Up Front: How About Now?
196 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
I always think the death do us part thing is very hopeful. And people mean it when they say it, I would imagine. I never said it, and here I am, till the bitter end, anyway. How the hell did that happen?
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
Correct me if I am wrong but the whole “till death us do part” bit is supposed to mean something when you say “I do” otherwise it is a bit pointless, innit?.
But you don't have to say that, any more than I had to promise to obey.
Doesn’t that demographic pretty accurately describe our parliamentarians? … and any vote on this issue is a ‘conscience vote’ … so isn’t the result predictable?
Changes slightly when you take into account the effect of knowing someone who's LGBT. In order to say 'no' to this, an MP has to actually get up in front of their colleagues and say, "I don't think you deserve the same rights I have."
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
I would imagine. I never said it, and here I am, till the bitter end, anyway. How the hell did that happen?
Cos you're Luverly.
;-)
Anyone up for Drinkies on Thursday evening @ Te Neigbouhood?. -
Jackie Clark, in reply to
I'll be in Fiji, my darling. But it does seem like forever since I saw your lovely visages. Next Thursday?
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Next Thursday will be fine, I look forward to beholding your bronzed self. ;-)
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Most of the promises are pointless and symbolic only. If you can't naturally choose to do what's in the vows, then a solemn vow won't make a lick of difference, and enforcement of them is patently stupid - being parted by death is a recipe for murderous thoughts.
-
Sacha, in reply to
you're so romantic, Ben
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
being parted by death is a recipe for murderous thoughts.
How's the Mrs. ?
;-) -
BenWilson, in reply to
Just fine, although she daily violates the Obey vow. There's probably some biblical punishment I could exact, involving goats and a bastinado, but I'm a wee bit concerned about the truly epic punishments they mete out for my own transgressions, the main ones being my heresy, idolatry, covetousness, blasphemy and refusal to stop working on the Sabbath.
-
Craig R:
Wrong. I do support marriage equality, but the civil union debate took the heat out of the issue, as well as securing us relationship equality legislation (Relationships Statutory References Ac5 2005). I just don't think that it should take precedence over transgender equality and adoption reform, which seem to be easier to deal with, in any case. They don't arouse as much opposition, and additional successive LGBT rights successes will demoralise the opposition.Speaking of which. I see FamFirst is pontificating about SSM again. Does anyone have any information about Curia Research, that suspiciously religiously titled polling company that they keep citing...?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
you're so romantic, Ben
Hey, I grinned and bore it, even learned the Lord's Prayer (backwards!). In fact, I had to put up with more than most - the Church required us to take pre-marital counseling, which actually turned out to be a good idea. Nut out some of the things you may not have thoroughly discussed. The main one that came up was around "raising children in the Catholic faith". I was prepared to go so far as to let them be baptized, but not so far as to make them go to church or a Catholic school. My wife had probably not realized just how strongly I felt about the issue, nor how little she cared about it.
Also, another session, more of a lecture, raised the concept of contraception, and promoted the "rhythm method" and "withdrawal". The sniggers, guffaws and rolling eyes of every single couple there told me how much of a grain of salt everyone took this particularly stupid advice with. I was sorely tempted to ask them about the "blowjob and anal method", but really, the 4 odd hours we were expected to civilly endure this propaganda was quite a small price to pay for the kick-arse venue, and some good things did actually get discussed. Indeed, once the preachy shit was done with, the elderly couple had really sound advice about making marriage work. We've actually used some of the ideas, particularly the one about making sure you set aside regular time just for the two of you to bond and discuss things.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I just don’t think that it should take precedence over transgender equality and adoption reform
You’re not getting any argument from me or anyone else on that, because this ain’t the line for Barbara Streisand tickets. Does it really have to be a zero-sum game here? (BTW, if I'm ever such a cis-prick towards transgenders you all get a pass for one free 'bitch, please' slap. Open hand, but you don't have to take off your bling.)
