New Zealand passes Gay Marriage Bill

This was one of the speeches by a New Zealand MP on the bill being passed:

Well that should take some of the demand off of the sheep

Pun wrote:Well that should take some of the demand off of the sheep

Nah, a human-sheep marriage bill is a long time off from being enacted down there, despite what some ppl seem to think.....

Unfortunately the United States is incredibly backwards when it comes to civil rights. Uruguay has even legalized same sex marriage (all U-r-gay jokes aside), while the United States stands frozen. We have too many folks, some as nasty as the man in the video below, that think the Bible, not the US Constitution, is the laws of the land. I've heard so many people say 'but its against the Bible,' and all I can say is so what? Who cares if it is against the Bible? When has that ever been the standard against which our laws were to be measured?

And the least Christ like person of the year award goes to:


Side note: I think he could loose his tax exempt for some of those statements.

I dont really care anymore. Pretty easy to read the tea leaves on this one. Iv known for years it was only a matter of time here. But i still have to ask about polygamists. Is their form of love any less valid than 2 individuals? How can we allow gay ppl to marry, but then deny that right to others, if we change the definition.

There is no such animal as civil rights. There is only rights. To say there are civil or legal rights is to muddy the waters of what rights really are. It also enforces the idea that government can dictate what are and are not rights.

Pun wrote:I dont really care anymore. Pretty easy to read the tea leaves on this one. Iv known for years it was only a matter of time here. But i still have to ask about polygamists. Is their form of love any less valid than 2 individuals? How can we allow gay ppl to marry, but then deny that right to others, if we change the definition.

Or pedophiles, the beasties, and even people in love with inanimate objects(yes they do exist).

I changed my mind a couple of weekz ago. I will never believe that marriage is a right, but now I really dont wanna see same sex marriage legalized. The precedent it will set is wrong.

Marconius wrote:

Pun wrote:I dont really care anymore. Pretty easy to read the tea leaves on this one. Iv known for years it was only a matter of time here. But i still have to ask about polygamists. Is their form of love any less valid than 2 individuals? How can we allow gay ppl to marry, but then deny that right to others, if we change the definition.

Or pedophiles, the beasties, and even people in love with inanimate objects(yes they do exist).

I changed my mind a couple of weekz ago. I will never believe that marriage is a right, but now I really dont wanna see same sex marriage legalized. The precedent it will set is wrong.

In the United States consent is a necessary precondition of marriage. Can a child legally give consent? Can an animal? Can an inanimate object? I fail to see any rational in that poorly constructed slippery-slope. Children can not legally enter into a contract (unless with written parental consent, minors are currently allowed to marry in many states with written parental consent), thus there is no need to fear new precedent for pedophile/child marriage. Unless you have an English speaking Sheep, I fail to see how your pet could consent to entering into a contract. As an inanimate object is by definition non sentient (at least at this time), it couldn't enter into a contract.Certainly, you are the last person in this group that I expected to hear that argument from.

What is marriage, as a legal institution, but a contract between two consenting adults? Currently this contract is limited to one man and one woman. Should we open up the confines of this contract to two adults of any sex, how would any of the things you suggested inherently come to fruition? Why should the government be given the power to decide which two adults can enter into a legal contract? Would you be fine if the government told you what (licensed) contractor you had to use to build your home? Would you be OK if Uncle Sam told you which bank you had to use to finance your new car? Would you accept it if the government told you which company you had to work for? How is this any different? What sets marriage, as a legal institution, apart from any other type of contract?

Pun wrote:I dont really care anymore. Pretty easy to read the tea leaves on this one. Iv known for years it was only a matter of time here. But i still have to ask about polygamists. Is their form of love any less valid than 2 individuals? How can we allow gay ppl to marry, but then deny that right to others, if we change the definition.

It depends on which argument you make for gay marriage. The social liberal argument doesn't necessarily condone polygamy, however the libertarian one (keep government out of the contract) must.

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:

Pun wrote:I dont really care anymore. Pretty easy to read the tea leaves on this one. Iv known for years it was only a matter of time here. But i still have to ask about polygamists. Is their form of love any less valid than 2 individuals? How can we allow gay ppl to marry, but then deny that right to others, if we change the definition.

Or pedophiles, the beasties, and even people in love with inanimate objects(yes they do exist).

I changed my mind a couple of weekz ago. I will never believe that marriage is a right, but now I really dont wanna see same sex marriage legalized. The precedent it will set is wrong.

