calamitous effect of same-sex marriage across the globe (click for enlarged view).
28 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I dont get this whole debate and perhaps because I am not gay or religious? What is the difference between married and civil union? Through a civil union dont homosexual folks have the same rights as hetersexual people? If that is the case isnt the arguement about a word(s)? Married vs civil union?
I can see there is an arguement for religious people to just get over it, but I am not religious and would not pretend to understand what marriage means to religious people. Bit like I dont understand what water means to Maori. A think a portrayal of something magical and mystical happens which I just don't understand.
Instead of wading in I think I will simply sit on the fence. But I would say to both parties. It is just a word(s) perhaps you need to let it go?
What's the difference between married and civil union? If there's none, then why not merge the two and simply call it marriage? You can marry lots of things together; two pieces of metal, a document... marrying's not necessarily a religious experience.
Your advice to 'both parties' (are there just the two involved?) to 'let it go', implies maintaining the status quo. One of the parties wants change. They can't get that by letting it go.
If you really want to understand what 'water means to Maori', talk with someone who does know. They'll tell you. Then you'll know.
Like Anon, I'm not religious or gay but have always been anti-marriage. I remember as a very young child, stamping my foot and declaring "I'll never get married and I'll never curtsy to the Queen".
Proud to say I've kept my word on both counts :)
Despite being in a committed relationship for 19 years, and our son without exception being in the minority amongst his peers as not coming from a "broken home", we still receive a bit of flak.
I've never understood why it bothers other people so much, and I struggle with why others should feel so threatened by gay marriage.
It might be a matter of branding, suz. Supermarkets have set up Saturday morning 'farmers markets' that mimic the original farmers' 'farmers' markets' - borrow their style, format, and name and piggy-back on all the work the originals did to grow the market from nothing to what it is now. There's resentment that the supermarkets are 'cheating' and that the value of the original farmers markets will be lessened. The marriage issue sound to me the same. It's all about branding. In saying that, branding is very powerful. It would pay though, in light of that, to step back and see if there is anyone truly losing from this new proposal (nice wee marriage pun there :-) Supermarkets pirating the farmers initiative is not equivalent to gay people wanting to marry, imo.
Your advice to 'both parties' (are there just the two involved?) to 'let it go', implies maintaining the status quo. One of the parties wants change. They can't get that by letting it go.
No Robert, change has been accomplished, the human rights settled with civil unions. But one of the parties says: "NO!!!! we want the tradition of heterosexual marriage as well and you are bloody well going to give it to us!!"
There is no religious issue, just a logic issue, marriage has always been a heterosexual institution, some homosexuals say heterosexual people shouldn't be allowed any differential all of their own.
Cultural nihilism, tear it all down, mix it all up.
You are very blind if you think this isn't about a bigger agenda, certain gay activists driving this are just as nasty and arrogant as the fundamentalist Christians opposing it.
People like me are about to be robbed of something that belongs to me, where the hell else do signed up members not get a say in the matter?
I've never understood why it bothers other people so much, and I struggle with why others should feel so threatened by gay marriage.
Suz, you aren't bothered because you don't value the institution.
Others in your position take a more nasty approach and quite enjoy the controversy because they see a bull dog about to attack something they don't like.
Marriage has been under attack from 60's activists for decades, now they are finally about to get their way, any other perceived issue of "rights" is a smoke screen.
You're right Shunda, I don't value the institution, (for good reasons I might add) and as such am probably the least qualified person to comment on this.
I guess I just don't get, how the sanctity of a hetero couple's marriage is impacted by a gay couple across the street...I don't understand how this is an attack?
Suz, tell me, can a heterosexual tradition (man and woman) continue if it includes homosexuals?
I'll give you a tip, it can't.
I can respect someone that has no interest in something I value, provided they respect my right to value it. I can't respect someone that tells me I have no right to interpret my marriage the way I do.
They will tell you that they are not doing that, but they are also telling us that homosexual relationships are no different to heterosexual relationships. This is like saying boys and girls aren't different.
Homosexuals often spend tremendous energy displaying how different and unique they are - (good for them) I just think they should create their own unique tradition and leave mine intact. The civil union legislation allows them to do this, they would rather take what I have got instead.
"No Robert, change has been accomplished, the human rights settled with civil unions."
