Up Front: Are We There Yet?
777 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
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?
-
Yes, that means secular humanism wins.
No - no-one wins. No-one gets to force people to pretend to believe their quack or participate in their rituals. No-one gets to oppress or persecute anyone else. You can believe what you like, pray to whatever entities you do or don't believe in. But you can't make others do likewise.
The problem is that for a small fraction of the religious, that is simply not enough. And when these groups start cultivating persecution complexes as political organisation tools and defence mechanisms in the face of declining power, interest and status, you get the sorts of claims seen upthread.
-
"And I expect that society will not force the dominant ideology upon religious worship or expression."
Tess Rooney, that depends very much on *how* such "religious worship or expression" is manifested.
-
can anyone tell me why I can't legally marry my father-in-law?
These sorts of laws are, in a way, becoming increasingly outdated as non-marriage becomes more and more accepted as a form of relationship.
Previously marriage was the barrier to control who you could and couldn't be in a relationship with, have children with etc.
Now that marriage limits those things less, the laws start to make less sense (or need to be updated).
-
Marriage Act 1955
56(1)(b)
Alleges, expressly or by implication, that the issue of any lawful marriage is illegitimate or born out of true wedlock.Obviously I'll have to be more careful who I call a right wing bastard, in future. Although it's only a $200 fine, so perhaps it's worth it?
On the idiotic question of whether same sex marriage infringes religious liberty -- this no-brainer went all the way to the Supreme Court in Canada. Given that religious institutions are not forced to marry anyone they don't want to marry, I trust the Court didn't spend more than 0.3 seconds dispatching that one.
But of course, the religious liberty claimed by the opponents of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with such hypothetical compulsion, and everything to do with: "I'm offended when society isn't organized according to my peculiar religious beliefs."
-
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.
-
From my perspective same-sex marriage is an ontological impossibility.
Given same-sex marriages already exist, they're not any kind of impossibility, ontological or otherwise. Feel free to stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'not real marriage!' but that doesn't change the reality.
I don't see it as a matter of justice or rights because I have different axioms about marriage.
Which, again, doesn't stop it absolutely being a matter of rights.
And I expect that society will not force the dominant ideology upon religious worship or expression.
Nobody, absolutely nobody, is forcing the Catholic church to perform or enter gay marriages. Nor does the existence of gay marriage interfere with the practice of religion. This is a 'red herring', which is a polite way of saying 'utter bollocks'.
Nobody is trying to take anything away from you, or even affect you in any way.
-
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?
-
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.
heh, simul-post. I should emphasise that this, at least, is a position I respect. I assume you'll be voting for that, too?
-
Nobody is trying to take anything away from you, or even affect you in any way.
It is however explicity demonstrating that the Catholic definition of marriage isn't correct as far as society is concerned.
As you say, I'm expected to acknowledge same-sex marriage and regard it as legitimate, ontologically, legally and morally.
-
allowed to console each other legally.
Now there's a chat-up line I wish that I had at uni. "I'm not looking for anything serious, I just want to console you legally"
-
I assume you'll be voting for that, too?
Yes I would. However I suspect that no politician would be prepared to get rid of "marriage" and replace it with civil unions completely. Which I think is a shame.
All couples need legal protections, how we understand "marriage" should be something personal and done within our own cultural context.
-
However I suspect that no politician would be prepared to get rid of "marriage" and replace it with civil unions completely. Which I think is a shame.
But, from your perspective, isn't that just a way of ghettoising anyone who can't fulfill the preconditions for the Catholic sacrament of marriage?
Like: 'here, you have civil unions, everyone, and we'll keep this Very Important Ritual Which Is Better to ourselves.'
-
As you say, I'm expected to acknowledge same-sex marriage and regard it as legitimate, ontologically, legally and morally.
Only legally (and of course, you can challenge that, though the avenues for such in NZ are limited). Morally is entirely up to you. As for ontologically, that's between you and your psychiatrist.
-
I'm claiming that the Catholic doctrine (as expressed by you upthread) that their marriage is the only "proper" marriage does.
Well, you can hold that opinon (although I think it's strange). As far as I know no one has ever actually brought any prosecution about it though. So legally I don't think you have a leg to stand on.
But what you can't do is use the power of the state to inflict your religious beliefs and definitions on others.
