Up Front: Are We There Yet?
777 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
Wow, that's quite bizarre.
It's a relic of sectarian religious division in the early C20th, I think. When it was primarily about Catholic vs Protestant rather than religious vs people who just want to be left alone.
-
While we're vaguely on the subject, can anyone tell me why I can't legally marry my father-in-law?
That one is easy if you think about it a bit.
Your father-in-law is likely to have occupied a position of authority over you while you were a minor. As a result the law (rightly IMO) determines that you are not able to make a truely free decision to choose to marry him.
It's essentially an abuse of power issue.
And yes there will be situations where he only became you father-in-law after you were and adult and he had no power/authority.
And finally ... eeewwww he was having sex with Mum!!!
-
Although to be fair you probably have no idea about Catholic sacraments.
Oh no - I know about them. i just don't care about them. What happens in church should stay in church - and certainly keep the fuck out of other people's lives.
-
Doh! Was thinking step father.
You are right Emma but still eeewww!
-
Your father-in-law is likely to have occupied a position of authority over you while you were a minor.
...
And finally ... eeewwww he was having sex with Mum!!!
Stepfather =/ father in law.
-
Well put Emma,
There can be no justification for being against gay marriage outside the covenant surrounding whatever peculiar set of beliefs about God people in their crazy wonderful diversity hold. Ewww is not a reason, it's a reaction.
Either we're all equal regardless of belief (everyone can marry and enjoy the rights of legal partnership between consenting adults),
or we ask the state to chose winners and losers based on someones beliefs (which presumably are allowed to overrule someone elses) - in which case we're closer to Papal/Sharia/GIant Pink Elephant of Death based laws than I thought.I'm not going to try and stop people believing silly things (although i enjoy arguing about them) -- but please can we keep the silly things outside the jurisdiction of the Crown.
And, yes political expedience plays a part, but I wish it played less of a part than it does.
Roll on Gay Marriage, principle based abortion law, a gender neutral Adoption Act to name just three that I encountered in the last govt off the top of my head...
-
Inserting my tongue in my cheek for a moment, we'll do it the same way we get everything else done: a Greens Private Member's Bill.
Probably. But even they will be wary of acting on it this term, since they'll be concerned about getting the numbers.
-
Doh! Was thinking step father.
Phew, you had me really worried there for a minute, Bart. Position of authority as a child and all that. I was 21 when I got married. (Which BTW didn't seem young at the time and now seems quite mad.)
You haven't seen my ex-FIL, Bart. Isabel has.
-
Stepfather =/ father in law.
Except in certain parts of South... no, if Hadyn won't go there, neither will I.
-
I think the can't marry your in-laws thing probably makes a lot of sense if there are children produced in either relationship - having someone being both your Granddad and step-father or your sister also being your Auntie would be tremendously confusing.
My main memory of Emma's ex-FIL is of being farrrrr too drunk to remember what scottish person I was supposed to tell him he looked like and standing there going "you look like thingie Mc..Mc..Mc..." for an embarrassingly long time.
-
"Dear politician, please commit electoral suicide for my political cause"
A long standing (now retired) politician once told me that he came out in support of abortion and was told that it was political suicide. Next election his majority increased.
The silent majority is silent. We don't know what they think until they tell us.
-
The silent majority is silent. We don't know what they think until they tell us.
But politicians, being risk-averse, will assume they think the worst unless enough people tell them otherwise. Which is why its important to let those newer MPs know that you want gay marriage - to build the legislative majority for the future.
-
Actually I suspect that when the law was written it was expected that you would have respect for and consider your father-in-law to be an authority figure. Especially if you consider 16-18 year olds got married back then.
So probably the logic is OK - except of course for the bit about having sex with your Mum - well usually anyways.
21 when I got married. (Which BTW didn't seem young at the time and now seems quite mad.)
Heck 23 for my first marriage was way too young, by 30 we were different people. I was totally sure I was mature and old enough - yeah right.
-
Oh no - I know about them. i just don't care about them. What happens in church should stay in church - and certainly keep the fuck out of other people's lives.
Well, if you do understand about the sacraments (and I'm really not convinced that you do understand), why would you make the claim that sacramental marriage would impugn the validity of lawful civil marriages? I can't see the reason behind your argument.
The issue I have with your position is that you want to keep religion private, yet your secular humanism is allowed to express itself publically. That's inconsistent.
As a Catholic I have the same democratic rights as you do. I'm allowed to publically state what I believe and lobby how society should be organised and I'm allowed my vote as much as you are.
-
But politicians, being risk-averse, will assume they think the worst unless enough people tell them otherwise. Which is why its important to let those newer MPs know that you want gay marriage - to build the legislative majority for the future.
There's my point. I knew I'd left it lying around somewhere.
-
I'm allowed to publically state what I believe and lobby how society should be organised and I'm allowed my vote as much as you are.
Asofrigginlutely.
And even if you are a minority with what I believe are very weird ideas there is no way the majority should prevent you practicing them (providing they do no harm).
