> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 08:55:20 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
>>>>>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not be up
>>>>>>> to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his
>>>>>>> business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's just plain
>>>>>>> wrong on so many levels.
>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>>>>>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill
>>>>>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>>>>>> relationships".
>>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's business but the
>>>>> couple getting married. Definitely not the state's business and definitely
>>>>> not the business of other people via a referendum.
>>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing together of
>>>> opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing common things together is
>>>> uniting.
>>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between two
>>> people with some common interests, and importantly a common love for
>>> each other. Just because they may have different (or the same) colour,
>>> religion, gener, sexual preference, preference for tea or coffee,
>>> ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no difference. A marriage is a commitment
>>> between two people to each other, with legal implications, freely
>>> chosen by those two people. Some restrictions are reasonable (age,
>>> common parents), but sexual preference is not a reasonable
>>> restriction. You really do want "Daddu State" to tell you want to do,
>>> don't you Fred.
>> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as the
>> State's role to redefine words.
> People will use the words they want to describe different things,
> Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling gay today, Fred?
They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it will not take long for new terms to develop to distinguish between homo and hetro 'marriages' which is why i think it's silly to redefine the word.
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:40:00 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 5/08/2012 9:34 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 08:55:20 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
>>>>>>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not be up
>>>>>>>> to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his
>>>>>>>> business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's just plain
>>>>>>>> wrong on so many levels.
>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>>>>>>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill
>>>>>>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>>>>>>> relationships".
>>>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's business but the
>>>>>> couple getting married. Definitely not the state's business and definitely
>>>>>> not the business of other people via a referendum.
>>>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing together of
>>>>> opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing common things together is
>>>>> uniting.
>>>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between two
>>>> people with some common interests, and importantly a common love for
>>>> each other. Just because they may have different (or the same) colour,
>>>> religion, gener, sexual preference, preference for tea or coffee,
>>>> ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no difference. A marriage is a commitment
>>>> between two people to each other, with legal implications, freely
>>>> chosen by those two people. Some restrictions are reasonable (age,
>>>> common parents), but sexual preference is not a reasonable
>>>> restriction. You really do want "Daddu State" to tell you want to do,
>>>> don't you Fred.
>>> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as the
>>> State's role to redefine words.
>> People will use the words they want to describe different things,
>> Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling gay today, Fred?
>They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it will not >take long for new terms to develop to distinguish between homo and hetro >'marriages' which is why i think it's silly to redefine the word.
So you think laws should be based on your use of a particular word?
Its further than "Daddy State" you are looking for - its Dictionary
State!
Fred wrote:
> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
>>>>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not
>>>>>> be up to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of
>>>>>> his business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's
>>>>>> just plain wrong on so many levels.
>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>>>>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill
>>>>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>>>>> relationships".
>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's business
>>>> but the couple getting married. Definitely not the state's business and
>>>> definitely not the business of other people via a referendum.
>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing together of
>>> opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing common things together is
>>> uniting.
>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between two
>> people with some common interests, and importantly a common love for
>> each other. Just because they may have different (or the same) colour,
>> religion, gener, sexual preference, preference for tea or coffee,
>> ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no difference. A marriage is a commitment
>> between two people to each other, with legal implications, freely
>> chosen by those two people. Some restrictions are reasonable (age,
>> common parents), but sexual preference is not a reasonable
>> restriction. You really do want "Daddu State" to tell you want to do,
>> don't you Fred.
> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as the
> State's role to redefine words.
Do you see it as the state's role to regulate relationships between consenting sdults? Because that's exactly what they currently do.
-- A.
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:07:34 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 10:57 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> JohnO wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 1, 9:07 am, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Winston
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be up to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> none
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> his business. having a referundum make it his business, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just plain wrong on so many levels.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bill
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal relationships". --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So there'd be no concept of marriage or civil union at all
>>>>>>>>>>>> then?
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure there would, it's just that the state wouldn't be able to
>>>>>>>>>>> regulate
>>>>>>>>>>> it. It would be a personal thing between two (or more) people.
>>>>>>>>>> But that can happen now.
>>>>>>>>>No they can't. For example, bigamy is illegal. It shouldn't be.
>>>>>>>>>> None of the states business. The only
>>>>>>>>>> restriction is they can't legally claim the word 'marriage'. And
>>>>>>>>>> neither
>>>>>>>>>> they should - any dictionary will tell them why.
>>>>>>>>>Yet the word "marriage" has other legal conotations. If you are
>>>>>>>>>"married"
>>>>>>>>>then you have more rights than a couple who are not. It's not just
>>>>>>>>>about
>>>>>>>>>the word, it's about the laws that apply to that word. There should
>>>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>>>no
>>>>>>>>>discrimination. The word "marriage" should appear in any laws.
>>>>>>>>>(Neither
>>>>>>>>>should reference to gender or sexual orientation or ethnicity
>>>>>>>>>either).
>>>>>>>> There are quite a few married people who would like to each receive
>>>>>>>> the single persons level of NZ Super . . .
>>>>>>>There should be no NZ super either, but given there is, I'll bite:
>>>>>>>Why should two individuals who are living together receive a
>>>>>>>different amount of money than two individuals who are not living
>>>>>>>together? They have
>>>>>>>each paid the same taxes, why not get the same return?
>>>>>>>But as I said, this should not be an issue. People should save for
>>>>>>>their
>>>>>>>own
>>>>>>>retirement and the state shouldn't get in the way of that. Currently
>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>does.
>>>>>> This bill will of course slightly reduce payments to any same sex
>>>>>> couples who enter into a marriage who were previously both receiving
>>>>>> NZ Super. I guess that is another case of this bill being one you
>>>>>> would support.
>>>>>The bill won't do anything of the sort you moronic prat! Go have a look
>>>>>here
>>>>>and learn something for once in your sorry life!
>>>> Two singles sharing get more money than a married couple.
>>>> How come you could not figure that out, Poo?
>>>I did. You claimed same sex couples would get reduced payments if they
>>>married. They'd get the same amount as they're getting because it's
>>>classed
>>>as defacto relationship which only a moronic prat like you wouldn't
>>>understand.
>>>Pooh
>> What makes you think that any two blokes flatting together are
>> definitely a de facto couple, Poo?
> I'll type this slowly for you Rich Pricks because I know you have trouble
> comprehending things people type quickly: I never mentioned two blokes
> flatting together and I'm not surprised you'd try a red herring like this
> to try and hide your embarasment when you realised your bullshit was just
> that. You were talking about same sex couples getting married. Which is
> something a lot different to two blokes flatting together.
The point is that in the state's eyes there should be no difference. It's none of their business.
-- A.
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:07:34 +1200, Allistar >>>>>>>>> <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 10:57 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> JohnO wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 1, 9:07 am, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Winston
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be up to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> none
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his business. having a referundum make it his business, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just plain wrong on so many levels.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationships". --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So there'd be no concept of marriage or civil union at all >>>>>>>>>>>>> then?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure there would, it's just that the state wouldn't be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>> regulate
>>>>>>>>>>>> it. It would be a personal thing between two (or more) people.
