Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Steve Barnes,
To give Louisa the benefit of the doubt, I have my doubts Louisa Wall is a Zurich Gnome sleeper agent and isn't the whole point of the member's ballot so the order paper isn't absolutely determined by the legislative agenda of the government of the day?
Hell, I'm supposed to be the house cynic and I'm the one with a touching faith in the human ability to multi-task? This is really fucking with my rep, people. Stop it. :)
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Steve Barnes,
We really should be looking at more important things
Steve: OK, I totally get that marriage equality is no biggie to you - it's not to many people who are passionate about things that make me go "meh". That's cool, and since we don't live in the Borg Collective we all better get used to it. But please get that being treated like a second class citizen in my own country and being told to STFU and be thankful that after seventeen years the best treatment the central relationship in my life can get from the state is "separate but (un)equal" is a pretty big one to me.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to BenWilson,
Fair enough, Craig, I wasn’t sure who you were talking about
That was all on my lack of clarity not a reading comprehension fail on your part. No harm, no foul.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to BenWilson,
Tess. I can see why Craig suggested it was concern trolling
Small point of order. I don't think Tess is concern-trolling at all. My issues with her lie elsewhere, but I do think Catholic spokesmen do. A lot. And they never seem to get called on it.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Danielle,
I don’t really want to be “one flesh” with my husband. It sounds like it would be terribly inconvenient.
It sounds much better if you're 1) saying it in Latin or 2) David Cronenberg.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Lilith __,
How very convenient.
And which in no way disproves my contention that the Church simply does not recognize any civil marriages (or Scientologist rites) in terms of doctrine or canon law. Kidman’s civil divorce was viewed as a civil termination of an ilicit marriage, and obviously was so trifling a matter she didn’t even require an annulment. Again, the simple statement of fact may be politically inconvenient at the present moment but, to use a technical term, WIDDUMS.
And frankly, Tess, if the Catholic Church wants to go concern-trolling about the horrors of civil same-sex marriage it's hardly dirty pool to point out that it doesn't actually have excessive regard for the institution of civil marriage in the first place.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Tess Rooney,
Re: not recognizing civil marriage – that is absolutely not true.
Absolutely true – though I grant a plain text reading of applicable canon law is politically inconvenient. A couple who has married without “canonical form” has entered into a marriage that neither valid nor licit, and later convalidation of such marriages is slightly more complex that saying “whoopsie, our bad!”
Believe me, this is not a subject I’m inclined to make shit up about. You see, I actually take people like this seriously enough to expect a tad better than sloppy, disingenuous concern-trolling. (Especially from someone licensed by the Catholic Church to teach theology to seminarians.) I’m less than entirely confident that my respect is repaid.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Tess Rooney,
In the Catholic Church the sacrament (ie. the ritual) is marriage. Whether the State recognises it or not isn’t the point
Oddly enough, Tess, it’s a point the Catholic Church is vocally disinclined to grant to anyone else. The hierarchy has a hell of a lot to say about civil marriage it doesn’t recognize for anyone – and, as Megan linked to, where teh gayz are concerned in the most floridly grotesque language.
Seems to me that a dog collar doesn’t give you a divine right to have it both ways. It certainly doesn’t give you the right to demand special deference in the public square.
BTW, I’ll be damned if I can figure out how my parents got married in a Catholic Church considering my father was an Anglican – and remained one the rest of his life. (Though he also made it perfectly clear that it was a matter of total indiference if any children were raised Catholic. And here I am.) The priest was a family friend, and I gather my grandparents made it quite clear that any nonsense about the groom’s race, religion or age would not be well received. Let’s just say, Nanna and Poppy made a downright terrifying tag-team when required.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Martin Lindberg,
I believe it’s a deliberately strategy of muddying the waters when McCroskie et al says that this law-change will force churches to marry teh gays.
Which is a flat out lie. Sorry for being a scratched CD, but that really needs to be repeated every time McCroskie and his pals trot it out.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Angus Robertson,
If Emma/Idiot S./Bob McCroskie are correct then this legislation is clearly an attack on the religious freedoms of NZers.
Angus: OK, I’m still unconvinced Wall’s bill extending civil marriage to a previously excluded class of people is “an attack on religious freedom” in any sense but the purely hyperbolic. And with all due respect to my good friend Idiot/Savant his reading is not settled law.
Anyway, I’m still waiting for McCoskrie to come up with a straight answer to a straight question. Does he think it’s an unconscionable attack on the “religious freedoms” of people whose faith allows polygamy that the Marriage Act explicitly forbids such practices? Or is polygamy only something the radical liberal homosexual agenda to destroy marriage gets hot for?
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 164 165 166 167 168 … 1235 Older→ First