Posts by Tess Rooney
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Tess, you haven't answered the question about a civil form of marriage between same-sex couples. Surely that should be peachy keen with you, since they're not interested in it as a Catholic sacrament?
I'm a gettin' there! Remember I'm Catholic.
I've just had three hungry primary school boys turn up needing homework organised and stomachs filled. As well as a four year old needing to find the right piece of lego out of an enormous box of the stuff.
Just give me a while to get through everything. Okay?
-
It follows that Catholics should have absolutely no qualms at all about same-sex state marriage. Do you have any qualms ?
The Church does have qualms because it would like their definition of marriage to be the norm. Basically it feels that that is best for the family. An important part of family within Catholic teaching is that it is ideal for children to be born from the biological parents within marriage. That marriage and a couple making babies together are inseperable.
Me personally... well in New Zealand we have a situation where living together for two years gets you married, at least all the legal stuff is the same. I think it's important for couples, of any gender, to have basic protections for things like next of kin, partner benefits and wills. And financial protection if a relationship breaks up too.
I think re: a Catholic understanding of marriage being universal, well that horse has well and truely bolted. We're already living in an era where there are multiple different understands of marriage and also gender and family in New Zealand.
I accept civil unions as the best way forward. As I said above, I'd like to see that become the legal norm for everybody and allow marriage to be something that is done within people's own personal context.
-
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.
-
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.
-
If someone wants to preserve their <insert religion here> marriage, then if they see it as being an enhanced version of the state marriage, then it it is possible that they will also see a pure state marriage as something less than their preferred religious marriage.
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.
-
While being quite willing to break the civil law itself by impugning the validity of lawful marriages...
LOL, hardly. For Catholics and Orthodox marriage is one of the seven sacraments given by God.
1. baptism
2. communion
3. confession
4. confirmation
5. holy orders (being ordained a priest)
6. marriage
7. anointing of the sickJust because someone is married civily it doesn't equate to the religious sacrament of marriage. A Catholic marriage is a relgious act, that is also civily recognised.
To have a sacramental marriage a certain ritual needs to be performed, with a specific liturgy. Just because a civil marriage isn't sacramental doesn't mean that the Church is saying it is "unlawful". That's just a silly argument that you're trying to make there. Although to be fair you probably have no idea about Catholic sacraments.
-
If you're a Catholic, and you already have a civil marriage (which the church doesn't recognise) can you marry another Catholic as well?
As far as the Church is concerned you're married civilly. So the Church wouldn't countanence you breaking the civil law.
However a friend of mine just got married in the Church to a man who had been civilly married and divorced. Had her husband's first marriage been in the Church, she would have been unable to marry him, as the Church would consider that first marriage to be for life, irrelevant of the civil divorce. (Unless the first wife had died.)
By solemnising our marriage it means I will never be able to divorce and remarry in the Catholic Church. If I divorced and civilly remarried I would be unable to receive Holy Communion.
-
I still don't get why wnyone would be desparate to get married, but that's just me.
Personally I wanted to get married because it was an outward, public sign of commitment. A way of ritualistically joining two people together for life. I was pregnant 6 weeks after getting married, so for us, marriage was always about children and having a family, it wasn't really about us as a couple.
In my own head I described it as "putting your money where your mouth is".
-
It takes about ten years overseas for civil unions to bed in enough for marriage to be uncontroversial to everyone but the dedicated bigots.
As a dedicated bigot I'd rather see them all be civil unions, with marriages performed as couples wished.
-
Gareth...
I'm thinking this reflects more on you than upon I.
But have no fear of offending me in that way, my years at university were rather... relaxed... when it came to sexuality.