>>>>>>>>>>> But that can happen now.
>>>>>>>>>>No they can't. For example, bigamy is illegal. It shouldn't be.
>>>>>>>>>>> None of the states business. The only
>>>>>>>>>>> restriction is they can't legally claim the word 'marriage'. And
>>>>>>>>>>> neither
>>>>>>>>>>> they should - any dictionary will tell them why.
>>>>>>>>>>Yet the word "marriage" has other legal conotations. If you are
>>>>>>>>>>"married"
>>>>>>>>>>then you have more rights than a couple who are not. It's not just
>>>>>>>>>>about
>>>>>>>>>>the word, it's about the laws that apply to that word. There >>>>>>>>>>should
>>>>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>>>>no
>>>>>>>>>>discrimination. The word "marriage" should appear in any laws.
>>>>>>>>>>(Neither
>>>>>>>>>>should reference to gender or sexual orientation or ethnicity
>>>>>>>>>>either).
>>>>>>>>> There are quite a few married people who would like to each >>>>>>>>> receive
>>>>>>>>> the single persons level of NZ Super . . .
>>>>>>>>There should be no NZ super either, but given there is, I'll bite:
>>>>>>>>Why should two individuals who are living together receive a >>>>>>>>different
>>>>>>>>amount of money than two individuals who are not living together? >>>>>>>>They
>>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>>each paid the same taxes, why not get the same return?
>>>>>>>>But as I said, this should not be an issue. People should save for
>>>>>>>>their
>>>>>>>>own
>>>>>>>>retirement and the state shouldn't get in the way of that. Currently
>>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>>does.
>>>>>>> This bill will of course slightly reduce payments to any same sex
>>>>>>> couples who enter into a marriage who were previously both receiving
>>>>>>> NZ Super. I guess that is another case of this bill being one you
>>>>>>> would support.
>>>>>>The bill won't do anything of the sort you moronic prat! Go have a >>>>>>look
>>>>>>here
>>>>>>and learn something for once in your sorry life!
>>>>> Two singles sharing get more money than a married couple.
>>>>> How come you could not figure that out, Poo?
>>>>I did. You claimed same sex couples would get reduced payments if they
>>>>married. They'd get the same amount as they're getting because it's
>>>>classed
>>>>as defacto relationship which only a moronic prat like you wouldn't
>>>>understand.
>>>>Pooh
>>> What makes you think that any two blokes flatting together are
>>> definitely a de facto couple, Poo?
>>I'll type this slowly for you Rich Pricks because I know you have trouble
>>comprehending things people type quickly: I never mentioned two blokes
>>flatting together and I'm not surprised you'd try a red herring like this >>to
>>try and hide your embarasment when you realised your bullshit was just >>that.
>>You were talking about same sex couples getting married. Which is >>something
>>a lot different to two blokes flatting together.
>>Pooh
> Of coure it is Poo. By the way, it is just the same for two women
> flatting together and then getting married. If they are both over age
> 65, and have been receiving single person NZ Super payments, then on
> marriage they will move to receiving a married couple payment. Tht is
> lower than the payments to two single people. Understand now?
If your example happened they'd be done for fraud and have to repay the overpayments Rich Pricks because both of your examples are defacto relationships. Do-YOU-understand now?
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:40:00 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On 5/08/2012 9:34 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 08:55:20 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. >>>>>>>>> Winston
>>>>>>>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should >>>>>>>>> not be up
>>>>>>>>> to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his
>>>>>>>>> business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's >>>>>>>>> just plain
>>>>>>>>> wrong on so many levels.
>>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of >>>>>>>>> personal
>>>>>>>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The >>>>>>>>> bill
>>>>>>>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>>>>>>>> relationships".
>>>>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's business >>>>>>> but the
>>>>>>> couple getting married. Definitely not the state's business and >>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>> not the business of other people via a referendum.
>>>>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing together of
>>>>>> opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing common things together >>>>>> is
>>>>>> uniting.
>>>>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between two
>>>>> people with some common interests, and importantly a common love for
>>>>> each other. Just because they may have different (or the same) colour,
>>>>> religion, gener, sexual preference, preference for tea or coffee,
>>>>> ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no difference. A marriage is a commitment
>>>>> between two people to each other, with legal implications, freely
>>>>> chosen by those two people. Some restrictions are reasonable (age,
>>>>> common parents), but sexual preference is not a reasonable
>>>>> restriction. You really do want "Daddu State" to tell you want to do,
>>>>> don't you Fred.
>>>> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as the
>>>> State's role to redefine words.
>>> People will use the words they want to describe different things,
>>> Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling gay today, Fred?
>>They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it will not
>>take long for new terms to develop to distinguish between homo and hetro
>>'marriages' which is why i think it's silly to redefine the word.
> So you think laws should be based on your use of a particular word?
> Its further than "Daddy State" you are looking for - its Dictionary
> State!
It's Labor state Rich Pricks. Those queer pricks have been doing it for years.
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:40:00 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/08/2012 9:34 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 08:55:20 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
>>>>>>>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not be up
>>>>>>>>> to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his
>>>>>>>>> business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's just plain
>>>>>>>>> wrong on so many levels.
>>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>>>>>>>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill
>>>>>>>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>>>>>>>> relationships".
>>>>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's business but the
>>>>>>> couple getting married. Definitely not the state's business and definitely
>>>>>>> not the business of other people via a referendum.
>>>>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing together of
>>>>>> opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing common things together is
>>>>>> uniting.
>>>>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between two
>>>>> people with some common interests, and importantly a common love for
>>>>> each other. Just because they may have different (or the same) colour,
>>>>> religion, gener, sexual preference, preference for tea or coffee,
>>>>> ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no difference. A marriage is a commitment
>>>>> between two people to each other, with legal implications, freely
>>>>> chosen by those two people. Some restrictions are reasonable (age,
>>>>> common parents), but sexual preference is not a reasonable
>>>>> restriction. You really do want "Daddu State" to tell you want to do,
>>>>> don't you Fred.
>>>> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as the
>>>> State's role to redefine words.
>>> People will use the words they want to describe different things,
>>> Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling gay today, Fred?
>> They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it will not
>> take long for new terms to develop to distinguish between homo and hetro
>> 'marriages' which is why i think it's silly to redefine the word.
> So you think laws should be based on your use of a particular word?
> Its further than "Daddy State" you are looking for - its Dictionary
> State!
i think marriage is understood by all but the very thick, to involve two people, one male, one female. If we change that definition, will we also extend marriage to a group of people who 'love' each other? Seems logical to me that if we don't continue to hold with convention over gender, then the number of participants should be open also. That is why new terms will evolve to describe the various forms of marriage we are likely to see in a decade or so.
