Kiwis ready for gay marriage, says Chauvel

31/07/2012 11:41:02 a.m.

Craig Young wrote:

No, Bulgar. I am a gay man and I oppose any legal recognition of polygamy (although polyamory isn't illegal). I suggest that you read the Bountiful case findings from British Columbia in Canada. Polygamists have far too great a tolerance for spousal violence and child sexual abuse for it to ever be decriminalised in New Zealand.

30/07/2012 4:11:07 p.m.

Bulgar wrote:

I'm not sure where this guy gets his facts from but Junopee's point is absolutely valid - permit same sex marriage and you must also allow polygamy. I have no strong opinions so long as they stay out of your face and personally I dont need to take part in a street parade to affirm that I'm straight or mainstream.

28/07/2012 3:03:17 p.m.

Kirk wrote:

David M - I quote you as saying "To compare this debate to the fight for equal rights for people of colour is simply faulty logic. There is not a single right I enjoy as a heterosexual male that my gay neighbor does not." Very interesting comment, as your own logic is faulty, for there is at least one right that you could enjoy as a heterosexual male that your gay neighbour can not currently enjoy - and that is the right to Marry his partner of the same gender. We are in the 21st Century people, the etymology of the word marriage may very well have meant between man and woman, but this clearly needs to change with the times. As a heterosexual male, I support Gay marriage and its about time that this was tabled.

28/07/2012 2:46:09 p.m.

Jordan wrote:

I seriously cannot believe that this is actually something being debated. I am a young student studying a tough course and I have met such a range of people here, whether they be black, white, asian, gay, straight, trans, it does't matter. There is a whole new generation coming through that in 10, maybe 15 years, will be the new leaders of tomorrow. I hate to break it to you, but those new leaders aren't your "middle to upper class white people of a religious background with a nuclear family." That just isn't how it is now. Diversity is real, These people, they are real. They are human beings who act the same as any one else. They are doctors, lawyers, artists, sports players. They pay their taxes like any one else. So how on earth do people still think it is okay to deny them rights, such as to be married? The great majority of straight people will probably want to get married one day. I wonder if it has ever crossed the conservatives minds what it would be like to not have that right? To fall madly in love with someone and not be able to be like every one else and get married. Also, on a side note. We are going through this massive anti bullying campaign at the moment in schools, to teach them not to bully other kids. How can we expect to teach kids not to call each other hateful names, and to not treat people like they are below us, when in fact on a legislative level, there is discrimination against the LGBT community. "Do as I say, not as I do?" It doesn't work. Trust me. Go into schools and meet the kids who were too scared to come out because they got called "faggots" and "dykes" and attempted suicide. Have a chat to them and see what they say. Cause if we make a change at the top like this, imagine the domino effect it will have on these people. It's no wonder they end up depressed, cause society says ever so subtly, "no, you're not accepted by the law." Have a think about that, it's this generation that will be affected the most so talk to them.

28/07/2012 10:45:18 a.m.

Craig Young wrote:

Except that same-sex couples cannot undertake parental responsibilities within the context of adoption under our outdated Adoption Act 1955.

And moreover, marriage is an adaptive institution. Social conservatives said the same about liberalised divorce laws, married women's property rights, custody rights adjustments and the criminalisation of spousal rape. This is no different.

And I'm afraid some societies did have equivalent ritual and ceremonial recognition of same-sex couples before the advent of western colonialism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

27/07/2012 10:01:50 p.m.

David M wrote:

Angeline there is no certainty of any genetic link to homosexuality. As to the history of marriage, the etymology of the word itself is exclusively heterosexual, and it's history is also almost entirely so. To compare this debate to the fight for equal rights for people of colour is simply faulty logic. There is not a single right I enjoy as a heterosexual male that my gay neighbor does not.

27/07/2012 8:22:17 p.m.

James J.REad wrote:

Mr CHauvel is ignoring the fact that the UNited NAtions has 200 member states, only 11 of which are currently looking favourably at gay marriage.If one bases the argument on population numbers,gay marriage prospects look even bleaker.

27/07/2012 6:42:39 p.m.

Huang wrote:

Gay couples must be gay! no children! no worries! Also no extended maternity leave required.

27/07/2012 5:44:23 p.m.

Craig Young wrote:

Junopee, you do realise that most societies that permit heterosexual polygamy are Muslim majority societies, most of which criminalise male homosexuality, and in the cases of Northern Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Iran, it is a capital offence.

Moreover, British Columbia's Supreme Court refused to strike down Canada's anti-polygamy law within its federal Criminal Code because of endemic spousal abuse and child sexual abuse of female child brides within a schismatic "Mormon" community,Bountiful.

27/07/2012 12:29:03 p.m.

jan.. wrote:

Gay people are full of laughs clean healthy and enjoy themslves as GAY, but marriage is their own belief to be a man and a women are beyond the real facts that women with child and not the other way round..
I cannot see the harm in Gay marriage as long as they dont interfare with life in general..