No, Shunda, acceptable change has not been accomplished. When their is an aggrieved party, you have to ask them whether the issue has been resolved. It seems they say it isn't. We, the majority, can't simply declare, "Done!" and deny any further debate. "There is no religious issue, just a logic issue, marriage has always been a heterosexual institution"
Apparently not, according to the chart in this post. Same-sex marriages already exist. They are now 'tradition'.
"People like me are about to be robbed of something that belongs to me, where the hell else do signed up members not get a say in the matter?"
Robbed? You're being asked to share a status, that's all. Robbed? The status of marriage may 'belong' to you, Shunda, but it also 'belongs' to others, including many who undervalue, devalue, disgrace and debase marriage. Are they too stealing what belongs to you? And you do get a say in the matter. You have every democratic avenue to pursue. You can speak and write. You have Parliamentary representation. Can a heterosexual tradition (man and woman) continue if it includes homosexuals? It's men and women who are wanting to join the tradition, Shunda, not aliens. The heterosexual tradition can continue completely unchanged and be joined by new-comer, other men and women who wish to be married. The het marriage club was an exclusive one for a long time, Shunda, and like any closed institution, gets upset when change approaches. I'm married. I don't feel threatened in the slightest way what so ever, by the prospect of same-sex marriages.I've noticed that many men are married to their cars, their tv and the All Blacks. This is of greater concern to me.
Robert @9.06am I am sure you are kidding me when you say "If you really want to understand what 'water means to Maori', talk with someone who does know. They'll tell you. Then you'll know"
I believe you can't truly understand someone until you have walked in their shoes. I have heard why people have religious faith and what maori say water means to them. But it does not mean I will ever truly understand it. If you think you can Robert, I would say that describes alot about your personality.
A bit like Suz I have to defer to those with involvement in the matter. Those with religion in their heart or those seeking same sex marriage. But it is easy enough to recognise a strength in conviction in Shundas tone to know marriage has a religious meaning that many may not understand.
Anonymous - you can't learn from talking and listening? That's disappointing. Surely you don't have to be Inuit to understand how an igloo is built? There are very good videos on the subject. Perhaps you can't truly understand someone til you've walked in their shoes, as you claim, but you don't need to truly understand Maori in order to grasp what their view of water is. Do you understand anything at all about women, or will you have to wait til you've walked in their shoes before you realise they need to be listened-to without being offered immediate advice, for example. It's something I read and find to be true. I haven't been slipping my hooves into high-heels. Why do you feel you have to defer to those who are closer affected by the marriage discussion? Are you not married? Might your children be affected by this? Why do you feel religious people have a greater right to discuss the marriage issue? Is it because of comments like this from another blog?: "A (baptised) man and woman make marriage together - the Church just recognises it. It's basically the primordial sacrament, set up by God Himself when He made Adam and Eve."
"No, Shunda, acceptable change has not been accomplished. When their is an aggrieved party, you have to ask them whether the issue has been resolved. It seems they say it isn't"
So what? people get upset over all sorts of perceived injustices, that in no way makes their concerns rational or even valid. Some people feel aggrieved at the possibility of not being able to pollute the atmosphere like they once did, should we give them what they want too?
It's men and women who are wanting to join the tradition, Shunda, not aliens. The heterosexual tradition can continue completely unchanged and be joined by new-comer, other men and women who wish to be married.
No, it can't. Civil unions are what you are describing, but now 'marriage' will be replaced by a complete redefinition of the institution. It was a heterosexual institution, soon it won't be, don't deny that reality Robert.
"The het marriage club was an exclusive one for a long time, Shunda, and like any closed institution, gets upset when change approaches."
And what is wrong with an exclusive heterosexual institution? We have an abundance of exclusive homosexual institutions, gay tv, gay bars, gay saunas, gay gyms, even gay beaches. Yes, homosexuals LOVE exclusivity, God forbid straight people have just one exclusive, celebrated way to express their sexuality.
Have you ever wondered why your good buddy David Farrar is such a keen promoter of gay marriage Robert?
I'll tell you.
It's because it fits seamlessly into the laissez-faire capitalists bible, if you want it, take it, exploit it for your own ends. Don't think how it will affect anyone around you, if you have the power, it's because you deserve the power.