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:01:49 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 5/08/2012 10:13 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:40:00 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/08/2012 9:34 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 08:55:20 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
>>>>>>>>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not be up
>>>>>>>>>> to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his
>>>>>>>>>> business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's just plain
>>>>>>>>>> wrong on so many levels.
>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>>>>>>>>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill
>>>>>>>>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>>>>>>>>> relationships".
>>>>>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>>>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's business but the
>>>>>>>> couple getting married. Definitely not the state's business and definitely
>>>>>>>> not the business of other people via a referendum.
>>>>>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing together of
>>>>>>> opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing common things together is
>>>>>>> uniting.
>>>>>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between two
>>>>>> people with some common interests, and importantly a common love for
>>>>>> each other. Just because they may have different (or the same) colour,
>>>>>> religion, gener, sexual preference, preference for tea or coffee,
>>>>>> ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no difference. A marriage is a commitment
>>>>>> between two people to each other, with legal implications, freely
>>>>>> chosen by those two people. Some restrictions are reasonable (age,
>>>>>> common parents), but sexual preference is not a reasonable
>>>>>> restriction. You really do want "Daddu State" to tell you want to do,
>>>>>> don't you Fred.
>>>>> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as the
>>>>> State's role to redefine words.
>>>> People will use the words they want to describe different things,
>>>> Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling gay today, Fred?
>>> They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it will not
>>> take long for new terms to develop to distinguish between homo and hetro
>>> 'marriages' which is why i think it's silly to redefine the word.
>> So you think laws should be based on your use of a particular word?
>> Its further than "Daddy State" you are looking for - its Dictionary
>> State!
>i think marriage is understood by all but the very thick, to involve two >people, one male, one female. If we change that definition, will we also >extend marriage to a group of people who 'love' each other? Seems >logical to me that if we don't continue to hold with convention over >gender, then the number of participants should be open also. That is why >new terms will evolve to describe the various forms of marriage we are >likely to see in a decade or so.
You are of course entitled to your opinions Fred, but the proposed law
change does not go as far as regarding marriage as more than an
agreement between two people. If you want three or more to be able to
be married you would have to wait for another bill.
It is good that you are open minded about recognising the need for
change though.
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:01:49 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/08/2012 10:13 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:40:00 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/08/2012 9:34 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 08:55:20 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. Winston
>>>>>>>>>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should not be up
>>>>>>>>>>> to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his
>>>>>>>>>>> business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's just plain
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong on so many levels.
>>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of personal
>>>>>>>>>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The bill
>>>>>>>>>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>>>>>>>>>> relationships".
>>>>>>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>>>>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's business but the
>>>>>>>>> couple getting married. Definitely not the state's business and definitely
>>>>>>>>> not the business of other people via a referendum.
>>>>>>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing together of
>>>>>>>> opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing common things together is
>>>>>>>> uniting.
>>>>>>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between two
>>>>>>> people with some common interests, and importantly a common love for
>>>>>>> each other. Just because they may have different (or the same) colour,
>>>>>>> religion, gener, sexual preference, preference for tea or coffee,
>>>>>>> ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no difference. A marriage is a commitment
>>>>>>> between two people to each other, with legal implications, freely
>>>>>>> chosen by those two people. Some restrictions are reasonable (age,
>>>>>>> common parents), but sexual preference is not a reasonable
>>>>>>> restriction. You really do want "Daddu State" to tell you want to do,
>>>>>>> don't you Fred.
>>>>>> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as the
>>>>>> State's role to redefine words.
>>>>> People will use the words they want to describe different things,
>>>>> Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling gay today, Fred?
>>>> They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it will not
>>>> take long for new terms to develop to distinguish between homo and hetro
>>>> 'marriages' which is why i think it's silly to redefine the word.
>>> So you think laws should be based on your use of a particular word?
>>> Its further than "Daddy State" you are looking for - its Dictionary
>>> State!
>> i think marriage is understood by all but the very thick, to involve two
>> people, one male, one female. If we change that definition, will we also
>> extend marriage to a group of people who 'love' each other? Seems
>> logical to me that if we don't continue to hold with convention over
>> gender, then the number of participants should be open also. That is why
>> new terms will evolve to describe the various forms of marriage we are
>> likely to see in a decade or so.
> You are of course entitled to your opinions Fred, but the proposed law
> change does not go as far as regarding marriage as more than an
> agreement between two people. If you want three or more to be able to
> be married you would have to wait for another bill.
> It is good that you are open minded about recognising the need for
> change though.
You certainly have a comprehension problem. Of course there is no need to change anything.
Fred wrote:
> On 6/08/2012 10:12 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:01:49 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/08/2012 10:13 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:40:00 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/08/2012 9:34 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 08:55:20 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Winston Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic
>>>>>>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should
>>>>>>>>>>>> not be up to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>> none of his business. having a referundum make it his business,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and that's just plain wrong on so many levels.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of
>>>>>>>>>>>> personal liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even
>>>>>>>>>>>> required. The bill should be changed to "The state can no
>>>>>>>>>>>> longer regulate personal relationships".
>>>>>>>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>>>>>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's
>>>>>>>>>> business but the couple getting married. Definitely not the
>>>>>>>>>> state's business and definitely not the business of other people
>>>>>>>>>> via a referendum.
>>>>>>>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing together
>>>>>>>>> of opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing common things
>>>>>>>>> together is uniting.
>>>>>>>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between two
>>>>>>>> people with some common interests, and importantly a common love
>>>>>>>> for each other. Just because they may have different (or the same)
>>>>>>>> colour, religion, gener, sexual preference, preference for tea or
>>>>>>>> coffee, ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no difference. A marriage is a
>>>>>>>> commitment between two people to each other, with legal
>>>>>>>> implications, freely chosen by those two people. Some restrictions
>>>>>>>> are reasonable (age, common parents), but sexual preference is not
>>>>>>>> a reasonable restriction. You really do want "Daddu State" to tell
>>>>>>>> you want to do, don't you Fred.
>>>>>>> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as the
>>>>>>> State's role to redefine words.
>>>>>> People will use the words they want to describe different things,
>>>>>> Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling gay today, Fred?
>>>>> They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it will
>>>>> not take long for new terms to develop to distinguish between homo and
>>>>> hetro 'marriages' which is why i think it's silly to redefine the
>>>>> word.
>>>> So you think laws should be based on your use of a particular word?
>>>> Its further than "Daddy State" you are looking for - its Dictionary
>>>> State!
>>> i think marriage is understood by all but the very thick, to involve two
>>> people, one male, one female. If we change that definition, will we also
>>> extend marriage to a group of people who 'love' each other? Seems
>>> logical to me that if we don't continue to hold with convention over
>>> gender, then the number of participants should be open also. That is why
>>> new terms will evolve to describe the various forms of marriage we are
>>> likely to see in a decade or so.
>> You are of course entitled to your opinions Fred, but the proposed law
>> change does not go as far as regarding marriage as more than an
>> agreement between two people. If you want three or more to be able to
>> be married you would have to wait for another bill.
