Brilliant speech about gay marriage in the NZ parliament

[Herr Tubthumper]

Honestly that was amazing and inspiring

Agree. It brought a lump to my throat.

 

[Husty]

Politician with a science degree, good to see. There arnt anywhere near enough in this country.

 

[topbanana36]

Politician with a science degree, good to see. There arnt anywhere near enough in this country.

There was one, once.

 

[Baron Pepperpot]

Inspiring for who, very funny for a kiwi. Perhaps the UK government may listen to the 600,000 plus people against the redefining of marriage unlike the thousands here in NZ who were completey ignored.

The problem is that most of the complaints came from religious groups. They have been leading the charge, and this lead to the wider allegation that some within the church felt that it was their right to define marriage, not the governments.

 

[Baron Pepperpot]

When Civil Partnerships were brought in similar mad claims were made here. Yet most folk are 'so what' about it now.

The floods in Yorkshire a few years back were blamed on homosexuals by one man of the cloth who sadly forgot that in this urban gay metropolise called Brighton we were all sunning ourselves on the beach !

That said, most urban church folk are not really in opposition. It's a vocal minority. Brighton has some excellent centres of faith.

Here's my orginal published opinion for what it's worth

Gay Marriage- Wheres the love ? | The Pepperpot Post

 

[Bulldog]

If you are against gay marriage, don't marry another bloke.................simples!



(Can't remember who originaly posted that, but thanks)

 

[Bulldog]

That was nice. I am not in favour, though, of David Cameron and his crew of warbling their own rendition of a Lionel Ritchie classic and bringing Osborne to tears all over again when the win the vote to rehunt foxes and the homeless.

Haha, but don't forget the unemployed.

 

[Baron Pepperpot]

Unless of course I'm a marriage celebrant. Still think the politician was funny.

You can still celebrate mate, only there may be a few more at the party. And onced you've partied with the gays you'll wish that all this had been sorted out earlier !

 

[dingodan]

The problem is that most of the complaints came from religious groups. They have been leading the charge, and this lead to the wider allegation that some within the church felt that it was their right to define marriage, not the governments.

Marriage was a sacrament of the church last time I checked.

 

[Baron Pepperpot]

Marriage was a sacrament of the church last time I checked.

It may be a sacrament of the church, but it is not born of a religious institution. Marriage has existed in many cultures and in many different forms. Gay marriage is nothing new, many ancient cultures endorsed it.

 

[Husty]

The problem is that most of the complaints came from religious groups. They have been leading the charge, and this lead to the wider allegation that some within the church felt that it was their right to define marriage, not the governments.

Marriage was invented by the religions, why shouldn't they have final say on who can and cannot be involved?

 

[topbanana36]

New Zealand today I wonder if marriage will be redefined in Jamaica.

 

[SeagullSongs]

Marriage was invented by the religions, why shouldn't they have final say on who can and cannot be involved?

Was it? Marriage - simply a ceremony to mark the joining of two individuals for life - goes back tens of thousands of years. Religions have just adopted it and thrown God in.

 

[CaptainDaveUK]

If two people of the same sex want to get hitched they can, it's called a civil partnership. People might say that all loving couples should be allowed to marry and anyone who disagrees with this is "discriminating". The truth is most people do "discriminate", it is just a question of when and where we draw the line. If you think an uncle marrying his neice or his nephew or perhaps someone taking a second or third wife/husband is wrong then that is simply your belief, for whatever reason. If people think marriage is between one man and one woman, they aren't discriminating against others, it is simply what they believe is morally right. If you want to redefine marriage for all consenting adults then would you for example allow a 30 year old uncle to marry his 30 year old nephew? If not why not? What about 30 year old auntie marrying her 18 year old nephew? If not why not? Or what about additional spouses where all concerned parties agree.

 

[The Large One]

If two people of the same sex want to get hitched they can, it's called a civil partnership. People might say that all loving couples should be allowed to marry and anyone who disagrees with this is "discriminating". The truth is most people do "discriminate", it is just a question of when and where we draw the line. If you think an uncle marrying his neice or his nephew or perhaps someone taking a second or third wife/husband is wrong then that is simply your belief, for whatever reason. If people think marriage is between one man and one woman, they aren't discriminating against others, it is simply what they believe is morally right. If you want to redefine marriage for all consenting adults then would you for example allow a 30 year old uncle to marry his 30 year old nephew? If not why not? What about 30 year old auntie marrying her 18 year old nephew? If not why not? Or what about additional spouses where all concerned parties agree.

That's not redifining marriage, that's redifining sex offence laws.

 

[dingodan]

It may be a sacrament of the church, but it is not born of a religious institution. Marriage has existed in many cultures and in many different forms. Gay marriage is nothing new, many ancient cultures endorsed it.

So, let gays have Civil Partnerships, with all of the legal/civil benefits of Marriage, and let the Church define it's Marriage Ceremony and the sacrament of Marriage which it provides, as it sees fit.

It seems to me that the activists on this issue want homosexuals to have the Marriage ceremony and the sacrament, and anything less would be argued to be homophobic.

 

[Husty]

Was it? Marriage - simply a ceremony to mark the joining of two individuals for life - goes back tens of thousands of years. Religions have just adopted it and thrown God in.

We already have civil partnerships, which (I believe?) provide the exact same legal recognition as a Marriage. Likewise something called Marriage which took place somewhere that wasn't religious I'd have not problem with. Personally I really cannot understand why people feel the need to have their relationship confirmed by a religion, because that is essentially what these laws (in the UK) involve is it not? Forcing churches to marry gay couples doesn't sit right with me not just because I DO believe it should be the choice of the church who it marries, but also because I don't understand why a gay couple would want to be associated with an institution which is and will remain incredibly homophobic.

 

[CaptainDaveUK]

That's not redifining marriage, that's redifining sex offence laws.

No actually you are wrong. It is not illegal for a neice/nephew to have a relationship with an aunt/uncle just illegal for them to marry. My question, which by the way no one will answer, especially my local MP, is do you think they should be allowed to marry? Where do you personally draw the line? If you say no a neice can't marry her aunty then you are surely discriminating against two people who maybe wish to get married. Personally my line is one man and one woman.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

So, let gays have Civil Partnerships, with all of the legal/civil benefits of Marriage, and let the Church define it's Marriage Ceremony and the sacrament of Marriage which it provides, as it sees fit.

It seems to me that the activists on this issue want homosexuals to have the Marriage ceremony and the sacrament, and anything less would be argued to be homophobic.

What about non-religious people? Can they get married or do they also have a civil partnership?

 

[SeagullSongs]

What benefits would a gay couple get from being married that they wouldn't from being in a civil partnership? Or is it just a moral/social/status thing?