This issue is one of those issues that exposes just beautifully the deep seated problems facing socitey, but I accept what will be will be, but I won't accept people deluding themselves as to the reality of the situation or be blinded by the smokescreen of perceived human rights in the issue.
I have no opinion on gay relationships other than (as a straight male) they are foreign to me, I just wish the gay lobby (not all homosexuals) would have the same respect for my sexuality.
"And what is wrong with an exclusive heterosexual institution?"
It excludes people and there are people who want to able to call themselves married. There's no good reason for them to be excluded, other than 'tradition' and that tradition sprang from a time when homosexuals were discriminated against. You seek to continue that discrimination.
"We have an abundance of exclusive homosexual institutions, gay tv, gay bars, gay saunas, gay gyms, even gay beaches." Abundance? Not so much as you'd see them every day. Not in Southland, nor the West Coast either, I'm guessing. As for them being exclusive, I don't know, Shunda. I reckon you'd be allowed in. I imagine most are accommodating and welcoming. Certainly you can watch 'gay tv' and 'gay films' without getting turfed out of anywhere, or booed, if that's what you mean.
"Yes, homosexuals LOVE exclusivity, God forbid straight people have just one exclusive, celebrated way to express their sexuality."
Is marriage a celebration of sexuality? Hmmmmmm.....
I guess those gays will just have to celebrate their sexuality differently. We got marriage first!
"It excludes people and there are people who want to able to call themselves married. There's no good reason for them to be excluded, other than 'tradition' and that tradition sprang from a time when homosexuals were discriminated against.
Only in the same way Ngai Tahu discriminates who is actually a part of their tribe, ie You have to be Maori and Ngai Tahu!!
No amount of "wanting" will change reality despite the determination of post modernists.
"You seek to continue that discrimination."
Yes, in fact, I do.
"Discrimination" is seen as universally bad by modern society, but it isn't always directed at persecuting others.
I discriminate who I let into my home for instance.
And as for "wanting" something equalling 'deserving' something, well, I could 'want' to be Maori all I like, but I never will be. Should I complain that I'm not given speaking rights on the Marae?
Gay marriage is exactly the same, and incidentally, quite a number of gay authors and commentators agree.
Is marriage a celebration of sexuality? Hmmmmmm.....
Damn straight it is! (excuse the pun) you can Hmmmmmm all you like, but for a man and woman to formally commit to each other in a monogamous relationship is clearly an expression of their heterosexuality.
Bloodlines and sexual orientation don't equate, Shunda. These folk you seek to have barred are not from a long line of gays, they're New Zealanders, born of heterosexual parents, mostly. Nothing traditional about their homosexuality. "Wanting" and "deserving"? Gays "want" to marry, straights "deserve" to marry? You what??? Celebrating sexuality (you mean heterosexuality) is part of what marriage is, Shunda, but there are many other aspects that combine to define marriage. You can't just pick the one and claim its paramount.
Sure you can learn facts. I am not sure you can learn spirituality? Maybe to a degree but not completely. I tried for many many years and I still have no idea what it is all about. Spirituality is something differnt. And it has been portrayed that the Maori relationship with water is spiritual. I could listen for years and still not understand it.
I reckon until you understand spirituality you only understand part of the debate. And I think to understand spirituality you have to have it.
I don't want to persecute anyone Robert, I'm just sad that something I value is going to change.
After just talking to my wife, I realise perhaps our marriage is a bit different to how most see the whole deal, neither of us see it as 'the ball and chain' that some seem to. I do accept your comment about the institution being seriously damaged form its supposed adherents, I just think there are ideals there that can still be of great value to society (and especially the next generation).
The relationship between maori and water has a spiritual aspect, Anonymous, but you can still gain suficient understanding of the value of water to Tangata Whenua, by talking with any you might know, reading, watching, to allow you to get an understanding that would be useful to you. Listening to those such as John Key who seem to have no understanding at all, or at least like to pretend that it's just a matter of 'ownership' as they see it, won't help you much. That way lies ignorance. It may be that by not 'understanding' the spiritual aspects of an issue, you can only be 'part of the debate', but that part may be enough to make a reasoned judgement. Not trying to understand is called willful ignorance. You don't seem like someone who would condone that.
Shunda - good on you for defending your position on marriage. I respect passionate arguments, especially when they are backed by thought. You played your best card with, "After just talking to my wife, I realise..." There's much to be admired in a bloke who consults his wife and even more to celebrate when he learns something from the experience :-)
Gotta say those ideals seem to have been made a mockery of...pretty shocking divorce rates out there.