>> It is good that you are open minded about recognising the need for
>> change though.
> You certainly have a comprehension problem. Of course there is no need
> to change anything.
Yes there is. The only change that needs to be made is to remove state involvement from personal relationships. The state should not be involved.
Why must one get permission from the state to marry?
-- A.
>> On 6/08/2012 10:12 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:01:49 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/08/2012 10:13 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:40:00 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/08/2012 9:34 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 08:55:20 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Winston Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be up to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> none of his business. having a referundum make it his business,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that's just plain wrong on so many levels.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> required. The bill should be changed to "The state can no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer regulate personal relationships".
>>>>>>>>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>>>>>>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's
>>>>>>>>>>> business but the couple getting married. Definitely not the
>>>>>>>>>>> state's business and definitely not the business of other people
>>>>>>>>>>> via a referendum.
>>>>>>>>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing together
>>>>>>>>>> of opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing common things
>>>>>>>>>> together is uniting.
>>>>>>>>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between two
>>>>>>>>> people with some common interests, and importantly a common love
>>>>>>>>> for each other. Just because they may have different (or the same)
>>>>>>>>> colour, religion, gener, sexual preference, preference for tea or
>>>>>>>>> coffee, ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no difference. A marriage is a
>>>>>>>>> commitment between two people to each other, with legal
>>>>>>>>> implications, freely chosen by those two people. Some restrictions
>>>>>>>>> are reasonable (age, common parents), but sexual preference is not
>>>>>>>>> a reasonable restriction. You really do want "Daddu State" to tell
>>>>>>>>> you want to do, don't you Fred.
>>>>>>>> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as the
>>>>>>>> State's role to redefine words.
>>>>>>> People will use the words they want to describe different things,
>>>>>>> Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling gay today, Fred?
>>>>>> They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it will
>>>>>> not take long for new terms to develop to distinguish between homo and
>>>>>> hetro 'marriages' which is why i think it's silly to redefine the
>>>>>> word.
>>>>> So you think laws should be based on your use of a particular word?
>>>>> Its further than "Daddy State" you are looking for - its Dictionary
>>>>> State!
>>>> i think marriage is understood by all but the very thick, to involve two
>>>> people, one male, one female. If we change that definition, will we also
>>>> extend marriage to a group of people who 'love' each other? Seems
>>>> logical to me that if we don't continue to hold with convention over
>>>> gender, then the number of participants should be open also. That is why
>>>> new terms will evolve to describe the various forms of marriage we are
>>>> likely to see in a decade or so.
>>> You are of course entitled to your opinions Fred, but the proposed law
>>> change does not go as far as regarding marriage as more than an
>>> agreement between two people. If you want three or more to be able to
>>> be married you would have to wait for another bill.
>>> It is good that you are open minded about recognising the need for
>>> change though.
>> You certainly have a comprehension problem. Of course there is no need
>> to change anything.
>Yes there is. The only change that needs to be made is to remove state >involvement from personal relationships. The state should not be involved.
>Why must one get permission from the state to marry?
Who did you get permission from when you got married, Allistar?
Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 11:25:53 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
> wrote:
>>Fred wrote:
>>> On 6/08/2012 10:12 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:01:49 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/08/2012 10:13 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:40:00 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/08/2012 9:34 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 08:55:20 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Winston Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> democratic system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should not be up to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> married. It's none of his business. having a referundum make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it his business, and that's just plain wrong on so many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> levels.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required. The bill should be changed to "The state can no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer regulate personal relationships".
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>>>>>>>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's
>>>>>>>>>>>> business but the couple getting married. Definitely not the
>>>>>>>>>>>> state's business and definitely not the business of other
>>>>>>>>>>>> people via a referendum.
>>>>>>>>>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing
>>>>>>>>>>> together of opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing common
>>>>>>>>>>> things together is uniting.
>>>>>>>>>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between
>>>>>>>>>> two people with some common interests, and importantly a common
>>>>>>>>>> love for each other. Just because they may have different (or the
>>>>>>>>>> same) colour, religion, gener, sexual preference, preference for
>>>>>>>>>> tea or coffee, ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no difference. A
>>>>>>>>>> marriage is a commitment between two people to each other, with
>>>>>>>>>> legal implications, freely chosen by those two people. Some
>>>>>>>>>> restrictions are reasonable (age, common parents), but sexual
>>>>>>>>>> preference is not a reasonable restriction. You really do want
>>>>>>>>>> "Daddu State" to tell you want to do, don't you Fred.
>>>>>>>>> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as
>>>>>>>>> the State's role to redefine words.
>>>>>>>> People will use the words they want to describe different things,
>>>>>>>> Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling gay today,
>>>>>>>> Fred?
>>>>>>> They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it will
>>>>>>> not take long for new terms to develop to distinguish between homo
>>>>>>> and hetro 'marriages' which is why i think it's silly to redefine
>>>>>>> the word.
>>>>>> So you think laws should be based on your use of a particular word?
>>>>>> Its further than "Daddy State" you are looking for - its Dictionary
>>>>>> State!
>>>>> i think marriage is understood by all but the very thick, to involve
>>>>> two people, one male, one female. If we change that definition, will
>>>>> we also extend marriage to a group of people who 'love' each other?
>>>>> Seems logical to me that if we don't continue to hold with convention
>>>>> over gender, then the number of participants should be open also. That
>>>>> is why new terms will evolve to describe the various forms of marriage
>>>>> we are likely to see in a decade or so.
>>>> You are of course entitled to your opinions Fred, but the proposed law
>>>> change does not go as far as regarding marriage as more than an
>>>> agreement between two people. If you want three or more to be able to
>>>> be married you would have to wait for another bill.
>>>> It is good that you are open minded about recognising the need for
>>>> change though.
>>> You certainly have a comprehension problem. Of course there is no need
>>> to change anything.
>>Yes there is. The only change that needs to be made is to remove state
>>involvement from personal relationships. The state should not be involved.
>>Why must one get permission from the state to marry?
> Who did you get permission from when you got married, Allistar?
My wife (of course), her father (to keep him happy) and the Births, Deaths and Marriages office. The first two are fair - the last is not. I shouldn't have to ask the state for permission to marry someone.
-- A.
>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 11:25:53 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
>> wrote:
>>>Fred wrote:
>>>> On 6/08/2012 10:12 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:01:49 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/08/2012 10:13 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:40:00 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/08/2012 9:34 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 08:55:20 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Winston Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> democratic system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should not be up to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> married. It's none of his business. having a referundum make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it his business, and that's just plain wrong on so many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> levels.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required. The bill should be changed to "The state can no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer regulate personal relationships".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> business but the couple getting married. Definitely not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> state's business and definitely not the business of other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people via a referendum.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing
>>>>>>>>>>>> together of opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing common
>>>>>>>>>>>> things together is uniting.
