Up Front: Are We There Yet?
777 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
As a non-married but happily-coupled straight man (for 12 years) the only thing that annoys me is that if we were to get married, we would get a truckload of pressies from friends and relatives.
So while I keep my "marriage = meh" attitude I don't get any serving platters or salad tongs or money towards overseas trips. Total gip.
+1
Four years here. Firstborn due in a month or two. Wedding-type presents would be much welcome (A range of new linen, place-settings, cutlery, cookware, and perhaps a dining table would be fantastic, ta) but are not forthcoming.
Have bibs and booties up tha yazoo however.
-
Oh, I should probably qualify that by saying that neither my partner or I have any desire to marry or get a CU (At this stage, our minds may change in teh distant future).
p.s: I love you Emma. You are the time-saver in a world full of retards. Can we please have a post on why it's not ok to beat your children next? I gather that punching them in the face is also out of the question.
-
Can I add that people telling me I SHOULDN'T have got married because it's just an insincere religious/tax/social construct piss me off no end.
So it must suck to have that denial legally enshrined. -
Prolly fair to 'fess up to nearly twenty years of non married bliss. Three kids...a mortgage and a house that is never tidy.
It's all so...normal...
-
Can we please have a post on why it's not ok to beat your children next?
Ohhh no, that's Haywood's job.
-
Gareth, quite the opposite: I'm saying marriage seems to be a sincere religious construct - so why do non-religious folk buy it?
-
BTW, not only not married, also non-religious.
-
Can we please have a post on why it's not ok to beat your children next?
Who needs a post: If I can't appeal to your moral sense, how about enlightened self-interest?
One day the little fuckers will be bigger than you. If they don't kill you, they will quite happily leave you to rot in a puddle of geriatric urine, while you contemplate the wreckage left behind because you made no effort not to be a douche-nozzle.
-
I don't get any serving platters or salad tongs or money towards overseas trips.
Isabel? Where are you?
She has this theory that you should be able to have the big party, the fancy dress, and get all the presents, but not actually get married. A sort of Wedding-less Reception.
-
I'm saying marriage seems to be a sincere religious construct - so why do non-religious folk buy it?
One last go, Richard. Try to pay attention.
Because marriage is not and never has been solely a religious construct. Please re-read my and Deborah's previous comments on this.
Therefore there is no necessity whatsoever to 'buy into' any religious construct in order to get married, or want to marry a particular person. That's an emotional and to a lesser extent practical decision which is nothing to do with anyone who isn't directly involved.
-
Cheers Craig, that's about what I was after.
douche-nozzle
Gold.
-
Because marriage is not and never has been solely a religious construct.
And I can't speak for Emma or Deborah, but I try to be very specific that I'm a supporter of civil marriage equality. I'm a devout Catholic, and to be honest the odds that I'll ever be able to marry within the church are roughly zero. (Even if my better half was a woman, the fact he's also a Methodist and has no interest in converting would be problematic but not a deal breaker.) But I don't see what that has to do with civil law, and civil marriage.
One particularly shitty and flat out deceptive anti-argument doing the rounds in the States is that marriage equality is somehow an assult on religious freedom. Which is such self-evident bullshit (last time I looked, the Catholic Church still doesn't recognise any marriage not conducted under its auspices), I'm surprised anyone can make it with a straight face.
-
Isabel? Where are you?
She has this theory that you should be able to have the big party, the fancy dress, and get all the presents, but not actually get married. A sort of Wedding-less Reception.
Funny - I just five minutes ago stopped myself from posting this because I'm fairly sure I said it the last two times this topic came up.
*plots ways to combine being given lots of household articles and drinking a lot of gin*
-
I told people not to give me gifts because we were already living together. But they ignored me, because I have nice peeps.
-
My actually wedding was a blast. You'd have loved it. Here's one of the official pictures.
(Admiringly) That's quite a number of grooms you've got there.
-
If we allow gay marriage, the long term effect would be that Bruno would have less material to work with.
Is this really want we want ?
Actually, the most compelling argument I encountered over the issue of gay rights was a king hit at party from a 'phobe who overheard me proposing that
Not as nuanced as other arguments, I'll admit, but certainly got the message across.
-
Because marriage is not and never has been solely a religious construct. Please re-read my and Deborah's previous comments on this.