I would say this is the biggest hurdle in defending marriage.
I guess my position is in defending the ideals behind it, however I accept that very few people really see things the way I do. My wife and I certainly don't have good examples to follow from our parents, and our own marriage has been about 'undoing' a lot of stuff and doing things our own way.
I wouldn't be who I am today without my wife, it is as simple as that, and I think we have both been 'freed' from some horrible generational 'issues' because of our combined approach and determination to make it work.
Our marriage has definitely been mutually beneficial to our personal development.
Ditto my partner and I ,Shunda, having both been brought up in violent, abusive hetero "marriages", with both of us as kids wishing our married parents were anywhere but together...happiest day of my life when my arse-hole "father" finally left us. To be able to breathe without fear is a privilege. I like your quote of "undoing" things.
The scars that beast left us with, continue to this day, including my brother committing suicide 6 years at the age of 48.
I just know I would have done anything to have grown up in a house-hold where hatred, addiction and abuse weren't the norm, whether that be gay or not.
It's hard to argue with you on any of that Suz, sounds like you've been through a bit.
I'm in kind of an odd place with this I guess, for my wife and I, being able to metaphorically hold up our marriage contract and tell certain individuals to 'back off' was key to escaping the past.
My wife coming from a deeply religious family especially.
Things didn't go well when her parents informed me that God had gifted me to their family, with all the domination and control that goes with it of course. For me to object to such a bizarre situation was to "argue with God".
It's a weird thing when your in laws try to make you your wife's brother!
I personally believe that if two people refuse to work through their marriage issues their children will suffer terribly.
It has been said that emotional abuse of children only comes second to sexual abuse, and I believe it, so many adults still carry awful burdens from their dysfunctional parents.
I could write a book on this stuff with the stories I could tell from my church days!!
28 comments:
I dont get this whole debate and perhaps because I am not gay or religious?
What is the difference between married and civil union? Through a civil union dont homosexual folks have the same rights as hetersexual people? If that is the case isnt the arguement about a word(s)? Married vs civil union?
I can see there is an arguement for religious people to just get over it, but I am not religious and would not pretend to understand what marriage means to religious people. Bit like I dont understand what water means to Maori. A think a portrayal of something magical and mystical happens which I just don't understand.
Instead of wading in I think I will simply sit on the fence. But I would say to both parties. It is just a word(s) perhaps you need to let it go?
What's the difference between married and civil union?
If there's none, then why not merge the two and simply call it marriage?
You can marry lots of things together; two pieces of metal, a document... marrying's not necessarily a religious experience.
Your advice to 'both parties' (are there just the two involved?) to 'let it go', implies maintaining the status quo. One of the parties wants change. They can't get that by letting it go.
If you really want to understand what 'water means to Maori', talk with someone who does know. They'll tell you. Then you'll know.
Like Anon, I'm not religious or gay but have always been anti-marriage. I remember as a very young child, stamping my foot and declaring "I'll never get married and I'll never curtsy to the Queen".
Proud to say I've kept my word on both counts :)
Despite being in a committed relationship for 19 years, and our son without exception being in the minority amongst his peers as not coming from a "broken home", we still receive a bit of flak.
I've never understood why it bothers other people so much, and I struggle with why others should feel so threatened by gay marriage.
It might be a matter of branding, suz. Supermarkets have set up Saturday morning 'farmers markets' that mimic the original farmers' 'farmers' markets' - borrow their style, format, and name and piggy-back on all the work the originals did to grow the market from nothing to what it is now. There's resentment that the supermarkets are 'cheating' and that the value of the original farmers markets will be lessened. The marriage issue sound to me the same. It's all about branding. In saying that, branding is very powerful. It would pay though, in light of that, to step back and see if there is anyone truly losing from this new proposal (nice wee marriage pun there :-)
Supermarkets pirating the farmers initiative is not equivalent to gay people wanting to marry, imo.
Your advice to 'both parties' (are there just the two involved?) to 'let it go', implies maintaining the status quo. One of the parties wants change. They can't get that by letting it go.
No Robert, change has been accomplished, the human rights settled with civil unions.
But one of the parties says: "NO!!!! we want the tradition of heterosexual marriage as well and you are bloody well going to give it to us!!"
