NZ gay marriage act

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what i think is irrelevant.

you think the biblical laws of marriage should apply today. do you also think the biblical laws regarding rape should apply today. if not, what is the difference.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its considered contrary to nature, as Paul intimates, and this does not impinge upon their equality as citizens, if they want to live to together get a civil partnership, but marriage is defined as an act of union between a man and a woman, sorry.

I don't see why your citing of the opinion of "Paul" should impinge on the equality of gays with you as fellow citizens and in the eyes of the law, nor reach forward from 2,000 years ago to try to restrict the evolution of language in modern society, for that matter.

Originally posted by FMF
"Marriage", as with all language items, is what people say it is. Something similar can be said for "culture": it is the sum total of what people do and say, and is always evolving. There's nothing to stop you from insisting that marriage, for you, is "defined as an act of union between a man and a woman", but culture changes and is perhaps leaving you behind on this issue.

leaving us behind? Its only in the secular liberal west. Prior to this homosexual insurgency into natural family values can you cite a single society, either modern or ancient which sanctioned homosexual marriage, a single society?

Originally posted by FMF
I don't see why your citing of the opinion of "Paul" should impinge on the equality of gays with you as fellow citizens and in the eyes of the law, nor reach forward from 2,000 years ago to try to restrict the evolution of language in modern society, for that matter.

it has nothing do do with language and everything to do with nature. In every culture, in every age, marriage has always consisted of the union between a man and a woman, please cite a single culture where this has not been the case? what about the homosexual Greeks, perhaps they sanctioned marriage between members of the same sex?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
obsess, plueeeze, I am an artist, I contemplate beauty in all forms. Its my nature.

your original comment was in response to the implication by another poster that you were gay. your response is there fore a comment about sexual desire. a man, woman, gay or straight can admire the beauty in human form in an artistic context without it being sexual. you made it a sexual response by using your thoughts as proof of straightness. so do you spend all day thinking sexually about women or looking at them aesthetically as examples of the beauty in nature, if this is true then do you also draw naked men and do you think a naked man is beautiful?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
leaving us behind? Its only in the secular liberal west. Prior to this homosexual insurgency into natural family values can you cite a single society, either modern or ancient which sanctioned homosexual marriage, a single society?

I'm not talking about ancient times. I am talking about now. As for modern societies that "sanctioned homosexual marriage" well here's a possibly incomplete list: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand [latest one], Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden.

In every culture, in every age, marriage has always consisted of the union between a man and a woman, please cite a single culture where this has not been the case?

It's something that is happening now. See the list above.

Originally posted by FMF
I'm not talking about ancient times. I am talking about now. As for modern societies that "sanctioned homosexual marriage" well here's a possibly incomplete list: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand [latest one], Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden.

well I am, there is not a single recorded instance of any society, ancient or modern, until this epoch of history, even those which practised homosexuality, which sanctioned marriage between anyone but a man and a woman, why? because this was and remains the natural state of affairs, irrespective of any deviancy and semantic arguments based on language.

Originally posted by FMF
I'm not talking about ancient times. I am talking about now. As for modern societies that "sanctioned homosexual marriage" well here's a possibly incomplete list: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand [latest one], Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden.

[b]In every culture, in every age, marriage has always consiste ...[text shortened]... his has not been the case?

It's something that is happening now. See the list above.[/b]

Indeed, but it remains unnatural.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Of course in an Islamic state there is no room for these things, although it has been my own experience that homosexuality is tolerated, if hidden, and carries less of an extreme penalty than does running way with someone whom you love.

I don't live in an Islamic State but I do live in a predominantly Muslim nation and society. There's certainly a long way to go here. Might take two more generations for the homosexuals here to be legally safe and protected. It's not the focus of my work but I have done some minor stuff to help with this long long term objective because it feels like the right thing for me to do. It's already happening in much of the west. I welcome it, obviously.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Indeed, but its unnatural and makes a mockery of the marriage arrangement.

You are perfectly entitled to hold these views, although - wait a minute - this is not your point of view, is it?

Originally posted by FMF
I don't live in an Islamic State but I do live in a predominantly Muslim nation and society. There's certainly a long way to go here. Might take two more generations for the homosexuals here to be legally safe and protected. It's not the focus of my work but I have done some minor stuff to help with this long long term objective because it feels like the right thing for me to do. It's already happening in much of the west. I welcome it, obviously.

gee, forgive me for not sharing your enthusiasm.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well I am, there is not a single recorded instance of any society, ancient or modern, until this epoch of history, even those which practised homosexuality, which sanctioned marriage between anyone but a man and a woman, why? because this was and remains the natural state of affairs, irrespective of any deviancy and semantic arguments based on language.

before the first nation invented the wheel there were no examples of wheel ever existing. this is not proof that wheels are wrong.

Originally posted by FMF
You are perfectly entitled to hold these views, although - wait a minute - this is not your point of view, is it?

making a mockery of the marital arrangement is my view, but that homosexuality is contrary to nature, no that is a Biblical point of view.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
before the first nation invented the wheel there were no examples of wheel ever existing. this is not proof the wheels are wrong.

is this what it has come to, man, is it any wonder i have no pockets left on any of my jeans?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well I am, there is not a single recorded instance of any society, ancient or modern, until this epoch of history, even those which practised homosexuality, which sanctioned marriage between anyone but a man and a woman, why? because this was and remains the natural state of affairs, irrespective of any deviancy and semantic arguments based on language.

You must have missed my post: I gave you twelve examples... Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand [latest one], Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. This can hardly be described as "not a single recorded instance" of a society "which sanctioned marriage between anyone but a man and a woman".