| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 130551 | 2013-04-13 14:26:00 | So much for "Marriage Equality" | goodiesguy (15316) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1336630 | 2013-04-13 14:26:00 | Gender-neutral terms possible for marriage forms: www.nzherald.co.nz Now they're gonna try and remove "Bride" and "Groom" from legal papers. That means a male and female wanting to get married will no longer be legally recognized as a Bride and Groom. It also allows discrimination of marriage celebrants who are not associated with religion or any church entity, forcing them to marry a gay couple, against their personal, cultural and ethical beliefs. That and the media being extremely biased with their coverage on this issue. I'm with NZ First on this issue. It NEED's a public referendum to allow the public to decide. The Government shouldn't put their hands anywhere near this kind of law/legislation. Your thoughts on this issue? P.S. Please try and keep it civil. |
goodiesguy (15316) | ||
| 1336631 | 2013-04-13 20:15:00 | Maybe THIS (www.nzherald.co.nz) will explain? and 4931 |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1336632 | 2013-04-13 20:21:00 | Well, I've never married, so it could be claimed I don't have a vested interest in the outcome. By my reckoning, marriage is about accepting a partner as your equal, yet I've seen lots of situations where the husband is a sexist pig who believes the little missus isn't really worthy of much respect. That isn't a marriage, that's a sham, at least to my eyes. I see no strong reason to have to label folks bride/groom/husband/wife. They can simply be labelled 'participants' or 'partners' in their marriage/union contract. There's also no reason why such a partnership needs to be limited to only two people either, but that's a whole other fight for the liberals and the PC brigade to make a noise about. Frankly, I fail to see the justification for a ceremony and a piece of paper. The participants are meant to love and trust each other, so why the signed bit of mock-legislative contract? If you're worth marrying you shouldn't need to sign a contract. Your word alone should be your contract. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1336633 | 2013-04-13 20:52:00 | Well, I've never married, so it could be claimed I don't have a vested interest in the outcome . By my reckoning, marriage is about accepting a partner as your equal, yet I've seen lots of situations where the husband is a sexist pig who believes the little missus isn't really worthy of much respect . That isn't a marriage, that's a sham, at least to my eyes . I see no strong reason to have to label folks bride/groom/husband/wife . They can simply be labelled 'participants' or 'partners' in their marriage/union contract . There's also no reason why such a partnership needs to be limited to only two people either, but that's a whole other fight for the liberals and the PC brigade to make a noise about . Frankly, I fail to see the justification for a ceremony and a piece of paper . The participants are meant to love and trust each other, so why the signed bit of mock-legislative contract? If you're worth marrying you shouldn't need to sign a contract . Your word alone should be your contract . +1 |
plod (107) | ||
| 1336634 | 2013-04-13 22:09:00 | I am married, I did it to make my wife happy. She is Christian I am not, I love my wife so I did it for her she didn't make me. But it is just a piece of paper and we did it on the cheap no big flash wedding here just 3 friends her son and us in Hanmer with a celebrant. We rented a house for 3 days paid for a meal out and the celebrant, took our own photo's and all up it cost $1000 in 2005. We simply had a big party in Nelson for all our other friends and family a month later. I find it so much easier to introduce my wife as 'this is my wife' as its so much easier to say and spell than my partner or my spouse which just sounds stupid anyway |
gary67 (56) | ||
| 1336635 | 2013-04-13 22:46:00 | It also allows discrimination of marriage celebrants who are not associated with religion or any church entity, forcing them to marry a gay couple, against their personal, cultural and ethical beliefs. No it doesn't. Part of this bill allows celebrants to refuse to marry same-sex couples for religious reasons, so their opinion and religious views are respected. |
pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 1336636 | 2013-04-13 23:21:00 | No it doesn't. Part of this bill allows celebrants to refuse to marry same-sex couples for religious reasons, so their opinion and religious views are respected. You didn't listen did you? Celebrants who are Atheist/Non-religious eg: not associated with a church, and do not have any religious beliefs will be open to discrimination and threat of legal action if this bill passes. |
goodiesguy (15316) | ||
| 1336637 | 2013-04-13 23:41:00 | The big thing to me is whether it is the peoples first wedding. Seems a lot of divorced people remarry dont they get the hint first time? | prefect (6291) | ||
| 1336638 | 2013-04-13 23:43:00 | What worries me about this governments pandering to the p--fta’s is they might change it from being legal, to being compulsory. :eek: | B.M. (505) | ||
| 1336639 | 2013-04-14 03:25:00 | Another great example of the vociferous minority getting their way. I am against the proposed changes. If same sex people want to live together fine - just don't expect me to accept that you are "married" like I am to a woman. |
Zippity (58) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | |||||