No matter what any mere religion might say about the matter? Most all religions view marriage as the sanctified union of a heterosexual couple. They believe they own the trademark on that concept.
Well, here's what I believe. There are a small group of people passionately opposed, and a small group passionately in favour, and like any issue, a huge mass in the middle who just don't give a crap one way or the other.
They outnumber you and the law is on their side. You stop justifying gay marriage and they will continue to outnumer you and the law will remain on their side. Heck, sit on your hands long enough and you might lose civil unions and perhaps even the right to practice a homosexual act.
If you want to have gay marriage you have to convince the religious people amoung NZers (Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu...) that their religion is wrong in how it views homosexuallity. Or convince them that the whole organised religion thing is overrated.
-
We got our civil marriage solemnised in the Church because of that.
-
You stop justifying gay marriage and they will continue to outnumer you and the law will remain on their side. Heck, sit on your hands long enough and you might lose civil unions and perhaps even the right to practice a homosexual act.
Angus, what was it about
It's a question I'm going to ask and ask. I'm going to be the Little Yappy Dog of Gay Marriage until we get there. I'm going to do whatever I can to keep the issue on the table and in the right ears until we grow enough balls to do what's right.
that suggested 'sitting on my hands' to you?
And actually, pretty much all I have to do is wait for old people to die. The skew in opinion on gay marriage by age is enormous.
They believe they own the trademark on that concept.
I can believe I'm a hippo, it doesn't make it so. Nor does it require that anybody else take that belief seriously.
-
Erk, that wasn't very clear. Let's try again...
last time I looked, the Catholic Church still doesn't recognise any marriage not conducted under its auspices
We got our civil marriage solemnised in the Church because of that.
-
No matter what any mere religion might say about the matter? Most all religions view marriage as the sanctified union of a heterosexual couple. They believe they own the trademark on that concept.
I believe I look shag-i-licious in hot pants -- wishing doesn't make it so. Last time I looked, Angus, I don't live in a theocracy.
If you want to have gay marriage you have to convince the religious people amoung NZers (Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu...) that their religion is wrong in how it views homosexuallity. Or convince them that the whole organised religion thing is overrated.
Not for the first time, I think the peasantry have a better grip on things than the media-political complex gives them credit for. Like the proper separation between Church (Mosque, Synagogue, Temple etc.) and State. I take my faith very seriously, but I'm also quite glad that I don't live in a theo-con paradise where Catholic cannon law is the new Sharia.
-
I favour the elimination of marriage as a legal concept.
I quite agree. Actually, I'd agree without the "legal concept" bit as well. If you want to be together, be together. If you want to celebrate your love with friends, have a party. If you want to protect your shared assets, argue for a form of legal protection that enables those in all sorts of committed social relationships, not just sexual ones, to do the same.
I'd love to get involved in the gin conversation (that, combined with the porky discussion over at Hard News, is making me hungry and thirsty), but I believe I may have said enough on the topic already. Just in case anyone wants to combine the heady delights of pork fat and hard liquor, may I point you in the direction of Yuk Bing Siu Zau.
-
Marriage is all about church? News to me.
My wife never developed an interest in Christianity, and I made my mind up to not pursue it when I was young. We got married in January this year - and I can assure you there was nothing church-y about it.
Our celebrant gave us a huge about of information for planning the ceremony, and none of it required reference to a man on a cross or a dude in the sky. The only thing that didn't work was singing (it's easy to give church-goers a hym to sing, but it can be HARD to find a suitable song you can get a bunch of friends & family to karioke to)
What is marriage? For us it was just about getting all our favourite people together, making a promise in front of them, and then celebrating the occassion.
PS - was fascinated by the comment from our Dutch photographer, who pointed out that back in his homeland it is compulsory to get married at the Town Hall. You can have a ceremony in a church, but it doesn't officially count until you've had a civil ceremony.
This is kind off the opposite to England where, until recently, you could get married in a church, or a Registry, but NOWHERE else. If you had a ceremony in a winery, you would then have to go have a thing in a Registry. Weird.
-
Sorry if it's been mentioned already, but I had to skim the thread. The Republicans appear to have been reduced to the 'Gay Marriage would be bad for small businesses' gambit, which, as far as I can tell, is the next to last step in conceding the whole argument.
-
Whereas here, pretty much anywhere will do, provided you have a registered celebrant and say the words.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.