>>>>>>>>>>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between
>>>>>>>>>>> two people with some common interests, and importantly a common
>>>>>>>>>>> love for each other. Just because they may have different (or the
>>>>>>>>>>> same) colour, religion, gener, sexual preference, preference for
>>>>>>>>>>> tea or coffee, ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no difference. A
>>>>>>>>>>> marriage is a commitment between two people to each other, with
>>>>>>>>>>> legal implications, freely chosen by those two people. Some
>>>>>>>>>>> restrictions are reasonable (age, common parents), but sexual
>>>>>>>>>>> preference is not a reasonable restriction. You really do want
>>>>>>>>>>> "Daddu State" to tell you want to do, don't you Fred.
>>>>>>>>>> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as
>>>>>>>>>> the State's role to redefine words.
>>>>>>>>> People will use the words they want to describe different things,
>>>>>>>>> Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling gay today,
>>>>>>>>> Fred?
>>>>>>>> They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it will
>>>>>>>> not take long for new terms to develop to distinguish between homo
>>>>>>>> and hetro 'marriages' which is why i think it's silly to redefine
>>>>>>>> the word.
>>>>>>> So you think laws should be based on your use of a particular word?
>>>>>>> Its further than "Daddy State" you are looking for - its Dictionary
>>>>>>> State!
>>>>>> i think marriage is understood by all but the very thick, to involve
>>>>>> two people, one male, one female. If we change that definition, will
>>>>>> we also extend marriage to a group of people who 'love' each other?
>>>>>> Seems logical to me that if we don't continue to hold with convention
>>>>>> over gender, then the number of participants should be open also. That
>>>>>> is why new terms will evolve to describe the various forms of marriage
>>>>>> we are likely to see in a decade or so.
>>>>> You are of course entitled to your opinions Fred, but the proposed law
>>>>> change does not go as far as regarding marriage as more than an
>>>>> agreement between two people. If you want three or more to be able to
>>>>> be married you would have to wait for another bill.
>>>>> It is good that you are open minded about recognising the need for
>>>>> change though.
>>>> You certainly have a comprehension problem. Of course there is no need
>>>> to change anything.
>>>Yes there is. The only change that needs to be made is to remove state
>>>involvement from personal relationships. The state should not be involved.
>>>Why must one get permission from the state to marry?
>> Who did you get permission from when you got married, Allistar?
>My wife (of course), her father (to keep him happy) and the Births, Deaths >and Marriages office. The first two are fair - the last is not. I shouldn't >have to ask the state for permission to marry someone.
I doubt that Briths, Deaths and Marriages get invovled in making a
decision as to whether you can get married unless you are in a very
specific category (under age 16 for example)
>>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 11:25:53 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>Fred wrote:
>>>>> On 6/08/2012 10:12 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:01:49 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/08/2012 10:13 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:40:00 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/08/2012 9:34 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 08:55:20 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> democracy. Winston Peter's epitomises all that is wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a democratic system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should not be up to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> married. It's none of his business. having a referundum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it his business, and that's just plain wrong on so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many levels.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required. The bill should be changed to "The state can no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer regulate personal relationships".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business but the couple getting married. Definitely not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state's business and definitely not the business of other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people via a referendum.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> together of opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> common things together is uniting.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between
>>>>>>>>>>>> two people with some common interests, and importantly a common
>>>>>>>>>>>> love for each other. Just because they may have different (or
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same) colour, religion, gener, sexual preference,
>>>>>>>>>>>> preference for tea or coffee, ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no
>>>>>>>>>>>> difference. A marriage is a commitment between two people to
>>>>>>>>>>>> each other, with legal implications, freely chosen by those two
>>>>>>>>>>>> people. Some restrictions are reasonable (age, common parents),
>>>>>>>>>>>> but sexual preference is not a reasonable restriction. You
>>>>>>>>>>>> really do want "Daddu State" to tell you want to do, don't you
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fred.
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as
>>>>>>>>>>> the State's role to redefine words.
>>>>>>>>>> People will use the words they want to describe different things,
>>>>>>>>>> Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling gay today,
>>>>>>>>>> Fred?
>>>>>>>>> They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it
>>>>>>>>> will not take long for new terms to develop to distinguish between
>>>>>>>>> homo and hetro 'marriages' which is why i think it's silly to
>>>>>>>>> redefine the word.
>>>>>>>> So you think laws should be based on your use of a particular word?
>>>>>>>> Its further than "Daddy State" you are looking for - its Dictionary
>>>>>>>> State!
>>>>>>> i think marriage is understood by all but the very thick, to involve
>>>>>>> two people, one male, one female. If we change that definition, will
>>>>>>> we also extend marriage to a group of people who 'love' each other?
>>>>>>> Seems logical to me that if we don't continue to hold with
>>>>>>> convention over gender, then the number of participants should be
>>>>>>> open also. That is why new terms will evolve to describe the various
>>>>>>> forms of marriage we are likely to see in a decade or so.
>>>>>> You are of course entitled to your opinions Fred, but the proposed
>>>>>> law change does not go as far as regarding marriage as more than an
>>>>>> agreement between two people. If you want three or more to be able to
>>>>>> be married you would have to wait for another bill.
>>>>>> It is good that you are open minded about recognising the need for
>>>>>> change though.
>>>>> You certainly have a comprehension problem. Of course there is no need
>>>>> to change anything.
>>>>Yes there is. The only change that needs to be made is to remove state
>>>>involvement from personal relationships. The state should not be
>>>>involved.
>>>>Why must one get permission from the state to marry?
>>> Who did you get permission from when you got married, Allistar?
>>My wife (of course), her father (to keep him happy) and the Births, Deaths
>>and Marriages office. The first two are fair - the last is not. I
>>shouldn't have to ask the state for permission to marry someone.
> I doubt that Briths, Deaths and Marriages get invovled in making a
> decision as to whether you can get married unless you are in a very
> specific category (under age 16 for example)
> There is a process (this is recognition of a relationship, with legal
> implications, by the State - so some formality is expected. See:
My point is that the state should not be involved at all. It should be none of their business.
>>>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 11:25:53 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>Fred wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/08/2012 10:12 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:01:49 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/08/2012 10:13 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:40:00 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/08/2012 9:34 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 08:55:20 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> democracy. Winston Peter's epitomises all that is wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a democratic system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should not be up to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> married. It's none of his business. having a referundum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it his business, and that's just plain wrong on so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many levels.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required. The bill should be changed to "The state can no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer regulate personal relationships".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business but the couple getting married. Definitely not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state's business and definitely not the business of other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people via a referendum.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together of opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common things together is uniting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between
>>>>>>>>>>>>> two people with some common interests, and importantly a common
>>>>>>>>>>>>> love for each other. Just because they may have different (or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same) colour, religion, gener, sexual preference,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> preference for tea or coffee, ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference. A marriage is a commitment between two people to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> each other, with legal implications, freely chosen by those two
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. Some restrictions are reasonable (age, common parents),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but sexual preference is not a reasonable restriction. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>> really do want "Daddu State" to tell you want to do, don't you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fred.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as
>>>>>>>>>>>> the State's role to redefine words.
