(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

Did anyone see Face to Face with Kim Hill tonight?

I did. >.< Jesus, I REALLY CAN'T STAND Peter Dunne.

"The institute of marriage is about... children."
BULLSHIT!
If that's the case, why are you letting infertile men an/or women get married? Marriage is NOT about children.

"You don't need to [get married/have a civil union] to chose to live together... marriage doesn't make you love... more."
Sure. That's absolutely 100% true. No-one is saying that's not the case. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT. This is about denying that homosexual couples are able to be acknowledged as having the same type of loving relationship as a straight couple can. because, in fact, <i>that</i> is what the insitute of marriage is about. Because you don't need to be married to have children. Marriage is about showing a commitment. By not allowing gay couples to show the same commitment, as whatsisface said, you're actually encouraging both the fact of and the perception of the promiscuity of gay man (lesbians were barly touched, though I thought whatsisface made a very good point when he said that gay men, promiscuous or otherwise, comprise only half the gay community; the other is lesbian women who are widely acknowledged, at least in New Zealand, to have very long-lasting relationships.)

I could go on and make the point that many straight couples devalue the institute of marriage (for example: Britney)... but I don't personally feel that kind of argument is a good one, because
-many of the people would say "You're right. We don't like them either."
-It's more of a counterargument and point-scoring than a good solid argument for.

Meh. Opinions? I'd love to have a fight with someone, so speak up, please.

Comments

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Nope. DD's husband is Peter Morwood. Peter here as in Peter Dunne, the leader of a United Future, a Christian Conservative Family Values-stle party. &%$&^%$!!

Heh, glad you agree. *thratens* everyone should agree with me!!!
No, no, I don't really mean that... much.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

lol!!!! Well over the past few months I have moved, under my own steam and without the persuasion of anyone else, from the civil union to the marriage corner of the argument. And as for civil unions for straight couples and how they're supposed to be like marriage that's not quite marriage, what person who doesn't like marriage, the sort who thinks it's "just a piece of paper",is going to go through with something that's even more just a piece of paper? (being that it's something that doesn't have the cultural history that marriage does) So um thats all I have to say yeah. lol.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Well, civil unions are a legally binding act that show commitment without having what a lot of people might see as the baggage of marriage- specifically in many cases religion. Say, two different religions, or no religion (me. I personally would like a marriage ceremony- without, prtty much, all that God stuff. It's fien for the people who like it, of course.)

Yes. I'm with you. I think both civil union and marriage should be available for couples of whatever sort. Anything else is, I eel, discrimination. And that=bad. Derrrr.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

I see your point about the civil unions... I was actually trying to say wouldn't it make more sense to just have marriage for everyone, but having both marriage and civil unions available for everyone DOES make more sense than marriage for straight couples and civil unions for homosexuals. Because that IS discrimination.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Yes. :D

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

Did you see the thing in the paper about prejudice against Muslims in Europe? I was even more shocked at that than I expected. Isuppose because it's Europe and they're supposed to be more liberal than other places....