Up Front: Are We There Yet?
777 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
Well I walked in late - what can I say - we need more yappy little dogs, let me know next time you need a form pack.
We got married for a visa, 25 years ago, these days we'd probably CU. Families come in all shapes and sizes, there is no one size fits all (disclosure: one of my kids has 4 mothers, none of them my wife, though it was her idea ....). I'm all for diversity - religion or the state shouldn't be making these choices for people.
I am in favour of the French system where one goes down to the town hall and gets married by the mayor, then (if you want to) zoom off to the church of your choice to be blessed by your god. Once you make that distinction there's no reason why the word 'marriage' can't be used by everyone since it refers to civil marriage - it's just a word and not allowing everyone to use it creates second class citizens (I'm not running down CUs here - I just see them as marriage with slightly different rules).
I do think that one way to defuse this issue a little is to explicitly state that churches are allowed to choose who they marry
-
Well, yes, Tess has been civil, but only civil in so far as she has been spouting the Catholic church's nastiness very politely.
I think I got riled at this point:
Likewise it's not licit for a baby to be conceived outside a woman's body, eg. IVF.
Nice. My three lovely, gorgeous, wonderful daughters are sins.
Repeating this kind of viciousness isn't any better for it being done in a civil manner. Maybe it's even worse.
And then there's this piece of crap:
Although you know that every old lady in the parish would be praying for you to be fertile again and there would be rosaries upon rosaries offered for it
Having been through infertility, within the Catholic church, I can tell you that this is simply not true. Our infertility was swept under the carpet, and when I asked for prayers for the infertile during Advent (you know, those four weeks before Christmas when everyone talks about the impending birth - a wretched time if your arms are still empty), I simply got an embarrassed silence, and then a specious prayer about bearing the burdens god gave us. But apparently it was impermissible to mention the heartache felt by those who could not have children.
-
Though this little piece from Islander has me chuckling:
There has never been, in ANZ, such a thing as an homogenous society - nor, 'in the West' has *anything* ever been understood universally.
Peace, Jane Austen...
-
For those with political agency who were regarded as citizens in good standing and had the power to build the dominant narrative in Western European culture, marriage had an understanding consistent with the Catholic Church, where reproduction and marriage were intertwined.
It may very well have. But we killed that culture in 1789 9and much earlier in the UK).
-
Three person marriage? is that too much to ask?
the next frontier, after gay marriage in Holland apparently is Group marriage.
Signatures are being collected here:
http://www.petities.nl/petitie/groepshuwelijken/
to petition Dutch parliament (40 000 are needed by September).Funnily enough this one does seem to get support from certain religious groups.
-
I think to advance this progressive liberal/secular humanist legislation will require you and people like you to extoll the virtues of progressive liberalism to people who are bigots.
Indeed. But at the same time, we can let its vurtues extol themselves, though (in this case) the example of civil unions, while on the other hand waiting for demographics to take its course.
Demographically, bigots tend to be older, and hence about to die. meanwhile, the young are far more accepting. So history is on our side, and we will bury them. Literally, in many cases.
(You'll just have to imagine me banging my boot on the desk for extra effect)
My point is that by introducing this legislation, Labour risks losing votes from people who are bigots. This is New Zealand (not America) intensely spiritual people with strong traditional family values (bigots) are not found on any particular side of the spectrum. Also we are a proportional representation country so every vote matters and alternative parties can easily form.
As you note, this is New Zealand - where religious based parties do abysmally badly, because apart from a small lunatic fringe, people don't want to live in a theocracy.
The s59 debate saw the formation of two parties last election. Combined, they got all of 0.8% of the vote. I don't think we have anything at all to fear from them.
-
Xeno,
Three person marriage? is that too much to ask?
I haven't found the right woman yet. Don't tell me I have to find two
(I look soo young in that photograph) -
*plots ways to combine being given lots of household articles and drinking a lot of gin*
Turn 21.
-
I got here a million years too late because I have no interest in reading other people's blah blah but, but essentially. we should totally get virtually married, hurrah!
-
Nice. My three lovely, gorgeous, wonderful daughters are sins.
Not at all. They are precious.
There are a variety of beliefs about IVF from individual Catholics. In the current NZ Catholic Joy Cowley writes that IVF is pro-life given how wanted the children are.
I'm very sorry that your experience of the Church re: your infertility was horrible. I was speaking of the experience of my friends which has been positive in terms of prayer and support.
-
Three person marriage? is that too much to ask?
Hum... I'd quite like to de-grease that slippery slope, but I've got to do some paying work today. Bugger. Might come back to it, if the thread's not dead later.
-
My thoughts, perhaps belatedly but I'm a slow thinker -
I've been interested in the discussion on the religious/ Christian/ Catholic aspects, but surely that's all a red herring as the basis for the marriage concept is far wider.
Politically, the key, the pivot point, are not the bigots but those broadly of good will in the middle.
I haven't seen anything in this thread spelling out or referring to the practical legal differences between marriage and civil union. So, unless there's something additional along those lines I've missed, it's the word marriage and its connotations that is so valued, rather than the legal substance - and having the choice. (last bolded point of Emma's OP)
But the high value put on the difference between Marriage+CU and CU-only is exactly the same - well the obverse really - of the value put on "marriage" as a word by those just across the divide between OK and not. (Emma I think recognised this mid-thread even if not from Giovanni.)
These pivotal people are the ones who think same-sex couples need all the legal standing and rights of hetero couples (hence CU, which available incidentally for heteros not keen on the connotations of "marriage") but that Marriage as a word and institution carries in its essence the one man + one woman tradition.
And some of those people at least value the word so highly they think that's worth defending.