In the United States consent is a necessary precondition of marriage. Can a child legally give consent? Can an animal? Can an inanimate object? I fail to see any rational in that poorly constructed slippery-slope. Children can not legally enter into a contract (unless with written parental consent, minors are currently allowed to marry in many states with written parental consent), thus there is no need to fear new precedent for pedophile/child marriage. Unless you have an English speaking Sheep, I fail to see how your pet could consent to entering into a contract. As an inanimate object is by definition non sentient (at least at this time), it couldn't enter into a contract.Certainly, you are the last person in this group that I expected to hear that argument from.

What is marriage, as a legal institution, but a contract between two consenting adults? Currently this contract is limited to one man and one woman. Should we open up the confines of this contract to two adults of any sex, how would any of the things you suggested inherently come to fruition? Why should the government be given the power to decide which two adults can enter into a legal contract? Would you be fine if the government told you what (licensed) contractor you had to use to build your home? Would you be OK if Uncle Sam told you which bank you had to use to finance your new car? Would you accept it if the government told you which company you had to work for? How is this any different? What sets marriage, as a legal institution, apart from any other type of contract?

I asked a question a couple of weeks ago. Kinda answered It myself.

Seems the only difference between insanity and sanity is the ability to give consent.....those who are not sane cannot give legal consent to anything.

Take it from there.

Basically it ie like this. You want it legal, you must he the one to make a good case for change. I have not yet seen one. To make that argument, you must first tell me why we should not lump it n with all other abnormal sexual urges. We consider all other a form of insanity so proove why same sex is different. Don't just huff and puff....put forth a good argument to support your case.

Marconius wrote:

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:

Pun wrote:I dont really care anymore. Pretty easy to read the tea leaves on this one. Iv known for years it was only a matter of time here. But i still have to ask about polygamists. Is their form of love any less valid than 2 individuals? How can we allow gay ppl to marry, but then deny that right to others, if we change the definition.

Or pedophiles, the beasties, and even people in love with inanimate objects(yes they do exist).

I changed my mind a couple of weekz ago. I will never believe that marriage is a right, but now I really dont wanna see same sex marriage legalized. The precedent it will set is wrong.

In the United States consent is a necessary precondition of marriage. Can a child legally give consent? Can an animal? Can an inanimate object? I fail to see any rational in that poorly constructed slippery-slope. Children can not legally enter into a contract (unless with written parental consent, minors are currently allowed to marry in many states with written parental consent), thus there is no need to fear new precedent for pedophile/child marriage. Unless you have an English speaking Sheep, I fail to see how your pet could consent to entering into a contract. As an inanimate object is by definition non sentient (at least at this time), it couldn't enter into a contract.Certainly, you are the last person in this group that I expected to hear that argument from.

What is marriage, as a legal institution, but a contract between two consenting adults? Currently this contract is limited to one man and one woman. Should we open up the confines of this contract to two adults of any sex, how would any of the things you suggested inherently come to fruition? Why should the government be given the power to decide which two adults can enter into a legal contract? Would you be fine if the government told you what (licensed) contractor you had to use to build your home? Would you be OK if Uncle Sam told you which bank you had to use to finance your new car? Would you accept it if the government told you which company you had to work for? How is this any different? What sets marriage, as a legal institution, apart from any other type of contract?

I asked a question a couple of weeks ago. Kinda answered It myself.

Seems the only difference between insanity and sanity is the ability to give consent.....those who are not sane cannot give legal consent to anything.

Take it from there.

That makes the assumption that homosexuality is a type of insanity, does it not? If so, then one would have to make a conclusive argument to that point before your greater argument could stand. Something being socially deviant doesn't inherently qualify it as mentally deviant.

After you proove that it is not insanity, then we can agree that they can legally enter into contract.

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:

Pun wrote:I dont really care anymore. Pretty easy to read the tea leaves on this one. Iv known for years it was only a matter of time here. But i still have to ask about polygamists. Is their form of love any less valid than 2 individuals? How can we allow gay ppl to marry, but then deny that right to others, if we change the definition.

Or pedophiles, the beasties, and even people in love with inanimate objects(yes they do exist).

I changed my mind a couple of weekz ago. I will never believe that marriage is a right, but now I really dont wanna see same sex marriage legalized. The precedent it will set is wrong.