There is no religious issue, just a logic issue, marriage has always been a heterosexual institution, some homosexuals say heterosexual people shouldn't be allowed any differential all of their own.
Cultural nihilism, tear it all down, mix it all up.
You are very blind if you think this isn't about a bigger agenda, certain gay activists driving this are just as nasty and arrogant as the fundamentalist Christians opposing it.
People like me are about to be robbed of something that belongs to me, where the hell else do signed up members not get a say in the matter?
I've never understood why it bothers other people so much, and I struggle with why others should feel so threatened by gay marriage.
Suz, you aren't bothered because you don't value the institution.
Others in your position take a more nasty approach and quite enjoy the controversy because they see a bull dog about to attack something they don't like.
Marriage has been under attack from 60's activists for decades, now they are finally about to get their way, any other perceived issue of "rights" is a smoke screen.
You're right Shunda, I don't value the institution, (for good reasons I might add) and as such am probably the least qualified person to comment on this.
I guess I just don't get, how the sanctity of a hetero couple's marriage is impacted by a gay couple across the street...I don't understand how this is an attack?
Suz, tell me, can a heterosexual tradition (man and woman) continue if it includes homosexuals?
I'll give you a tip, it can't.
I can respect someone that has no interest in something I value, provided they respect my right to value it.
I can't respect someone that tells me I have no right to interpret my marriage the way I do.
They will tell you that they are not doing that, but they are also telling us that homosexual relationships are no different to heterosexual relationships.
This is like saying boys and girls aren't different.
Homosexuals often spend tremendous energy displaying how different and unique they are - (good for them) I just think they should create their own unique tradition and leave mine intact.
The civil union legislation allows them to do this, they would rather take what I have got instead.
Thanks for your thoughts Shunda...as an outsider to this debate, you've provided a lot for me to ponder.
"No Robert, change has been accomplished, the human rights settled with civil unions."
No, Shunda, acceptable change has not been accomplished. When their is an aggrieved party, you have to ask them whether the issue has been resolved. It seems they say it isn't. We, the majority, can't simply declare, "Done!" and deny any further debate.
"There is no religious issue, just a logic issue, marriage has always been a heterosexual institution"
Apparently not, according to the chart in this post. Same-sex marriages already exist. They are now 'tradition'.
"People like me are about to be robbed of something that belongs to me, where the hell else do signed up members not get a say in the matter?"
Robbed? You're being asked to share a status, that's all. Robbed?
The status of marriage may 'belong' to you, Shunda, but it also 'belongs' to others, including many who undervalue, devalue, disgrace and debase marriage. Are they too stealing what belongs to you? And you do get a say in the matter. You have every democratic avenue to pursue. You can speak and write. You have Parliamentary representation.
Can a heterosexual tradition (man and woman) continue if it includes homosexuals?
It's men and women who are wanting to join the tradition, Shunda, not aliens. The heterosexual tradition can continue completely unchanged and be joined by new-comer, other men and women who wish to be married. The het marriage club was an exclusive one for a long time, Shunda, and like any closed institution, gets upset when change approaches. I'm married. I don't feel threatened in the slightest way what so ever, by the prospect of same-sex marriages.I've noticed that many men are married to their cars, their tv and the All Blacks. This is of greater concern to me.
Robert @9.06am
I am sure you are kidding me when you say "If you really want to understand what 'water means to Maori', talk with someone who does know. They'll tell you. Then you'll know"
I believe you can't truly understand someone until you have walked in their shoes. I have heard why people have religious faith and what maori say water means to them. But it does not mean I will ever truly understand it. If you think you can Robert, I would say that describes alot about your personality.
A bit like Suz I have to defer to those with involvement in the matter. Those with religion in their heart or those seeking same sex marriage. But it is easy enough to recognise a strength in conviction in Shundas tone to know marriage has a religious meaning that many may not understand.
Anonymous - you can't learn from talking and listening?
That's disappointing.
Surely you don't have to be Inuit to understand how an igloo is built? There are very good videos on the subject.
Perhaps you can't truly understand someone til you've walked in their shoes, as you claim, but you don't need to truly understand Maori in order to grasp what their view of water is. Do you understand anything at all about women, or will you have to wait til you've walked in their shoes before you realise they need to be listened-to without being offered immediate advice, for example. It's something I read and find to be true. I haven't been slipping my hooves into high-heels.
