Up Front: Are We There Yet?
777 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
It's an institution and it's not about whether you love somebody or not ...
And again, she's completely right. As Lawrence Stone and others have demonstrated, until very recently only the poor could afford to marry for love. In that regard it's worth considering just what it is that we are defending (or aspiring to, for that matter). Hell, the more we talk about it, the more I lean towards TracyMac's idea - let's blow this thing up.
-
Here's what I don't understand. A quote from a while back:
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.
And I would really like my newly founded religion of shoes (sorry Emma, you can't join), red lipstick and chocolate to be the norm. It's unlikely that's ever going to happen.
Surely marriage is a private thing, between two consenting people (or more, I am undecided on that). How you want to define it, protect it, and enjoy it is up to you. Making sure no one is discriminated against from enjoying what everyone else in society is able to, is the state's job surely?
-
Joanna, What do you mean by "other peoples blah blah, but essentially"?
Are you interested in reading others peoples spiritual belief systems, or is that beneath you station?
It was shorthand for "wow, ten pages of comments? I'm far too drunk to read all of that before I tell Emma that I want to marry her"
-
Hell, the more we talk about it, the more I lean towards TracyMac's idea - let's blow this thing up.
But... can we still go to Las Vegas?
-
But... can we still go to Las Vegas?
I'd say it should only be legal to marry in Vegas. And get divorced in Reno, or wherever it is that you get divorced.
-
And get divorced in Reno, or wherever it is that you get divorced.
I have an awesome postcard, sent to me by a friend, of Frank Sinatra below a sign in Reno saying 'Divorce Your Loved One With Dignity'.
-
'Divorce Your Loved One With Dignity'.
And that in turn reminds me of the Peanuts strip with Snoopy writing a story in which the travelling salesman names the family dog Extreme Reluctance. So that when I leave town, he explains to his wife, you'll know that I'm leaving you with Extreme Reluctance.
-
I'd say it should only be legal to marry in Vegas. And get divorced in Reno, or wherever it is that you get divorced.
And only on particular days. It'd be like Moving Day.
-
And only on particular days. It'd be like Moving Day.
I'd also quite like mass divorces, like the mass weddings in those sects. Stick us all at once in a stadium, that way new couples can form quicker.
-
The argument against gay marriage is the same as against straight marriage: it (the state) conveys rights and privileges to sets of people unavailable and denied to single people (or people in three-somes). Once those privileges are abolished we can start talking about equality between relationships - and single people.
-
Marriage is nominally indissoluble, but many people who seem to be married are not. In the case of influential Catholics, some ground for nullity can often be found, but for the poor there is no such outlet, except perhaps in cases of impotence. Persons who divorce and remarry are guilty of adultery in the sight of God.
The phrase "in the sight of God" puzzles me. One would suppose that God sees everything, but apparently this is a mistake. He does not see Reno, for you cannot be divorced in the sight of God. Registry offices are a doubtful point. I notice that respectable people, who would not call on anybody who lives in open sin, are quite willing to call on people who have had only a civil marriage; so apparently God does see registry offices.
-
it (the state) conveys rights and privileges to sets of people unavailable and denied to single people
Such as?
-
Emma - I'm not arguing for my own opinion on marriage or suggesting the law should not be changed. I'm marginally on your side in favouring "marriage" being available to same-sex couples, and trying to be helpful.
I can empathise with those a little over the other side of the pivot point in the continuum, those who think CU gives (near-enough?) legal equality for same-sex couples, and "marriage" in its traditional essence is a word reserved for two-sex couples and that's important.
And I think changing *their* opinion will be the key to your reaching your goal, so suggest focusing around there.
(been out awhile, and newby, haven't sussed this quote paste stuff, sorry)
-
Chris, I guess my underlying problem was with the assertion that you can 'support someone's rights' without supporting their right to marry.
But I agree with you that there is no point in targeting the minority at the other end of the spectrum, and instead focusing on the soft squishy middle. I'd love a big hunk of decent sound not carried out by the Maxim Institute research to tell us how people feel now - how many people were opposed to Civil Unions at the time, and have now pretty much forgotten they happened.
