+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Social (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Current Events (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=55)
+--- Thread: New Zealand Votes for Equality. (/showthread.php?tid=63842)
Pages:
1
2
New Zealand Votes for Equality. - SaptaZapta - 2013-04-17
DavyJonesx Wrote:Like @FrozNlite said; It's been 12 years here in Holland. I still don't see 'full equality' between straight and gay people...
Do you have full equality between blacks and whites? Between women and men?
These things take time, not years but generations.
But legal equality is a very important step in normalizing the public view of gay couples and families. From the life-and-death issue of who has the right to order the plug pulled, to trivial day-to-day things like getting a family discount at the zoo.
New Zealand Votes for Equality. - FrozNlite - 2013-04-17
SaptaZapta Wrote:Religious acceptance can't be legislated.
Freedom of Religion means that the State can't force any clergyman to perform a ceremony that is forbidden by their faith.
The State can only legislate what marriages its own employees will license and/or conduct.
Acceptance by religions can only happen with time, and with acceptance by the public. And acceptance by the public happens when people see gays all around them, living normal lives, raising normal children, without the sky falling.
I know that, sorry if I didn't clarify that in my post. All I meant was there will never be true marriage equality until religions allow same-sex marriages in their doctrines, which is, like everyone has noted, something I doubt any of us will see in our lifetime. If ever, potentially.
DavyJonesx Wrote:Like @FrozNlite said; It's been 12 years here in Holland. I still don't see 'full equality' between straight and gay people...
News flash: "full equality" doesn't come with "legalizing same sex marriage." And that's something I want to stress to everyone reading this thread: just because LGBT people can get married doesn't mean the fight's over and equality is won. It really irritates me when people liken the legalization of same-sex marriage to full equality (not saying any of you have, just in general).
SaptaZapta Wrote:Do you have full equality between blacks and whites? Between women and men?
These things take time, not years but generations.
But legal equality is a very important step in normalizing the public view of gay couples and families. From the life-and-death issue of who has the right to order the plug pulled, to trivial day-to-day things like getting a family discount at the zoo.
But again though, this isn't full "legal equality." Legal equality constitutes a bunch of different factors of life. Take a look at this image I snapped from a CNN quiz:
![[Image: 157052_10151562261817354_2072021544_n.jpg]](https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/157052_10151562261817354_2072021544_n.jpg)
I don't want to explain everything the quiz is saying (long story short, it ranks states in the U.S. based on the progressivity of their laws with regards to certain legal groupings), but the most important elements are the areas of legality at the bottom. Full legal equality isn't met by any identity until those are all covered/protected, and even then I bet this is missing some.
New Zealand Votes for Equality. - DavyJonesx - 2013-04-17
SaptaZapta Wrote:Do you have full equality between blacks and whites? Between women and men?
These things take time, not years but generations.
But legal equality is a very important step in normalizing the public view of gay couples and families. From the life-and-death issue of who has the right to order the plug pulled, to trivial day-to-day things like getting a family discount at the zoo.
Blacks and whites? Yea. Pretty much. I mean I'm a Muslim and when I apply for a job here they turn me down as soon as they read my name on that paper. Or when people see me walking down the street they just assume I'm dangerous and I have a knife in my pocket cause I'm Turkish.
(FYI I don't)Woman and men? Well yea. Kinda... I mean it's like not like 'THAT EXTREME EQUAL'. Like I'm not gonna punch a female cause she punched me, but I would punch her if she was a male. If you know what I mean
But yea, I guess you're right.
Curtiss Wrote:Full equality is difficult to achieve when the prejudices we have now have lasted for far longer. Yet every year that sees such baby steps being delayed means that inequality exists just a bit longer.
That seems pretty logical.
As a 17 year old Muslim college student here in Holland I hope one day we can achieve such equality between people and leave our differences aside.
FrozNlite Wrote:News flash: "full equality" doesn't come with "legalizing same sex marriage." And that's something I want to stress to everyone reading this thread: just because LGBT people can get married doesn't mean the fight's over and equality is won. It really irritates me when people liken the legalization of same-sex marriage to full equality (not saying any of you have, just in general).
Well that's what I was trying to get at lol
New Zealand Votes for Equality. - SaptaZapta - 2013-04-17
[MENTION=1697]FrozNlite[/MENTION]; So you define legal equality by there being specific laws to protect LGBT? That's not equal, that's preferential, in a way.
Or let me put it another way: in an ideal world, with perfect equality, a definition of marriage would still be on the books. But a law saying "you can't fire people because they're gay" would be about as pointless as "you can't fire people because they have green eyes". It'd be on those lists of funny laws that make you think "why did they ever find it necessary to legislate that?" The law should simply be "people shouldn't be fired for anything that isn't how they do their job."
New Zealand Votes for Equality. - FrozNlite - 2013-04-17
SaptaZapta Wrote:[MENTION=1697]FrozNlite[/MENTION]; So you define legal equality by there being specific laws to protect LGBT? That's not equal, that's preferential, in a way.