Why do you feel you have to defer to those who are closer affected by the marriage discussion? Are you not married? Might your children be affected by this? Why do you feel religious people have a greater right to discuss the marriage issue? Is it because of comments like this from another blog?:
"A (baptised) man and woman make marriage together - the Church just recognises it. It's basically the primordial sacrament, set up by God Himself when He made Adam and Eve."
"No, Shunda, acceptable change has not been accomplished. When their is an aggrieved party, you have to ask them whether the issue has been resolved. It seems they say it isn't"
So what? people get upset over all sorts of perceived injustices, that in no way makes their concerns rational or even valid.
Some people feel aggrieved at the possibility of not being able to pollute the atmosphere like they once did, should we give them what they want too?
It's men and women who are wanting to join the tradition, Shunda, not aliens. The heterosexual tradition can continue completely unchanged and be joined by new-comer, other men and women who wish to be married.
No, it can't. Civil unions are what you are describing, but now 'marriage' will be replaced by a complete redefinition of the institution. It was a heterosexual institution, soon it won't be, don't deny that reality Robert.
"The het marriage club was an exclusive one for a long time, Shunda, and like any closed institution, gets upset when change approaches."
And what is wrong with an exclusive heterosexual institution? We have an abundance of exclusive homosexual institutions, gay tv, gay bars, gay saunas, gay gyms, even gay beaches. Yes, homosexuals LOVE exclusivity, God forbid straight people have just one exclusive, celebrated way to express their sexuality.
Have you ever wondered why your good buddy David Farrar is such a keen promoter of gay marriage Robert?
I'll tell you.
It's because it fits seamlessly into the laissez-faire capitalists bible, if you want it, take it, exploit it for your own ends. Don't think how it will affect anyone around you, if you have the power, it's because you deserve the power.
This issue is one of those issues that exposes just beautifully the deep seated problems facing socitey, but I accept what will be will be, but I won't accept people deluding themselves as to the reality of the situation or be blinded by the smokescreen of perceived human rights in the issue.
I have no opinion on gay relationships other than (as a straight male) they are foreign to me, I just wish the gay lobby (not all homosexuals) would have the same respect for my sexuality.
They don't.
"And what is wrong with an exclusive heterosexual institution?"
It excludes people and there are people who want to able to call themselves married. There's no good reason for them to be excluded, other than 'tradition' and that tradition sprang from a time when homosexuals were discriminated against. You seek to continue that discrimination.
"We have an abundance of exclusive homosexual institutions, gay tv, gay bars, gay saunas, gay gyms, even gay beaches."
Abundance? Not so much as you'd see them every day. Not in Southland, nor the West Coast either, I'm guessing. As for them being exclusive, I don't know, Shunda. I reckon you'd be allowed in. I imagine most are accommodating and welcoming. Certainly you can watch 'gay tv' and 'gay films' without getting turfed out of anywhere, or booed, if that's what you mean.
"Yes, homosexuals LOVE exclusivity, God forbid straight people have just one exclusive, celebrated way to express their sexuality."
Is marriage a celebration of sexuality? Hmmmmmm.....
I guess those gays will just have to celebrate their sexuality differently. We got marriage first!
"It excludes people and there are people who want to able to call themselves married. There's no good reason for them to be excluded, other than 'tradition' and that tradition sprang from a time when homosexuals were discriminated against.
Only in the same way Ngai Tahu discriminates who is actually a part of their tribe, ie You have to be Maori and Ngai Tahu!!
No amount of "wanting" will change reality despite the determination of post modernists.
"You seek to continue that discrimination."
Yes, in fact, I do.
"Discrimination" is seen as universally bad by modern society, but it isn't always directed at persecuting others.
I discriminate who I let into my home for instance.
And as for "wanting" something equalling 'deserving' something, well, I could 'want' to be Maori all I like, but I never will be. Should I complain that I'm not given speaking rights on the Marae?
Gay marriage is exactly the same, and incidentally, quite a number of gay authors and commentators agree.
Is marriage a celebration of sexuality? Hmmmmmm.....
Damn straight it is! (excuse the pun) you can Hmmmmmm all you like, but for a man and woman to formally commit to each other in a monogamous relationship is clearly an expression of their heterosexuality.
