Up Front: Are We There Yet?
777 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 28 29 30 31 32 Newer→ Last
-
I was stunned by Giovanni Tiso on page 33.
A wee search has explained this (to me) as Giovanni having a few unresloved family issues I'm sure he was teased about as a kid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jozef_Tiso
http://www.spectator.sk/articles/view/31550/2/archbishop_prays_for_tiso.html
-
You know something even worse: we named our son after the guy. I mean, I always knew there had been this monsignor Tiso condemned at Nuremberg, but I didn't know his first name, and then we named our son Joseph on account of my father being called Giuseppe and that was that.
(We bear no relation so far as I know, my grandfather Tiso was in fact an atheist, an anarchist and a pacifist, but then who's to say.)
-
Steven - I don't think that's an option for after the gay and straight relationships fail
-
Perhaps the problem would be that you weren't including enough people in your relationships? A little from column A, a little from column B...
-
But Emma - don't you know nice girls don't do that sort of thing?
-
Double entry accounting?
-
But Emma - don't you know nice girls don't do that sort of thing?
I believe I have been told that, rather a lot.
Double entry accounting?
Okay, I'm pretty sure accountants don't do that sort of thing.
-
Fiscal rogering would seem to be the order of te day.
-
I used to be an accountant...
-
Somehow these threads seem to just keep on getting better.
-
Double entry accounting?
Okay, I'm pretty sure accountants don't do that sort of thing.
Normal accountants don't do that sort of crap so they wouldn't know the other meaning?
-
*delurks*
Re the Huckerbee interview: I absolutely disagree that "marriage" means what they say it means, but pretending for a moment they're right: what would change if the word changed? Is it a case of, "My marriage wouldn't mean what I thought it meant"? Given that the people "defending" marriage are constantly deferring to a higher power (in this case, the dictionary), perhaps a broadening of the definition would make them, as married people, feel that they were part of an institution that no longer had relevance to them? Would they have married in the first place if same sex couples could have done it?
Which leads to the Britney Spears argument. (In case it's not obvious, I'm having a hard time understanding, let alone empathising with the bigots.)
I wonder what they'd do if their God came down and said, "You're misrepresenting me. Any union between consenting adults is groovy. Party on." I can't help feeling that they're so invested in their positions, they'd either ignore Him or argue.
I do think that getting the state out of the marriage business altogether would be seen by people who take the institutional aspects (way too) seriously as "undermining marriage", though. Marriage equality seems more achievable.
-
Given that the people "defending" marriage are constantly deferring to a higher power (in this case, the dictionary), perhaps a broadening of the definition would make them, as married people, feel that they were part of an institution that no longer had relevance to them? Would they have married in the first place if same sex couples could have done it?
There's a lovely clip somewhere I can't find of the state senate majority leader (maybe) of New Hampshire (maybe) talking about going home after they passed the bill and hugging his wife and feeling MORE invested in his own marriage. And that's what happens when countries pass marriage equality laws: straight marriage goes up , as ordinary people (I surmise) find marriage now more relevant to them, because it's evolved to be more in touch with its society, more inclusive.
But yeah, I think that's the weird thing about the screaming classes: they're truly conservative. Once a law is passed, they accept it. Nobody's seriously agitating to have homosexuality made illegal now, even the people who fought against legalisation.
-
And that's what happens when countries pass marriage equality laws: straight marriage goes up, as ordinary people (I surmise) find marriage now more relevant to them, because it's evolved to be more in touch with its society, more inclusive.
I suspect there's probably as many people that go home and pray for god to protect the institution of marriage as being between a man and woman, because it's under attack.
But yes to your second paragraph. Thirty years after this all happens, it'll be a non-issue for the vast majority.
-
Saw a great cartoon the other day: two guys standing on the sidewalk, looking rather thoughtful, one saying to the other: "But you knew I was straight when you married me."
It kind've opened my eyes to something about marriage: how vitally this sort of formal partnerhip, the combining of two extended families, or the creation of a new "nuclear" unit, or however it's concieved, is wrapped up in "the rich tapestry of life."