I too guess it will take another 20 years for the numbers to change enough, as for the generational lag between Homosexual law Reform and Civil Unions.
-
And some of those people at least value the word so highly they think that's worth defending.
And that's fine with me -- but as Tom Stoppard once said everyone is entitled to their own opinion, nobody is entitled to their own facts. Oh, and if some people are going to smear lesbians and gays as diseased child abusers please don't be naive enough to expect a box of chocolates and a thank you card.
-
There are a variety of beliefs about IVF from individual Catholics. In the current NZ Catholic Joy Cowley writes that IVF is pro-life given how wanted the children are.
That is certainly the case from individual catholics. But it is most emphatically NOT the teaching of the church, nor the position of the church hierarchy, and it is disingenuous at best for you to use onrdianry peopel-in-the-pews Catholics to cover up the hatred and viciousness peddled by the official church.
-
I too guess it will take another 20 years for the numbers to change enough, as for the generational lag between Homosexual law Reform and Civil Unions.
Sorry, I get and respect where you're coming from but there's faint undertone of complacency that makes me nervous and eventually hits a tipping point where it becomes dangerous. Oh, its just going to happen when the mean people drop dead... I just hope they get a move on, because I'm not getting any younger.
-
it is disingenuous at best for you to use onrdianry peopel-in-the-pews Catholics to cover up the hatred and viciousness peddled by the official church.
Plus Tess oh so conveniently glosses over the vile hatred of guys voiced amongst others by the current, self-hating Pope.
-
That is certainly the case from individual catholics. But it is most emphatically NOT the teaching of the church, nor the position of the church hierarchy, and it is disingenuous at best for you to use onrdianry peopel-in-the-pews Catholics to cover up the hatred and viciousness peddled by the official church.
And its kind of shitty coming on like Tess was being a total bitch about your children, then getting rancid because she made the observation that not all Catholics think the same on every subject.
-
Plus Tess oh so conveniently glosses over the vile hatred of guys voiced amongst others by the current, self-hating Pope.
Self-hating? Oh, Gio, you really really want to go there? -- because I'm sure Kiwibog would be a much more congenial environment for that kind of snide, locker room dreck.
-
Oh, Gio, you really really want to go there?
Any time you want. Think he's the only one?
-
Sorry, I get and respect where you're coming from but there's faint undertone of complacency that makes me nervous and eventually hits a tipping point where it becomes dangerous. Oh, its just going to happen when the mean people drop dead... I just hope they get a move on, because I'm not getting any younger.
Fair enough too. I noted in 2004 that these things do happen, but they don't happen overnight ...
In 1978, Victoria University's Richard Bowman set out to do what no one had yet done in New Zealand - or Australia, for that matter - survey ordinary New Zealanders on their views regarding homosexuality.
Nearly 500 people were surveyed, in the inner suburbs of Wellington, and in Hamilton. The results stood in stark contrast to what had gone on in Parliament in the preceding years. In 1976, Parliament had shunned a bid to decriminalise homosexual acts. In 1977, it ruled homosexuals out of protection under the Human Rights Act.
Members of Parliament presumably considered themselves to be standing up for social order. But Bowman found that three quarters of his subjects thought homosexual acts should be removed from the Crimes Act. It took MPs eight years and a good deal of struggle to catch up with the public mood.
Furthermore, 80% of the people surveyed said the Human Rights Act should be extended to offer protection on the basis of sexual orientation. That took 14 years!
But Bowman's topline number was the one: 94% of the survey - in 1978, remember - believed that what consenting adults did together was their own business. On issues of choice and morality, the change in society typically takes place long before the change in the statutes.
It's worth noting that protection under the Human Rights Act was eventually instituted by a National government.
-
And some of those people at least value the word so highly they think that's worth defending.
From?
-
<quote>And some of those people at least value the word so highly they think that's worth defending.
From?<quote>
From having its meaning changed from its traditional one man/one woman essence.
And Craig, I'm suggesting defocusing away from the bigots, their numbers may not change much over time. That the political argument when it happens will be won or lost in the middle, among people comfortably accepting the legal rights of same-sex couples, on the two sides of the question of how important is the meaning of the word marriage. -
From having its meaning changed from its traditional one man/one woman essence.
Yeah, but you're picking a point in a continuum and saying 'we have to stay here'. We don't have polygamy any more, we let women pick who they marry instead of having their fathers pick for them, we allow women property rights within marriage - and that last, for less than a hundred and fifty years if you're talking English tradition. We allow divorce, and we no longer, by and large, expect people to stay in abusive marriages.
Anyway, that's the 'number of penises is the most important thing about marriage' argument. To me, it's almost irrelevant: marriage should be about love. The more precious you hold marriage, the odder it is to say you want to deny it to a group of people whose 'rights you're comfortable accepting'.
-
To me, it's almost irrelevant: marriage should be about love.
Oh Emma, clearly you've learned nothing from The Maxim Insititute's Amanda McGrail:
Marriage itself is not a human right. It's an institution and it's not about whether you love somebody or not ...
-
Yeah, but you're picking a point in a continuum and saying 'we have to stay here'
Yes, but arguably the most important point. The nuclear family is one the chief organising principles of our society, on it sits the ideology of proper social and reproductive roles, of integration within the capitalist system of production, even of property. I think the people who fear that radically changing that definition will have profounds effects on how we conceptualise and give shape to our society are actually right - it's just that I also happen to think that it would be a very desirable thing, not to mention the right thing to do.
On the fictive, ideology-serving nature of the nuclear family I can only but point to Donna Haraway's beautiful essay on the gorilla diorama in Primate Visions.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.