In the United States consent is a necessary precondition of marriage. Can a child legally give consent? Can an animal? Can an inanimate object? I fail to see any rational in that poorly constructed slippery-slope. Children can not legally enter into a contract (unless with written parental consent, minors are currently allowed to marry in many states with written parental consent), thus there is no need to fear new precedent for pedophile/child marriage. Unless you have an English speaking Sheep, I fail to see how your pet could consent to entering into a contract. As an inanimate object is by definition non sentient (at least at this time), it couldn't enter into a contract.Certainly, you are the last person in this group that I expected to hear that argument from.

What is marriage, as a legal institution, but a contract between two consenting adults? Currently this contract is limited to one man and one woman. Should we open up the confines of this contract to two adults of any sex, how would any of the things you suggested inherently come to fruition? Why should the government be given the power to decide which two adults can enter into a legal contract? Would you be fine if the government told you what (licensed) contractor you had to use to build your home? Would you be OK if Uncle Sam told you which bank you had to use to finance your new car? Would you accept it if the government told you which company you had to work for? How is this any different? What sets marriage, as a legal institution, apart from any other type of contract?

I asked a question a couple of weeks ago. Kinda answered It myself.

Seems the only difference between insanity and sanity is the ability to give consent.....those who are not sane cannot give legal consent to anything.

Take it from there.

That makes the assumption that homosexuality is a type of insanity, does it not? If so, then one would have to make a conclusive

argument to that point before your greater argument could stand. Something being socially deviant doesn't inherently qualify it as mentally deviant.

We can only compare an action to another similar action to find deviance. All other similar actions are considered not quite sane.

Fair is fair after all.

Marconius wrote:Basically it ie like this. You want it legal, you must he the one to make a good case for change. I have not yet seen one. To make that argument, you must first tell me why we should not lump it n with all other abnormal sexual urges. We consider all other a form of insanity so proove why same sex is different. Don't just huff and puff....put forth a good argument to support your case.

Your the one making the positive argument, that to be a homosexual one must be insane. That puts the burden of proof in your court. As I had mentioned in a previous post, just because one is exhibiting socially deviant behavior does not mean that that individual is mentally ill. To confuse the two, and as such equate confines of social norms with the confines of mental health, would be a grievous error.

As for the other point you raise, should we give the government the power to regulate or otherwise judge any sexual activity between consenting adults?

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:Basically it ie like this. You want it legal, you must he the one to make a good case for change. I have not yet seen one. To make that argument, you must first tell me why we should not lump it n with all other abnormal sexual urges. We consider all other a form of insanity so proove why same sex is different. Don't just huff and puff....put forth a good argument to support your case.

Your the one making the positive argument, that to be a homosexual one must be insane. That puts the burden of proof in your court. As I had mentioned in a previous post, just because one is exhibiting socially deviant behavior does not mean that that individual is mentally ill. To confuse the two, and as such equate confines of social norms with the confines of mental health, would be a grievous error.

As for the other point you raise, should we give the government the power to regulate or otherwise judge any sexual activity between consenting adults?

My point was that I am not the one wishing to change policy. The ones wishing to change policy must be the ones to have a cogent argument. That is all.

No I do not want government regulating sexual activity. You wanna make love to a goat.....go for it. Just dont expect my support when marriage comes up.

If we try to keep it simple and talk about contractual terms, then we must also say that my 42 year old neighbor can legally enter into a marriage contract with her 19 year old son. Both are adults so both can consent. This cannot be exclusive or you havent accomplished anything of worth. We could also argue that multiple people can enter into contract as long as all parties agree to terms.

See Bryant, for a long time I never gave this much thought. I just said "sure why not". After long and hard debate with myself, I realize this cannot work or if it does, than all must benefit and not just the group you have no problem with at the moment.

As far as my insanity argument is concerned....I got no clue but:
The argument for same sex marriage is as follows

One cannot help who he/she is attracted to

If we say that then we must also agree that Billy cant help looking longly at that rooster or that Susie really had no choice when she was attracted to her 6th grade student.

Same sex is natural

True, but so is rape, incest and even necrophilia(thanks Miles). Natural does not imply "OK".

That's about it for tye pro argument.

Marconius wrote:

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:Basically it ie like this. You want it legal, you must he the one to make a good case for change. I have not yet seen one. To make that argument, you must first tell me why we should not lump it n with all other abnormal sexual urges. We consider all other a form of insanity so proove why same sex is different. Don't just huff and puff....put forth a good argument to support your case.