Gay marriage opens up all manner of possibilities- not all "good". There will be guys who'll marry another guy for his money; people who change, who change their minds, who betray each other or act in bad faith.
I'm not mentioning this as an argument against gay marriage in any way- quite the contrary. It's a part of the richness of life, good and bad, in all it's squalid glory- that everyone absolutely should have some chance to participate in.
It just made me think about it in a little more depth than the happy glow of a loving couple getting hitched. It's about full participation in the guts of the business of being human. -
I wonder what they'd do if their God came down and said, "You're misrepresenting me..."
Probably the same thing they did last time that happened: nail him to a tree.
-
Taking such a myopic view of religion isn't becoming. Can I suggest a little Sr Chittister?
Benetvision exists
to encourage the development of
contemporary spirituality
from a feminist and global perspective
through the works of Joan Chittister.http://www.benetvision.org/Ideas_In_Passing/index.html
Exposing wrongs is a right thing to do. I wait patiently for the expose on State abuse.
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/support+for+victims+of+abuse+in+state+care -
Exposing wrongs is a right thing to do.
Oh, definitely. Shall we talk about the memo that the Vatican sent in the eighties threatening civilians who testimonies against priests in a civil tribunal of excommunication, and of a sin greater than sexual abuse on the part of a priest?
Although, to be fair, the cadinal that penned it has now been removed from his position. They made him Pope.
The only link in English that came to hand.
-
What nothing from the 1600s?
-
The thing to understand about the Church (and it speaks to the topic, since the whole tradition thing has been raised against gay marriage in this thread) is that "it was a long time ago" is no defence. The 1600s are just as relevant as the contemporary, because the Church is infallible and truth is not historically contingent. That is why they pardoned Galileo in the 1980s, and now, I mean as of last week, they claim that it was Bellarmino, his inquisitor, who 'saved' him (for they know how to spell 'having no shame' every which way). The Church needs history to be clean.
So you can't have it both ways: say that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because it's the tradition, and ignore that genocide and the inquisition are also part of that tradition.
But for the people who will still wish to erase the uncomfortable past and clean the slate at, say, the second Vatican council, one can still suggest googling "Roberto Calvi" or the church and paedophilia. There's plenty of crime and hipocrisy going on as we speak, and sorry if it offends you, but it will be brought up when you catch a Catholic claiming moral superiority.
-
Taking such a myopic view of religion isn't becoming. Can I suggest a little Sr Chittister?
Specifcally what? A search of the site you've linked to yields this passing mention of same-sex marriage, but fudges the issue by talking in very general terms about the need for god's love. A rather myopic lack of detail when dealing with specifics, but certainly a safe approach from the viewpoint of a celibate nun.
-
Joe, might want to read that again (but put the chip down first). She is being explicite in her expression of truth, couched within a religious perspective.
Giovanni, that is a rather confused statement about Church infallibity & a pardon. One negates the other, but will resist taking on all of your strawmen.
Was Count Dracular a lapsed Christian?
-
Giovanni, that is a rather confused statement about Church infallibity & a pardon.
How so, thinking person? The pardon is there in order to restore the infallibility. Since the Church was so obviously and spectacularly wrong about Galileo, they tried to fix their own history by rehabilitating him (instead of apologising - you'll appreciate they're two very different things.)
Was Count Dracular a lapsed Christian?
You appear to be somewhat out of your depth.
-
that's what happens when countries pass marriage equality laws: straight marriage goes up, as ordinary people (I surmise) find marriage now more relevant to them, because it's evolved to be more in touch with its society, more inclusive.
That's true for me (in theory, at least; in practice I have no interest in tying the knot). I'm constantly surprised that people are still opting for marriage in NZ, now that CUs are available. Why wouldn't you go for the non-discriminatory option, given the choice?
I guess most people don't even think about it. But I think the real reason is the answer to why "separate but equal" isn't enough: the connotations aren't equal.
-
Joe, might want to read that again (but put the chip down first). She is being explicite in her expression of truth, couched within a religious perspective.
JT, I responded to your post in good faith. From your semiliterate and feebly snarky reply I've gained all the insight I need into why you find the little Sister's vapid homilies so riveting.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.