>>>>>>>>>>> People will use the words they want to describe different things,
>>>>>>>>>>> Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling gay today,
>>>>>>>>>>> Fred?
>>>>>>>>>> They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it
>>>>>>>>>> will not take long for new terms to develop to distinguish between
>>>>>>>>>> homo and hetro 'marriages' which is why i think it's silly to
>>>>>>>>>> redefine the word.
>>>>>>>>> So you think laws should be based on your use of a particular word?
>>>>>>>>> Its further than "Daddy State" you are looking for - its Dictionary
>>>>>>>>> State!
>>>>>>>> i think marriage is understood by all but the very thick, to involve
>>>>>>>> two people, one male, one female. If we change that definition, will
>>>>>>>> we also extend marriage to a group of people who 'love' each other?
>>>>>>>> Seems logical to me that if we don't continue to hold with
>>>>>>>> convention over gender, then the number of participants should be
>>>>>>>> open also. That is why new terms will evolve to describe the various
>>>>>>>> forms of marriage we are likely to see in a decade or so.
>>>>>>> You are of course entitled to your opinions Fred, but the proposed
>>>>>>> law change does not go as far as regarding marriage as more than an
>>>>>>> agreement between two people. If you want three or more to be able to
>>>>>>> be married you would have to wait for another bill.
>>>>>>> It is good that you are open minded about recognising the need for
>>>>>>> change though.
>>>>>> You certainly have a comprehension problem. Of course there is no need
>>>>>> to change anything.
>>>>>Yes there is. The only change that needs to be made is to remove state
>>>>>involvement from personal relationships. The state should not be
>>>>>involved.
>>>>>Why must one get permission from the state to marry?
>>>> Who did you get permission from when you got married, Allistar?
>>>My wife (of course), her father (to keep him happy) and the Births, Deaths
>>>and Marriages office. The first two are fair - the last is not. I
>>>shouldn't have to ask the state for permission to marry someone.
>> I doubt that Briths, Deaths and Marriages get invovled in making a
>> decision as to whether you can get married unless you are in a very
>> specific category (under age 16 for example)
>> There is a process (this is recognition of a relationship, with legal
>> implications, by the State - so some formality is expected. See:
>My point is that the state should not be involved at all. It should be none >of their business.
>> It is hardly an onerous process, and in my view falls short of your
>> description as requiring permission.
>You have to apply to the state to get married. You should not have to.
>> Did you get permission to drive when you applied for a driving
>> license?
>> That's inteesting. I don;t think most people bother to get permission
>> from an office whose task is to record events.
>You cannot get married without a marriage certificate. This needs >preapproval from a government department.
>The law change that needs to be made is that the state should no longer have >an interest in personal relationships.
Change can only be made at the pace politicians can get support for.
You should be celebrating a small change in the direction you favour.
I getthe impressiont hat if you won $1000 in Lotto you would bitch and
moan that it wasn't the top prize . . .
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 11:25:53 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>Fred wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/08/2012 10:12 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:01:49 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/08/2012 10:13 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:40:00 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/08/2012 9:34 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 08:55:20 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> democracy. Winston Peter's epitomises all that is wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a democratic system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should not be up to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> married. It's none of his business. having a referundum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it his business, and that's just plain wrong on so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many levels.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of personal liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even required. The bill should be changed to "The state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can no longer regulate personal relationships".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business but the couple getting married. Definitely not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state's business and definitely not the business of other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people via a referendum.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together of opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common things together is uniting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between two people with some common interests, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> importantly a common love for each other. Just because they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may have different (or the same) colour, religion, gener,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sexual preference, preference for tea or coffee, ginger hair,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc, etc, makes no difference. A marriage is a commitment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between two people to each other, with legal implications,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freely chosen by those two people. Some restrictions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable (age, common parents), but sexual preference is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a reasonable restriction. You really do want "Daddu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> State" to tell you want to do, don't you Fred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the State's role to redefine words.
>>>>>>>>>>>> People will use the words they want to describe different
>>>>>>>>>>>> things, Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling
>>>>>>>>>>>> gay today, Fred?
>>>>>>>>>>> They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it
>>>>>>>>>>> will not take long for new terms to develop to distinguish
>>>>>>>>>>> between homo and hetro 'marriages' which is why i think it's
>>>>>>>>>>> silly to redefine the word.
>>>>>>>>>> So you think laws should be based on your use of a particular
>>>>>>>>>> word? Its further than "Daddy State" you are looking for - its
>>>>>>>>>> Dictionary State!
>>>>>>>>> i think marriage is understood by all but the very thick, to
>>>>>>>>> involve two people, one male, one female. If we change that
>>>>>>>>> definition, will we also extend marriage to a group of people who
>>>>>>>>> 'love' each other? Seems logical to me that if we don't continue
>>>>>>>>> to hold with convention over gender, then the number of
>>>>>>>>> participants should be open also. That is why new terms will
>>>>>>>>> evolve to describe the various forms of marriage we are likely to
>>>>>>>>> see in a decade or so.
>>>>>>>> You are of course entitled to your opinions Fred, but the proposed
>>>>>>>> law change does not go as far as regarding marriage as more than an
>>>>>>>> agreement between two people. If you want three or more to be able
>>>>>>>> to be married you would have to wait for another bill.
>>>>>>>> It is good that you are open minded about recognising the need for
>>>>>>>> change though.
>>>>>>> You certainly have a comprehension problem. Of course there is no
>>>>>>> need to change anything.
>>>>>>Yes there is. The only change that needs to be made is to remove state
>>>>>>involvement from personal relationships. The state should not be
>>>>>>involved.
>>>>>>Why must one get permission from the state to marry?
>>>>> Who did you get permission from when you got married, Allistar?
>>>>My wife (of course), her father (to keep him happy) and the Births,
>>>>Deaths and Marriages office. The first two are fair - the last is not. I
>>>>shouldn't have to ask the state for permission to marry someone.
>>> I doubt that Briths, Deaths and Marriages get invovled in making a
>>> decision as to whether you can get married unless you are in a very
>>> specific category (under age 16 for example)
>>> There is a process (this is recognition of a relationship, with legal
>>> implications, by the State - so some formality is expected. See:
>>My point is that the state should not be involved at all. It should be
>>none of their business.
> On 5/08/2012 10:13 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:40:00 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/08/2012 9:34 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 08:55:20 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. >>>>>>>>>> Winston
>>>>>>>>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should >>>>>>>>>> not be up
>>>>>>>>>> to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his
>>>>>>>>>> business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's >>>>>>>>>> just plain
>>>>>>>>>> wrong on so many levels.
>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of >>>>>>>>>> personal
>>>>>>>>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The >>>>>>>>>> bill
>>>>>>>>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>>>>>>>>> relationships".
>>>>>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>>>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's >>>>>>>> business but the
>>>>>>>> couple getting married. Definitely not the state's business and >>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>> not the business of other people via a referendum.