Gah. I wouldn't want to do that.
Society's definition of "marriage" is something worked out through the democratic process. At least while we have civil marriages it is. Just as I don't want to inflict my understanding of marriage onto you, nor do I want your understanding of marriage inflicted upon me.
Obviously couples, regardless of gender, need legal protections. I think the state should cease defining "marriage" altogether and just make sure that couples have legal protection through civil unions and the current de facto arrangement that we have now.
-
Yes I would. However I suspect that no politician would be prepared to get rid of "marriage" and replace it with civil unions completely.
Why would they need to? In New Zealand, all marriages are civil. You lost ownership of the word ~ 200 years ago in our legal tradition.
-
Only legally (and of course, you can challenge that, though the avenues for such in NZ are limited).
Indeed. And one could, genuinely and on religious grounds (Noah, Ham, etc) object to being forced not to discriminate on racial grounds.
-
Idiot/Savant
Progressiveness is a nice ideal, but to advance this progressive issue requires actually advancing it in the face of cultural prejudices against gay activity that exist in a large number of the world's communities. Multicultural credibility would be damaged by making a law that explicitly denies the cultural interpretations of marriage that are not progressive.
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.
We can safely assume that the other side of the debate will be doing the same thing and have the ear of the same politicians. I don't think 2011 is even vaguely possible in the face of such opposition.
-
Like: 'here, you have civil unions, everyone, and we'll keep this Very Important Ritual Which Is Better to ourselves.'
Not really, given that other Christians (except the Orthodox) don't believe in sacramental marriage the way Catholics do. They have their own theological understanding of marriage. Likewise other religions have specific ideas about marriage. They each feel theirs is correct and I'm not about to argue with them about it.
Likewise those who don't see marriage as part of any religious tradition feel that their way is the best way. We're all being equally "ghettoised" I guess.
-
Let us, as an oblique sidetrack, made with the best of intentions, look at religious holidays within ANZ - to wit, Easter & Christmas.
I am all in favour of public holidays (ok, we have to call them that, owning the religious origin because - that's English for you) not least because workers get statutory time off.*
I am very unhappy that those paticular holidays are tied to one religion - Christianity. I'd be interested in hearing other views on this matter because it does have relevance into the thread i.e a lot of our law is still based on 'christian' concepts, and we are no longer a nation where Christianity is the majority religion.
*Yeah, I know - they are now statutory holidays you can choose to take-
-
Multicultural credibility would be damaged by making a law that explicitly denies the cultural interpretations of marriage that are not progressive.
"By not being bigots, you're being bigots"
Nice troll.
We can safely assume that the other side of the debate will be doing the same thing and have the ear of the same politicians.
Absolutely. Which is why it is all the more important to speak up. If you don't speak up to defend your interests, you have no-one to blame but yourself when they get ignored.
-
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?
This is a worryingly enlightened thread. When all is said and done and the dust has settled on whatever formula of marriage equality we end up striking, I'm still going to insist that we force all Catholic priests, from the Pope on down, to gay marry. They insisted that's where it was all going, let's not disappoint them.
-
Why would they need to? In New Zealand, all marriages are civil. You lost ownership of the word ~ 200 years ago in our legal tradition.
One doesn't "own" a concept. Until very recently marriage in the West was understood universally. It's only been since artificial contraception, which could physically separate sex and reproduction, that our understanding of marriage as a society has begun to change.
The important point is that we hold to the democratic process of working through this issue. That we all maintain our civility in discussion is important, likewise not reducing those who disagree with us into mere caricatures.
I think everyone wants what is best for society, we just have different interpretations of what that would be.
-
If the Act Party in a flash of libertarian inspired rashness declared come 2011 that they would not join any government unless same sex marriage was gauranteed to be made legal, how many here (apart from Craig) would vote for them? Would same sex marriage (and a large tax cut) be worth sacrificing a substantial part of the welfare state? Or is this argument internal to the left, sort of "put same sex marriage on the agenda or we'll vote for you anyways to keep out the Tories"?
-
Excellent discussion indeed!
I've just stacked two metres of wood and I'm too tired to even dig out all my old civil unions posts to find out what I think ...
But Tess, can I say I admire the skillful and sincere way you're pursuing an argument at odds with the majority view of the thread. Nicely done.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.