Your the one making the positive argument, that to be a homosexual one must be insane. That puts the burden of proof in your court. As I had mentioned in a previous post, just because one is exhibiting socially deviant behavior does not mean that that individual is mentally ill. To confuse the two, and as such equate confines of social norms with the confines of mental health, would be a grievous error.

As for the other point you raise, should we give the government the power to regulate or otherwise judge any sexual activity between consenting adults?

My point was that I am not the one wishing to change policy. The ones wishing to change policy must be the ones to have a cogent argument. That is all.

No I do not want government regulating sexual activity. You wanna make love to a goat.....go for it. Just dont expect my support when marriage comes up.

If we try to keep it simple and talk about contractual terms, then we must also say that my 42 year old neighbor can legally enter into a marriage contract with her 19 year old son. Both are adults so both can consent. This cannot be exclusive or you havent accomplished anything of worth. We could also argue that multiple people can enter into contract as long as all parties agree to terms.

See Bryant, for a long time I never gave this much thought. I just said "sure why not". After long and hard debate with myself, I realize this cannot work or if it does, than all must benefit and not just the group you have no problem with at the moment.

As far as my insanity argument is concerned....I got no clue but:
The argument for same sex marriage is as follows

One cannot help who he/she is attracted to

If we say that then we must also agree that Billy cant help looking longly at that rooster or that Susie really had no choice when she was attracted to her 6th grade student.

Same sex is natural

True, but so is rape, incest and even necrophilia(thanks Miles). Natural does not imply "OK".

That's about it for tye pro argument.

Works live Hooker (1957), Morgan et al (1993), etc have demonstrated that homosexual behavior is not the result of psychopathology. Subsequently the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have both issued position statements arguing that homosexuality is not an inherent byproduct of pathological psychological process. Homosexuality was also removed from the DSM in the 1970's. Based off this, the argument that homosexuals are insane, or otherwise inherently mentally deficient, and as such are not able to meaningfully consent to a contract is utterly discredited. Nor is there any evidence that homosexuality is damaging to society.

As argued in previous posts, consent is key. Billy might have the gollies for his rooster, but as the rooster can not consent the action would be unethical and should be illegal (although would be withing the law in several states). Likewise, any action Susie takes toward the adolescent would be unethical and should remain illegal because the child can not consent. Moreover, both the bird (maybe?) and the child can be psychologically harmed from the encounter. Both actions also can often be traced back to psychological disorders. Neither of these are inherently the case with adult homosexuals.

While simply being 'natural' may not make it OK, I think the fact that the action doesn't harm either party or society in any meaningful way does.

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:Basically it ie like this. You want it legal, you must he the one to make a good case for change. I have not yet seen one. To make that argument, you must first tell me why we should not lump it n with all other abnormal sexual urges. We consider all other a form of insanity so proove why same sex is different. Don't just huff and puff....put forth a good argument to support your case.

Your the one making the positive argument, that to be a homosexual one must be insane. That puts the burden of proof in your court. As I had mentioned in a previous post, just because one is exhibiting socially deviant behavior does not mean that that individual is mentally ill. To confuse the two, and as such equate confines of social norms with the confines of mental health, would be a grievous error.

As for the other point you raise, should we give the government the power to regulate or otherwise judge any sexual activity between consenting adults?

My point was that I am not the one wishing to change policy. The ones wishing to change policy must be the ones to have a cogent argument. That is all.

No I do not want government regulating sexual activity. You wanna make love to a goat.....go for it. Just dont expect my support when marriage comes up.

If we try to keep it simple and talk about contractual terms, then we must also say that my 42 year old neighbor can legally enter into a marriage contract with her 19 year old son. Both are adults so both can consent. This cannot be exclusive or you havent accomplished anything of worth. We could also argue that multiple people can enter into contract as long as all parties agree to terms.

See Bryant, for a long time I never gave this much thought. I just said "sure why not". After long and hard debate with myself, I realize this cannot work or if it does, than all must benefit and not just the group you have no problem with at the moment.

As far as my insanity argument is concerned....I got no clue but:
The argument for same sex marriage is as follows

One cannot help who he/she is attracted to

If we say that then we must also agree that Billy cant help looking longly at that rooster or that Susie really had no choice when she was attracted to her 6th grade student.

Same sex is natural

True, but so is rape, incest and even necrophilia(thanks Miles). Natural does not imply "OK".

That's about it for tye pro argument.