Or let me put it another way: in an ideal world, with perfect equality, a definition of marriage would still be on the books. But a law saying "you can't fire people because they're gay" would be about as pointless as "you can't fire people because they have green eyes". It'd be on those lists of funny laws that make you think "why did they ever find it necessary to legislate that?" The law should simply be "people shouldn't be fired for anything that isn't how they do their job."
Wow holy pomegranate do you actually know how social protection laws are written? It's ALL about the wording. No one seeking equality for any identity is looking for super-specific laws in addition to what's already on the books - they just want to edit the current law that says "you cannot discriminate based on" to include whatever identity for which they're fighting. Because duh, a million additional laws like you mentioned are pointless.
So really, yes to your entire last sentence, but that's what any effort of equality seeks anyways. I mean, the vast majority if not all of the same-sex marriage laws on the books or looking to be written are not new laws stating "Thou shalt now allow the marriage of the gays," but simply editing existing marriage law from stating something like "The marriages this governing body performs and recognizes are those between one man and one woman" to "The marriages this governing body performs and recognizes are those between two people" or "two consenting adults" or whatever.
The entire basis of discrimination against various identities exists in creating loopholes from these relatively minor phrases. But, after all, like I've stressed a million times on this forum, semantics is everything. I can't think of a better example.
Spoiler
New Zealand Votes for Equality. - Yohji - 2013-04-17
![[Image: d4dmbqh.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/d4dmbqh.jpg)
New Zealand Votes for Equality. - SaptaZapta - 2013-04-17
[MENTION=1697]FrozNlite[/MENTION];
I do know how these things work. I was oversimplifying for the sake of rhetoric, but I guess that didn't work.
I know you're not looking for a law that says "don't fire gays", you're looking at the law that says, "don't fire people based on race, sex, religion, age, yadda yadda yadda" and you want to make sure it includes such terms as "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in that list of criteria to not discriminate by.
My example still stands. There is no "eye color" or "handedness" or any number of other characteristics in that list, because nobody even thinks to discriminate based on them. That is true equality, legal and social. A state that puts "sexual orientation" in that list is acknowledging that its citizens would discriminate on that, given the chance. I don't see that as such a wonderful thing, but I suppose I'm skipping a step or three there.
New Zealand Votes for Equality. - FrozNlite - 2013-04-17
SaptaZapta Wrote:[MENTION=1697]FrozNlite[/MENTION];
I do know how these things work. I was oversimplifying for the sake of rhetoric, but I guess that didn't work.
I know you're not looking for a law that says "don't fire gays", you're looking at the law that says, "don't fire people based on race, sex, religion, age, yadda yadda yadda" and you want to make sure it includes such terms as "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in that list of criteria to not discriminate by.
My example still stands. There is no "eye color" or "handedness" or any number of other characteristics in that list, because nobody even thinks to discriminate based on them. That is true equality, legal and social. A state that puts "sexual orientation" in that list is acknowledging that its citizens would discriminate on that, given the chance. I don't see that as such a wonderful thing, but I suppose I'm skipping a step or three there.
My apologies. You're absolutely right, but I think any "step or three" you may potentially be skipping would simply be trusting society to be better than it is. As you know, we sadly live in an imperfect world where people do discriminate on certain identities, given the chance, because bigotry and hatred still exist, and those with such inclinations will always look for a means to justify actions fueled by such motives.
And thankfully there aren't any religious sects or extremist groups discriminating based on characteristics like "eye color" or "handedness" (that I know of), but does that not mean some may exist? If not now, but in the future? After all, how many science fiction tales of dystopian futures revolve around such social phobias or hate? The Uglies series, for example, contains a world in which equality is revered, though beneath that shining exterior is legitimate location-based discrimination against ugliness. Stories like these bring this exact element of society into focus, criticizing the behavior while subconsciously noting it's existence in our species.
In short, I agree with you and wish it were that simple, but humans are imperfect fools. Le sigh
.
New Zealand Votes for Equality. - Rick - 2013-04-17
Guys don't do it I woke up this morning and there are only 3 straight marriages over the whole of New Zealand that haven't been divorced and all straight parents have forcefully had their kids adopted out to gay couples and don't even talk about the poor children now suffering mental and physical abuse. We've made a big mistake.
New Zealand Votes for Equality. - CrazyForDex - 2013-04-17
Rick Wrote:Guys don't do it I woke up this morning and there are only 3 straight marriages over the whole of New Zealand that haven't been divorced and all straight parents have forcefully had their kids adopted out to gay couples and don't even talk about the poor children now suffering mental and physical abuse. We've made a big mistake.
I'M ON IT.
![[Image: DeLorean_Launch.gif]](http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100901215708/bttf/images/f/fa/DeLorean_Launch.gif)
New Zealand Votes for Equality. - KhainiWest - 2013-04-17
Rick Wrote:Guys don't do it I woke up this morning and there are only 3 straight marriages over the whole of New Zealand that haven't been divorced and all straight parents have forcefully had their kids adopted out to gay couples and don't even talk about the poor children now suffering mental and physical abuse. We've made a big mistake.
[video=youtube;6jrngYNGNeE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6jrngYNGNeE[/video]