You seriously think it isn't?
Bloodlines and sexual orientation don't equate, Shunda. These folk you seek to have barred are not from a long line of gays, they're New Zealanders, born of heterosexual parents, mostly. Nothing traditional about their homosexuality.
"Wanting" and "deserving"?
Gays "want" to marry, straights "deserve" to marry? You what???
Celebrating sexuality (you mean heterosexuality) is part of what marriage is, Shunda, but there are many other aspects that combine to define marriage. You can't just pick the one and claim its paramount.
Robert @ 11.39am
Sure you can learn facts. I am not sure you can learn spirituality? Maybe to a degree but not completely. I tried for many many years and I still have no idea what it is all about. Spirituality is something differnt. And it has been portrayed that the Maori relationship with water is spiritual. I could listen for years and still not understand it.
I reckon until you understand spirituality you only understand part of the debate. And I think to understand spirituality you have to have it.
I don't want to persecute anyone Robert, I'm just sad that something I value is going to change.
After just talking to my wife, I realise perhaps our marriage is a bit different to how most see the whole deal, neither of us see it as 'the ball and chain' that some seem to. I do accept your comment about the institution being seriously damaged form its supposed adherents, I just think there are ideals there that can still be of great value to society (and especially the next generation).
Gotta say those ideals seem to have been made a mockery of...pretty shocking divorce rates out there.
The relationship between maori and water has a spiritual aspect, Anonymous, but you can still gain suficient understanding of the value of water to Tangata Whenua, by talking with any you might know, reading, watching, to allow you to get an understanding that would be useful to you. Listening to those such as John Key who seem to have no understanding at all, or at least like to pretend that it's just a matter of 'ownership' as they see it, won't help you much. That way lies ignorance.
It may be that by not 'understanding' the spiritual aspects of an issue, you can only be 'part of the debate', but that part may be enough to make a reasoned judgement. Not trying to understand is called willful ignorance. You don't seem like someone who would condone that.
Shunda - good on you for defending your position on marriage. I respect passionate arguments, especially when they are backed by thought. You played your best card with,
"After just talking to my wife, I realise..." There's much to be admired in a bloke who consults his wife and even more to celebrate when he learns something from the experience :-)
Gotta say those ideals seem to have been made a mockery of...pretty shocking divorce rates out there.
I would say this is the biggest hurdle in defending marriage.
I guess my position is in defending the ideals behind it, however I accept that very few people really see things the way I do.
My wife and I certainly don't have good examples to follow from our parents, and our own marriage has been about 'undoing' a lot of stuff and doing things our own way.
I wouldn't be who I am today without my wife, it is as simple as that, and I think we have both been 'freed' from some horrible generational 'issues' because of our combined approach and determination to make it work.
Our marriage has definitely been mutually beneficial to our personal development.
Ditto my partner and I ,Shunda, having both been brought up in violent, abusive hetero "marriages", with both of us as kids wishing our married parents were anywhere but together...happiest day of my life when my arse-hole "father" finally left us. To be able to breathe without fear is a privilege. I like your quote of "undoing" things.
The scars that beast left us with, continue to this day, including my brother committing suicide 6 years at the age of 48.
I just know I would have done anything to have grown up in a house-hold where hatred, addiction and abuse weren't the norm, whether that be gay or not.
It's hard to argue with you on any of that Suz, sounds like you've been through a bit.
I'm in kind of an odd place with this I guess, for my wife and I, being able to metaphorically hold up our marriage contract and tell certain individuals to 'back off' was key to escaping the past.
My wife coming from a deeply religious family especially.
Things didn't go well when her parents informed me that God had gifted me to their family, with all the domination and control that goes with it of course. For me to object to such a bizarre situation was to "argue with God".
It's a weird thing when your in laws try to make you your wife's brother!
I personally believe that if two people refuse to work through their marriage issues their children will suffer terribly.
It has been said that emotional abuse of children only comes second to sexual abuse, and I believe it, so many adults still carry awful burdens from their dysfunctional parents.
I could write a book on this stuff with the stories I could tell from my church days!!
what goes on between consenting adults should be no business of the government.
Well said, Shane.
Then repeal the marriage act and leave civil unions as the default legal position of the state.
Won't happen though Shane, wrong objective you see.
What is the objective?
Post a Comment