Works live Hooker (1957), Morgan et al (1993), etc have demonstrated that homosexual behavior is not the result of psychopathology. Subsequently the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have both issued position statements arguing that homosexuality is not an inherent byproduct of pathological psychological process. Homosexuality was also removed from the DSM in the 1970's. Based off this, the argument that homosexuals are insane, or otherwise inherently mentally deficient, and as such are not able to meaningfully consent to a contract is utterly discredited. Nor is there any evidence that homosexuality is damaging to society.

As argued in previous posts, consent is key. Billy might have the gollies for his rooster, but as the rooster can not consent the action would be unethical and should be illegal (although would be withing the law in several states). Likewise, any action Susie takes toward the adolescent would be unethical and should remain illegal because the child can not consent. Moreover, both the bird (maybe?) and the child can be psychologically harmed from the encounter. Both actions also can often be traced back to psychological disorders. Neither of these are inherently the case with adult homosexuals.

While simply being 'natural' may not make it OK, I think the fact that the action doesn't harm either party or society in any meaningful way does.

Then why do we treat pedophiles as mentally deficient??? The working mechanisms are the same as far as attraction goes. I would also argue that after first menstration, the female shouldn't be that affected. Besides, that behavior has been acceptable far longer than it has been unacceptable. Longer even than same sex has been. A good argument for benefit of the species could actually be made. Point is, we may not find homosexuality wrong, but it is the same exact mechanisms that dictate things we xo fnd wrong. I want to know the difference. If all we can say is consent, then other doors open for other actions as well.

Contractually we could say nothing about adult brother and sister or the guy and his wives or the girls and guys in a societal marriage. These arrangements can be very beneficial for those involved.

Bryant wrote:Unfortunately the United States is incredibly backwards when it comes to civil rights. Uruguay has even legalized same sex marriage (all U-r-gay jokes aside), while the United States stands frozen. We have too many folks, some as nasty as the man in the video below, that think the Bible, not the US Constitution, is the laws of the land. I've heard so many people say 'but its against the Bible,' and all I can say is so what? Who cares if it is against the Bible?

A lot of us care.

Bryant wrote:

In the United States consent is a necessary precondition of marriage.

In the United States Marriage is also defined as being between a man and a woman. With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, a marriage was explicitly defined in federal law as a union of one man and one woman. But you guys dont like that so...its dont count. So if we are going to change that...why not change the consent thing?

I've previously given civil and tax reasons why we dont want gay marriage, but you guys ignored that. Here's some more reasons: It kicks in the doors to polygamy, incest (with people who CAN give their consent) as well as the possibility of parents marrying off their kids (who cannot give consent). It can also open the door to 'group' marriage as well. Where do we stop?

And here's another good reason to ban same sex marriage. If that is legalized, then a couple could very well sue a Church if it refused to marry them. It could force the Scouts and other private groups to accept them for membership. Thats just plain wrong.

Dennis324 wrote:

Bryant wrote:Unfortunately the United States is incredibly backwards when it comes to civil rights. Uruguay has even legalized same sex marriage (all U-r-gay jokes aside), while the United States stands frozen. We have too many folks, some as nasty as the man in the video below, that think the Bible, not the US Constitution, is the laws of the land. I've heard so many people say 'but its against the Bible,' and all I can say is so what? Who cares if it is against the Bible?

A lot of us care.

That is why you will never be a "real conservative".

Interesting to me that bryant almost made the libertarian argument (as in, why does the government have to sanction marriage at all) but stopped just short.the issue here as has been brought up with other "alternative" lifestyles, you either have to be on the libertarian side of the issue, or be ok with being a hypocrite. Because the same arguments that are being used against gay marriage, are then turned around and used by gay marriage proponents against polygamist, incestuous marriages, and the like. But the only reason we run into this problem is by changing the natural, long-lived definition of marriage thats stood since before we even had definitions. Legally, its like opening pandoras box.

Pun wrote:Interesting to me that bryant almost made the libertarian argument (as in, why does the government have to sanction marriage at all) but stopped just short.the issue here as has been brought up with other "alternative" lifestyles, you either have to be on the libertarian side of the issue, or be ok with being a hypocrite. Because the same arguments that are being used against gay marriage, are then turned around and used by gay marriage proponents against polygamist, incestuous marriages, and the like. But the only reason we run into this problem is by changing the natural, long-lived definition of marriage thats stood since before we even had definitions. Legally, its like opening pandoras box.

That is my only problem.

And unforch, law is, by its very nature, arbitrary.