Yeah, I'd rather have a conversation focused on what we want marriage to be, rather than what it 'traditionally' is. That erosion Gio was talking about is happening anyway without any law changes because more and more people simply aren't getting married.
-
Not quite what you're after, Emma, but amusing in the usual monstrous fashion.
From Christian News New Zealand earlier this month:
CIVIL UNIONS LEGISLATION ‘WHITE ELEPHANT’
Family First NZ is welcoming the latest statistics on marriage, civil unions and divorce showing a declining rate of divorce, and an increasing number of marriages over the past decade.
While the marriage rate has retained its demand and relevance, the demand for civil unions has been negligible.
“The civil unions legislation has proved to be a complete white elephant,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ, “despite the claims by the previous government that it would supposedly strengthen human rights and support the choices of apparently 300,000 people who were not married but lived in stable relationships.”
Oh, let's see ... ZOMG, civil unions are going to destroy marriage!
So it turns out marriage is up and divorce is down ... See! We were right!
-
Anyway, must go off and make a TV show. While I would be delighted to see same-sex marriage as a reality tomorrow (this afternoon would be better) on a personal level, my response to two key points in the thread ...
- Everyone should be able to marry
- Marriage as we know it should be abolished... is still that I'm not quite bothered enough about marriage to have really strong personal feelings about it. I couldn't even tell you why ...
-
Marriage itself is not a human right. It's an institution and it's not about whether you love somebody or not ...
*headdesk* *headbrickwall* *headsledgehammer*
The Smithsonian is an Institution, and MAxim has a very odd tendency to make arguments from history that would score an epic fail in any half-way decent first year history course.
that these things do happen, but they don't happen overnight ...
Sure, but the groundwork doesn't happen by itself either. There's a point that sometimes, you've got to take a deep breath and settle in for the long game. All I'm saying (and not that well) is don't come in at the three-quarter mark and be too cocky about winning.
To some degree, I have a horrible feeling that's what happened with the anti-Prop 8 campaign in California. But that's a whole other can of bitter I shall open some other time... :)
-
<late-but-just-wanted-to-say>
Governments Shouldn't Interfere in Personal Relationships
Excellent. Before you leave the playing field, would you mind levelling it?Genius.
I'll resist the compelling urge to use this little gem until it's truly appropriate and will notify Emma when I find a suitable occassion.</late-but-just-wanted-to-say>
-
Its easier to rent a house in Tawa when you have a marriage certificate.
This is illegal. You should complain to the HRC about the landlords responsible - or better yet, name and shame them as bigots.
-
it (the state) conveys rights and privileges to sets of people unavailable and denied to single people
Such as?
- you can adopt
- you get half your partner's assets automatically after 3 years
- in many countries you pay more tax as a single person
- your marital unit is recognised internationally -
- you can adopt
Can single people not adopt? I thought they could.
- you get half your partner's assets automatically after 3 years
Surely if you're single that doesn't apply!
- in many countries you pay more tax as a single person
Not in NZ though.
- your marital unit is recognised internationally
Again, doesn't apply to singles obviously, which is what I was asking. But even in the case of couples, if we passed marriage equality in NZ I'm not sure it would make our same-sex marriages recognised in countries that don't have them. And in the countries that do have them, CUs are just as recognised.
-
Hell, the more we talk about it, the more I lean towards TracyMac's idea - let's blow this thing up.
Me too. But wait... Isn't that also Tess's position?:
All couples need legal protections [Civil Unions], how we understand "marriage" should be something personal and done within our own cultural context.
Isn't she also saying the state should not formally recognise any marriage, just as TracyMac did?
Tess, please clarify/correct if I'm missunderstanding.
-
Strikes me it should be not just permissible, but compulsory, to marry someone who looks like Sean Connery.
I'm against this.
-
<aside> As I recall, in two months of travel in China my wife and I never got booked into a room with a double in it only with ever with two singles if not seperate rooms/dorms. One explanantion offered was that we didn't share the same surname and therefore could not have been married.
-
Strikes me it should be not just permissible, but compulsory, to marry someone who looks like Sean Connery.
Which era ? Octopussy, Thunderball ?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.