Posts by Tess Rooney

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Canon 1055.2 - it only applied to baptised persons. If you're Catholic and you choose a civil marriage over a Sacramental one then yes, it's not valid or licit. Which was why Kidman could marry in the Church 2nd time around.

    If a Muslim gets married by an imam or an atheist by the State they still have a real marriage.

    Since May 2009 • 262 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    The hierarchy has a hell of a lot to say about civil marriage it doesn’t recognize for anyone

    Re: not recognizing civil marriage - that is absolutely not true.

    The Church recognizes it for what it is, a civil secular marriage. What the Church does not do is call a civil secular marriage a Sacrament where the man and woman become one flesh because of God (and thus they can not be divorced). That's why Kidman could marry again in a church because her first marriage was not Sacramental.

    Marriage as an institution was created by God for humanity when Creation began. That the State recognizes it is just a reflection of the genuine truth of marriage. Other religions tap into this divine truth when they perform marriage.

    Now I acknowledge that many people disagree with the above paragraph, but I think it is factually true. Marriage is traditionally how we build family and the family is the base cell of society. Now I'm not talking Mum, Dad and the 2.4 kids, but I am talking about kinship bonds created through marriage and birth. It's both biological and relational. My mother (who lives with us) is related by blood through her grandchildren to my husband's family. Marriage creates family bonds. When God unites a man and a woman in Sacramental marriage the family bond is permanent.

    What I think is that the State should get out of the marriage business completely. Our society is forming families freely with many people coming together for a while and then breaking up again, some marrying and some not. Many parents aren't married at all and marriage is no longer a social requirement for sex and children legitimized by society.

    The whole point of the State to get into marriage in the first place was to ensure property rights, to make sure there wasn't bigamy and to prove legitimacy of children and inheritance. We no longer legally need marriage specifically to accomplish these things, so there is no legal reason for the State to have anything to do with it.

    Lets be honest, the religious meaning of marriage was lost in wider society not by "teh gayz" but by heterosexuals when they started using contraception and getting divorces. The debate was lost _decades_ ago and GLBT marriage makes perfect logical sense after that.

    My preference would be for couples (or polygamous groups) to form their own unions in their own way. The State can use the defacto legislation to deal with property division in breakups (or people can create their own agreements) and the Family Court can deal with custody of children if needed. This way people can do what they want. Muslim men can have several wives, or people can have group relationships. Couples of any gender or sexuality can express their love the way they want to. This way people can create a union that means what they need it to mean, maybe for life, maybe for the life of the love.

    Since May 2009 • 262 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…,

    Yes that's true, but the sacrament is more real than a human legal construct. If you believe in God then He is a higher authority than the State. It's called "the sacrament of marriage" not a "sacrament of a wedding".

    The sacrament is far older than our State.

    Since May 2009 • 262 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…,

    One nit pick. I disagree that churches do weddings but the State does marriage. In the Catholic Church the sacrament (ie. the ritual) is marriage. Whether the State recognises it or not isn't the point.

    Suppose we split civil and religious marriage, if it were up to me I'd have my Catholic marriage and then wait until we considered defacto by being together. Although I'm not sure how I'd do the name change thing.

    I think reducing religious marriage to a wedding is really misconstruing how religions view their own theology and rituals.

    Since May 2009 • 262 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…,

    The thing about separating clerics and civil celebrants is that then if you have a secular wedding with a civil celebrant you're married according to the State. If you, say, have a wedding at a Hindu temple or a Catholic church then you aren't married at all. To get married you still have to go and see a civil celebrant.

    Another way would be to separate weddings and the legal paperwork entirely. Everyone has to get the official marriage registration at the Registrars Office and then have a wedding as they see fit.

    Since May 2009 • 262 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to steve gray,

    So if we keep the definition of marriage as a man and a woman it's the fault of filthy, filthy religion. But if we change the definition to include two people of any gender it's also the fault of filthy, filthy religion.

    Let me guess, religion shot JFK, faked the moon landings, and got Muldoon drunk and then forced him to call a snap election.

    Since May 2009 • 262 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…,

    Thanks a lot.

    Since May 2009 • 262 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…,

    Steve: _ I have heard that Louisa is religious and want to know what her motivation is._

    Why would her being religious got anything to do with it? I know the American Episcopal church has just approved a liturgy for blessing same sex marriage/union (not sure what they specifically call it) irrelevant of secular law. If Louisa Wall wants a church wedding then it's not up to the secular law at all, but her own church's position and whatever liturgies they have.

    Since May 2009 • 262 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…,

    Hey all. Does anyone know where I can find the actual bill. I looked on Parliaments website and it talked about the intent of the bill but there was nothing more specific than that.

    Since May 2009 • 262 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: That's Inappropriate!,

    "You cannot expect to be taken seriously with your pronouncements around young women and sexuality when you were once the very sort of person you are having a go at."

    I had boyfriends yes, but I didn't do one night stands, I was always emotionally involved in the men I slept with. I doubt people would take me _more_ seriously if I had been all pure and innocent when I was younger. Basically we're at an impasse as to how we see sexual morality for a variety of reasons and I doubt they will be overcome.

    What we can agree on is that girls (or boys, although it seems to be a female word) shouldn't ever be called sluts, no matter their sexual habits. And that teachers have to be professional. We also agree that no one is responsible for rape or sexual assault except the rapist.

    Since May 2009 • 262 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 27 Older→ First