Posts by ChrisW
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Thanks for the advice/warning Steve. Who would want to go there?
-
'Struth! Look away and suddenly there's pages more.
Maximum respect to Tess, from me, and I can tell from the attackers too cos none of them took the opportunity to link tenants of the faith with the exclusion of gays from Catholic church housing, or some such way of borax-poking cf. tenets of the faith.
Steve, I know it's dragging on tediously but
You're saying that eventually CUs will be seen effectively as a kind of marriage? So much so that most people will not really make a distinction in most discourse?
Yes. Only more so, CUs already are a kind of marriage right from the start, so close legally no one can tell the difference except for that narrowness of marriage that currently insists on one-man-one-woman-only; and yes, everyday language will probably catch up with that pretty soon, especially if it's helped along by people who care.
-
Steve - let's pass on the confusion. I agree especially with the first 2/3rds of Giovanni's
Here's the thing, though: homophobia and misoginy are two of the very cornerstones of this cultural tradition, and marriage is historically steeped in both of them. So why would gay people (or women, for that matter) want to participate in marriage, instead of kicking it while it's down, is a source of genuine personal puzzlement. But so long as they do want to reclaim it, I think that the idea of stripping it of its legalistic definitions and making it a wholly cultural construct has some merit.
and also with the latter third, that that proposal has some merit, but there would be implementation difficulties in achieving majority support and think leaving marriage having a legal basis is more realistic.
I suggest marginalising the bigots is politically important, rather than pumping oxygen into their fantasy that the availability of the civil union option for all will destroy marriage and society. And that Emma's post on the more advanced evolution of language in Britain around essentially the same laws points the way things may go in NZ soonish.
-
I agree with Giovanni's last post too. But Mrs Skin quoted Tess in order to say "Disagree" and I'm agreeing with Mrs Skin on that.
That's the part I most object to: that the state gives a formal preference to “marriage with a two-sexed essence”.
Does the state give such a preference? It looks to me that marriage so defined and civil unions providing the same rights and opportunities are there as options, with no formal preference for either.
-
Disagree. As someone noted upthread, the term 'marriage' carries meaning not associated with civil unions, and whether to take up that option is a choice I'd like to make for myself thanks. Happy for marriages/civil unions/de facto relationships to be consecrated (or whatever further term you choose) by your chosen religion, but I'm buggered if I can see why I should be shut out of marriage.
I'm not sure it's what Tess is saying.
Strikes me that wasn't Tess that Mrs Skin was referring to. But that marriage with a two-sexed essence is important in our culture as a secular matter independently of all religions. So suggestions of doing away with it, making "marriage" available only as a religious top-up for those who choose it, would be opposed by a substantial body of centrist people (as well as all the raving bigots of course).
-
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.
Same-sex couples joined in formal marriage in that future state so keenly sought will still be subjected to a degree of discrimination in some quarters even if unlawful, just as it is now in respect of those joined in civil union. And there is so much baggage to the institution of marriage that there are plenty wanting to abolish it (but that won't happen, while it's optional not compulsory, and valued by many, doesn't even need a majority).
So I ask, what is it about "marriage" that the opportunity to partake of it by same-sex couples is so keenly sought, when civil union provides all the substance? or is it only 95% of the substance? Is there an extra aura to "marriage" as well as the legal substance expressed also in civil unions?
If those who want it can articulate the answer, and then appreciate and defuse the counterpoint that to many centrist people of goodwill "marriage" has a two-sexed essence, meanwhile sidelining not mainstreaming the bigots - well I reckon that way lies progress.
No sweat :-)
-
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)
-
<quote>And some of those people at least value the word so highly they think that's worth defending.
From?<quote>
From having its meaning changed from its traditional one man/one woman essence.
And Craig, I'm suggesting defocusing away from the bigots, their numbers may not change much over time. That the political argument when it happens will be won or lost in the middle, among people comfortably accepting the legal rights of same-sex couples, on the two sides of the question of how important is the meaning of the word marriage. -
My thoughts, perhaps belatedly but I'm a slow thinker -
I've been interested in the discussion on the religious/ Christian/ Catholic aspects, but surely that's all a red herring as the basis for the marriage concept is far wider.
Politically, the key, the pivot point, are not the bigots but those broadly of good will in the middle.
I haven't seen anything in this thread spelling out or referring to the practical legal differences between marriage and civil union. So, unless there's something additional along those lines I've missed, it's the word marriage and its connotations that is so valued, rather than the legal substance - and having the choice. (last bolded point of Emma's OP)
But the high value put on the difference between Marriage+CU and CU-only is exactly the same - well the obverse really - of the value put on "marriage" as a word by those just across the divide between OK and not. (Emma I think recognised this mid-thread even if not from Giovanni.)
These pivotal people are the ones who think same-sex couples need all the legal standing and rights of hetero couples (hence CU, which available incidentally for heteros not keen on the connotations of "marriage") but that Marriage as a word and institution carries in its essence the one man + one woman tradition.
And some of those people at least value the word so highly they think that's worth defending.
I too guess it will take another 20 years for the numbers to change enough, as for the generational lag between Homosexual law Reform and Civil Unions.
-
Gidday all - I'm enjoying PA and the Michael Lawhs invention, but also appreciate old-fashioned style. At random in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary today, I encountered this gem from the 16th century and felt the need to share it with yous, as another word so applicable to the Mayor of Wanganui -
mumpsimus /ˈmʌmpsɪməs/ noun. Now literary. M16. [ORIGIN Erroneously. for Latin sumpsimus in quod in ore sumpsimus ‘which we have taken into the mouth’ (in the Eucharist), in a story of an illiterate priest who, when corrected, replied ‘I will not change my old mumpsimus for your new sumpsimus’.]
1 An obstinate adherent of old ways, in spite of clear evidence of their error; an ignorant and bigoted opponent of reform. Formerly also loosely, an old fogey. M16.
2 A traditional custom or notion obstinately adhered to although shown to be unreasonable. M16