>>>>>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing together >>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing common things together >>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> uniting.
>>>>>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between two
>>>>>> people with some common interests, and importantly a common love for
>>>>>> each other. Just because they may have different (or the same) >>>>>> colour,
>>>>>> religion, gener, sexual preference, preference for tea or coffee,
>>>>>> ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no difference. A marriage is a >>>>>> commitment
>>>>>> between two people to each other, with legal implications, freely
>>>>>> chosen by those two people. Some restrictions are reasonable (age,
>>>>>> common parents), but sexual preference is not a reasonable
>>>>>> restriction. You really do want "Daddu State" to tell you want to do,
>>>>>> don't you Fred.
>>>>> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as the
>>>>> State's role to redefine words.
>>>> People will use the words they want to describe different things,
>>>> Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling gay today, Fred?
>>> They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it will not
>>> take long for new terms to develop to distinguish between homo and hetro
>>> 'marriages' which is why i think it's silly to redefine the word.
>> So you think laws should be based on your use of a particular word?
>> Its further than "Daddy State" you are looking for - its Dictionary
>> State!
> i think marriage is understood by all but the very thick, to involve two > people, one male, one female. If we change that definition, will we also > extend marriage to a group of people who 'love' each other? Seems logical > to me that if we don't continue to hold with convention over gender, then > the number of participants should be open also. That is why new terms will > evolve to describe the various forms of marriage we are likely to see in a > decade or so.
More to the point will the local cat lady be able to marry one of the many cats she loves???
> On 6/08/2012 10:12 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:01:49 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/08/2012 10:13 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:40:00 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/08/2012 9:34 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 08:55:20 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. >>>>>>>>>>>> Winston
>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should >>>>>>>>>>>> not be up
>>>>>>>>>>>> to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of >>>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>>> business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's >>>>>>>>>>>> just plain
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong on so many levels.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of >>>>>>>>>>>> personal
>>>>>>>>>>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. >>>>>>>>>>>> The bill
>>>>>>>>>>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>>>>>>>>>>> relationships".
>>>>>>>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>>>>>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's >>>>>>>>>> business but the
>>>>>>>>>> couple getting married. Definitely not the state's business and >>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>> not the business of other people via a referendum.
>>>>>>>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing together >>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing common things >>>>>>>>> together is
>>>>>>>>> uniting.
>>>>>>>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between two
>>>>>>>> people with some common interests, and importantly a common love >>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> each other. Just because they may have different (or the same) >>>>>>>> colour,
>>>>>>>> religion, gener, sexual preference, preference for tea or coffee,
>>>>>>>> ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no difference. A marriage is a >>>>>>>> commitment
>>>>>>>> between two people to each other, with legal implications, freely
>>>>>>>> chosen by those two people. Some restrictions are reasonable (age,
>>>>>>>> common parents), but sexual preference is not a reasonable
>>>>>>>> restriction. You really do want "Daddu State" to tell you want to >>>>>>>> do,
>>>>>>>> don't you Fred.
>>>>>>> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as the
>>>>>>> State's role to redefine words.
>>>>>> People will use the words they want to describe different things,
>>>>>> Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling gay today, Fred?
>>>>> They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it will >>>>> not
>>>>> take long for new terms to develop to distinguish between homo and >>>>> hetro
>>>>> 'marriages' which is why i think it's silly to redefine the word.
>>>> So you think laws should be based on your use of a particular word?
>>>> Its further than "Daddy State" you are looking for - its Dictionary
>>>> State!
>>> i think marriage is understood by all but the very thick, to involve two
>>> people, one male, one female. If we change that definition, will we also
>>> extend marriage to a group of people who 'love' each other? Seems
>>> logical to me that if we don't continue to hold with convention over
>>> gender, then the number of participants should be open also. That is why
>>> new terms will evolve to describe the various forms of marriage we are
>>> likely to see in a decade or so.
>> You are of course entitled to your opinions Fred, but the proposed law
>> change does not go as far as regarding marriage as more than an
>> agreement between two people. If you want three or more to be able to
>> be married you would have to wait for another bill.
>> It is good that you are open minded about recognising the need for
>> change though.
> You certainly have a comprehension problem. Of course there is no need to > change anything.
When's that ever stopped Labor and it's hanger ons?
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 23:13:05 +1200, "Pooh" <pa...@bigots.lie> wrote:
>"Fred" <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:jvmqf9$alf$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 5/08/2012 10:13 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:40:00 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/08/2012 9:34 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 08:55:20 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy. >>>>>>>>>>> Winston
>>>>>>>>>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should >>>>>>>>>>> not be up
>>>>>>>>>>> to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of his
>>>>>>>>>>> business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's >>>>>>>>>>> just plain
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong on so many levels.
>>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of >>>>>>>>>>> personal
>>>>>>>>>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. The >>>>>>>>>>> bill
>>>>>>>>>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>>>>>>>>>> relationships".
>>>>>>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>>>>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's >>>>>>>>> business but the
>>>>>>>>> couple getting married. Definitely not the state's business and >>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>> not the business of other people via a referendum.
>>>>>>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing together >>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing common things together >>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> uniting.
>>>>>>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between two
>>>>>>> people with some common interests, and importantly a common love for
>>>>>>> each other. Just because they may have different (or the same) >>>>>>> colour,
>>>>>>> religion, gener, sexual preference, preference for tea or coffee,
>>>>>>> ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no difference. A marriage is a >>>>>>> commitment
>>>>>>> between two people to each other, with legal implications, freely
>>>>>>> chosen by those two people. Some restrictions are reasonable (age,
>>>>>>> common parents), but sexual preference is not a reasonable
>>>>>>> restriction. You really do want "Daddu State" to tell you want to do,
>>>>>>> don't you Fred.
>>>>>> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as the
>>>>>> State's role to redefine words.
>>>>> People will use the words they want to describe different things,
>>>>> Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling gay today, Fred?
>>>> They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it will not
>>>> take long for new terms to develop to distinguish between homo and hetro
>>>> 'marriages' which is why i think it's silly to redefine the word.
>>> So you think laws should be based on your use of a particular word?
>>> Its further than "Daddy State" you are looking for - its Dictionary
>>> State!
>> i think marriage is understood by all but the very thick, to involve two >> people, one male, one female. If we change that definition, will we also >> extend marriage to a group of people who 'love' each other? Seems logical >> to me that if we don't continue to hold with convention over gender, then >> the number of participants should be open also. That is why new terms will >> evolve to describe the various forms of marriage we are likely to see in a >> decade or so.
>More to the point will the local cat lady be able to marry one of the many >cats she loves???