-
Hmmm I'm wondering if I should STFU about Catholic weddings on this thread. I hope my tolerance of their beliefs isn't extrapolated to their considerable intolerance towards the main topic of this thread. On that, they need a big wake up. Apologies to anyone feeling like telling me I'm an insensitive arsehole - I've just realized that maybe I have been.
-
chris, in reply to
Apologies to anyone feeling like telling me I’m an insensitive arsehole
Your nothing like one. My non catholic sister is about to do the mandatory catholic pre-marital counseling and I was a little concerned about what she'd be subjected to, thanks for the info Ben.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Well my advice to her is to keep in mind that if they, for some reason, decide not to "pass" her, then it's their loss, and there's plenty more venues out there, and secular ceremonies. If her partner lets religion come between them, then it's way better to know that now than later. To that end, it's actually quite a good idea to go through with it (eta the counseling).
-
nzlemming, in reply to
but you get an iPad in the end.
Just been thinking about this and that's a really bad place to put an iPad...
</coat_hat>
</html> -
Sacha, in reply to
</coat_hat>
</html>you missed a </body>
-
chris, in reply to
Thanks Ben, I hadn't cottoned on to the fact it was a pass/fail situation, she's a car length more diplomatic than me so fingers crossed she'll be fine.
-
Islander, in reply to
My brother – who is an atheist – went through the Catholic pre-marriage course because – obviously! – his first wife was a Catholic. He had difficulties with “You promise to bring any children up as Catholics” but – since his wife-to-be said “Of course” there wasnt a problem…I *think* that is the only pass/fail bit. My brother was not required to convert (or not use condoms. Nothing was said about the Pill.)
And he found some of the advice illuminating: I dont know how things are run now but he discovered that personal space – very important to him – wasnt at all important to his intended (it was done by a simple game.)Um, yeah. No kids, marriage ended a long time ago.
And yes, my brother does have children! Wonderful ones!
ETA: o, and Ben? You've been very couth, not at all arseholish-
-
We had pre-marriage counselling from the very lovely multi-denominational pastor at the University Chapel (we both worked at the Uni at the time, we weren't (quite) that young). I remember stuff all about it, but I suppose since it was 15 years ago, they'd be happy to take some credit for the relationship lasting (of course we had been living in sin for seven years previously).
I do remember our ceremony, which was a beautiful compromise between my vaguely christian mrs and my apathetic agnostic (I don't know & I don't care) self - presided over by the wonderfully named reverend Lindsay Cumberpatch, who sang us a sweet rendition of Carole King's You've Got A Friend.
It was all religious looking and sounding enough to make all the elderly relatives happy, but didn't involve me having to perjure myself on the alleged happiest day of my life. -
nzlemming, in reply to
It was a hasty exit, not a well-formed one.
Besides, the coat was covering the body :-)
-
Sacha, in reply to
seems valid enough
-
Isabel Hitchings, in reply to
Also, another session, more of a lecture, raised the concept of contraception, and promoted the “rhythm method”
Did they teach the "count to 14" version of the rhythm method (which is truly laughable) or actual, proper Natural Family Planning (which is actually remarkably effective when done properly)?
-
I don't recall. Was that something to do with timing the ovulations, or was it a suggestion to count slowly to 14 when dangerous moods came upon one? IOW a variant on the "cold shower method", or the one boys learn at puberty "think of something boring".
Natural Family Planning probably is effective when done properly. Abstinence is, too. But no method is really effective when doing it properly becomes difficult, either because natural urges are too strong, or the system or equipment is too tricky. I've personally had quite a high failure rate with condoms.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Natural Family Planning probably is effective when done properly. Abstinence is, too. But no method is really effective when doing it properly becomes difficult, either because natural urges are too strong, or the system or equipment is too tricky. I've personally had quite a high failure rate with condoms.
Which reminds me of Dr Joycelyn Elders, the Surgeon-General under Bill Clinton, when she openly discussed her views on safe sex. The only thing she was guilty of was being a bit too honest, but from a strictly scientific viewpoint she hit the bullseye.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.