Of course again IMO imposing said ideas on your children could be viewed as "harm" by the majority but that would step well into the bounds of social engineering and this thread is about acceptance and not imposing the will of the majority on a minority.
-
The issue I have with your position is that you want to keep religion private, yet your secular humanism is allowed to express itself publically. That's inconsistent.
But that is the society we live in. It is a secular society. Religion is private; in the sense that it is not public ie advanced by the state.
Yes, that means secular humanism wins. It wins because it is the least harm position. It treats all possible religious beliefs equally. You can lobby for your beliefs to take precedence, but I for one hope that supremacy never comes to pass, because it will automatically mean the denial of someone else, in a way that doesn't just have ramifications in the public sphere, but in the private as well.
You are free to practise whatever religion floats your boat, but the state should not expedite that over the rights of others to do the same thing.
-
Strikes me it should be not just permissible, but compulsory, to marry someone who looks like Sean Connery. Just, woof!
It might put you in danger of becoming your own grandma, though, somewhere down the line. But it'd be worth it.
-
Yup, Idiot's right. A civil marriage is not the same as a sacramental marriage in the tradition of the Catholic Church. You are describing the situation as it stands at present. Hence disappointed Catholic parents when their children get married on a beach by a civil celebrant - happened to a lady in my prayer group.
It follows that Catholics should have absolutely no qualms at all about same-sex state marriage. Do you have any qualms ?
BTW, I have achieved five of the seven sacraments in the list you provided, and got married on my marae by a Catholic priest (who also happened to be a friend from our days in London).
We had a really big wedding (first for both families), and our marae - being in a secluded bay the shores of Lake Rotoiti - provided an entirely picturesque backdrop to our celebrations. I like weddings, they are fun.
Inserting my tongue in my cheek for a moment, we'll do it the same way we get everything else done: a Greens Private Member's Bill.
So begins Emma's campaign to become a Green MP...
-
Oh! Heh, in the interests of full disclosure I should probably mention that the groom isn't in that photo. There's another with him in the same position I'm in there. I don't think the photographer quite knew what to make of us.
Was that the same photographer who took a photo of my cleavage? Hmmm?
-
But back to gin.
A few years ago, I happened to be in Plymouth and so visited the Plymouth Gin distillery (there's not much else to do in Plymouth, apart from sailors). I did the distillery tour. You know how when you go to a brewery, they do that whole thing about the long, involved process, each step of which contributes to the delicate, complicated final flavour? Or a whisky distillery tour, same rigamarole but even more mystique? Well, the gin distillery tour consisted of them admitting that they buy in some form of pre-distilled but tasteless spirit, then dilute it and add the botanicals to flavour it. Takes about a fortnight, apparantly.
Since then I've been a lot less impressed with the mystique of gin. I mean - if that's how you make the _good_ stuff, what must the process for the cheap end be like?
-
Tess: I'm not claiming that sacramental marriage impugns the validity of lawful marriage - I'm claiming that the Catholic doctrine (as expressed by you upthread) that their marriage is the only "proper" marriage does. Now, they're perfectly entitled to hold that opinion - but that doesn't make it any less arrogant.
As for the rest, I think you are conflating the liberal state's distinction between public and private spheres with personal persecution of the religious. Of course you can state your beliefs, vote, whatever. But what you can't do is use the power of the state to inflict your religious beliefs and definitions on others. That's not "persecution" - it's protection from persecution. Unless you believe that people not sharing your peculiar beliefs is somehow "persecuting" you...
-
I believe I look shag-i-licious in hot pants
I am sooo tempted to ask for a photo link. Or, I could use my over active imagination.
-
Was that the same photographer who took a photo of my cleavage? Hmmm?
Why yes, yes it was. The same photographer who, on our joint insistence, climbed on a chair so she could take the best photo of your cleavage.
So begins Emma's campaign to become a Green MP...
Oh honey, you think Christine Rankin's had a bad week, you do not want to find yourselves explaining my past.
-
Religion is private; in the sense that it is not public ie advanced by the state.
And I agree with this.
Yes, that means secular humanism wins.
And here we disagree. Secular humanism wins in New Zealand because we are by majority, secular humanists. Sixty years ago we were by majority Christians from mainline denominations and it was those mores that were the democratic majority. As our cultural make up has changed, so has the legiclation reflecting that. Secular humanism is merely the ideology du jour.
It wins because it is the least harm position.
Make that utilitarian secular humanists.
...the state should not expedite that [religion] over the rights of others to do the same thing.
That's right. But nor should the dominant norm of utilitarian secular humanism impinge on individuals rights to publically express their consciences or on religions to pracitice their faiths as they see fit.
So for example, right now there is a public discussion over our definition of marriage as a society. As a Catholic my definition is very different to Emma's. Yet Catholics aren't monolithic, hence Craig will probably also have a different definition.
I'm going to vote as per my conscience and engage in democracy from my perspective. From my perspective same-sex marriage is an ontological impossibility. I don't see it as a matter of justice or rights because I have different axioms about marriage.
I will act publically, as an individual. And I expect that society will not force the dominant ideology upon religious worship or expression.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.