>>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 11:25:53 +1200, Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>Fred wrote:
>>>>> On 6/08/2012 10:12 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:01:49 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/08/2012 10:13 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:40:00 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/08/2012 9:34 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 08:55:20 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Winston Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> democratic system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should not be up to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> married. It's none of his business. having a referundum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it his business, and that's just plain wrong on so many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> levels.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required. The bill should be changed to "The state can no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer regulate personal relationships".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business but the couple getting married. Definitely not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state's business and definitely not the business of other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people via a referendum.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> together of opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing >>>>>>>>>>>>> common
>>>>>>>>>>>>> things together is uniting.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between
>>>>>>>>>>>> two people with some common interests, and importantly a common
>>>>>>>>>>>> love for each other. Just because they may have different (or >>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same) colour, religion, gener, sexual preference, preference >>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> tea or coffee, ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no difference. A
>>>>>>>>>>>> marriage is a commitment between two people to each other, with
>>>>>>>>>>>> legal implications, freely chosen by those two people. Some
>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictions are reasonable (age, common parents), but sexual
>>>>>>>>>>>> preference is not a reasonable restriction. You really do want
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Daddu State" to tell you want to do, don't you Fred.
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as
>>>>>>>>>>> the State's role to redefine words.
>>>>>>>>>> People will use the words they want to describe different things,
>>>>>>>>>> Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling gay today,
>>>>>>>>>> Fred?
>>>>>>>>> They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it >>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> not take long for new terms to develop to distinguish between homo
>>>>>>>>> and hetro 'marriages' which is why i think it's silly to redefine
>>>>>>>>> the word.
>>>>>>>> So you think laws should be based on your use of a particular word?
>>>>>>>> Its further than "Daddy State" you are looking for - its Dictionary
>>>>>>>> State!
>>>>>>> i think marriage is understood by all but the very thick, to involve
>>>>>>> two people, one male, one female. If we change that definition, will
>>>>>>> we also extend marriage to a group of people who 'love' each other?
>>>>>>> Seems logical to me that if we don't continue to hold with >>>>>>> convention
>>>>>>> over gender, then the number of participants should be open also. >>>>>>> That
>>>>>>> is why new terms will evolve to describe the various forms of >>>>>>> marriage
>>>>>>> we are likely to see in a decade or so.
>>>>>> You are of course entitled to your opinions Fred, but the proposed >>>>>> law
>>>>>> change does not go as far as regarding marriage as more than an
>>>>>> agreement between two people. If you want three or more to be able to
>>>>>> be married you would have to wait for another bill.
>>>>>> It is good that you are open minded about recognising the need for
>>>>>> change though.
>>>>> You certainly have a comprehension problem. Of course there is no need
>>>>> to change anything.
>>>>Yes there is. The only change that needs to be made is to remove state
>>>>involvement from personal relationships. The state should not be >>>>involved.
>>>>Why must one get permission from the state to marry?
>>> Who did you get permission from when you got married, Allistar?
>>My wife (of course), her father (to keep him happy) and the Births, Deaths
>>and Marriages office. The first two are fair - the last is not. I >>shouldn't
>>have to ask the state for permission to marry someone.
> I doubt that Briths, Deaths and Marriages get invovled in making a
> decision as to whether you can get married unless you are in a very
> specific category (under age 16 for example)
> It is hardly an onerous process, and in my view falls short of your
> description as requiring permission.
> Did you get permission to drive when you applied for a driving
> license?
> That's inteesting. I don;t think most people bother to get permission
> from an office whose task is to record events.
They need to check that you are not already married and that there is no "just impediment", such as marrying a close relative.
The old idea of having the Banns read in church was to do that. People were supposed to stand up and declare the objection, but I never heard anyone do it. These days if they have the Banns read it is just a nice formality, announcing the coming marriage.
I suppose if the girl is already pregnant to another man somebody might declare it, but I think that is grounds for divorce if she is found out.
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 23:13:05 +1200, "Pooh" <pa...@bigots.lie> wrote:
>>"Fred" <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:jvmqf9$alf$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 5/08/2012 10:13 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:40:00 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/08/2012 9:34 a.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 08:55:20 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 3:26 p.m., Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:04:56 +1200, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 11:00 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/08/2012 9:07 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Gay Marriage bill highlights the very worst of democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Winston
>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter's epitomises all that is wrong with a democratic system.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The state should not regulate personal relationships. It should
>>>>>>>>>>>> not be up
>>>>>>>>>>>> to Bob whether Amy and Anne want to get married. It's none of >>>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>>> business. having a referundum make it his business, and that's
>>>>>>>>>>>> just plain
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong on so many levels.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing reeks of big government and the removal of
>>>>>>>>>>>> personal
>>>>>>>>>>>> liberties. It's a tragedy that such a bill is even required. >>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>> bill
>>>>>>>>>>>> should be changed to "The state can no longer regulate personal
>>>>>>>>>>>> relationships".
>>>>>>>>>>> If this nonsense is given legal status,
>>>>>>>>>> What nonsense? The point is that it should be no-one else's
>>>>>>>>>> business but the
>>>>>>>>>> couple getting married. Definitely not the state's business and
>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>> not the business of other people via a referendum.
>>>>>>>>> It's nonsense because marriage is defined as the bringing together
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> opposites; especially man and woman. Bringing common things >>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> uniting.
>>>>>>>> Opposites? You're kidding, "Right"? Most marriages are between two
>>>>>>>> people with some common interests, and importantly a common love >>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> each other. Just because they may have different (or the same)
>>>>>>>> colour,
>>>>>>>> religion, gener, sexual preference, preference for tea or coffee,
>>>>>>>> ginger hair, etc, etc, makes no difference. A marriage is a
>>>>>>>> commitment
>>>>>>>> between two people to each other, with legal implications, freely
>>>>>>>> chosen by those two people. Some restrictions are reasonable (age,
>>>>>>>> common parents), but sexual preference is not a reasonable
>>>>>>>> restriction. You really do want "Daddu State" to tell you want to >>>>>>>> do,
>>>>>>>> don't you Fred.
>>>>>>> I don't give two hoots what people do. I simply do not see it as the
>>>>>>> State's role to redefine words.
>>>>>> People will use the words they want to describe different things,
>>>>>> Fred, regardless of any individual feelings. Feeling gay today, Fred?
>>>>> They will, and if homosexual couples are allowed to 'marry' it will >>>>> not
>>>>> take long for new terms to develop to distinguish between homo and >>>>> hetro
>>>>> 'marriages' which is why i think it's silly to redefine the word.
>>>> So you think laws should be based on your use of a particular word?
>>>> Its further than "Daddy State" you are looking for - its Dictionary
>>>> State!
>>> i think marriage is understood by all but the very thick, to involve two
>>> people, one male, one female. If we change that definition, will we also
>>> extend marriage to a group of people who 'love' each other? Seems >>> logical
>>> to me that if we don't continue to hold with convention over gender, >>> then
>>> the number of participants should be open also. That is why new terms >>> will
>>> evolve to describe the various forms of marriage we are likely to see in >>> a
>>> decade or so.
>>More to the point will the local cat lady be able to marry one of the many
>>cats she loves???
>>Pooh
> Sorry you will miss out this time Poo.
WTF are you on about now you moronic gay marxist muppet.
