Posts by Tess Rooney

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…,

    The thing about separating clerics and civil celebrants is that then if you have a secular wedding with a civil celebrant you're married according to the State. If you, say, have a wedding at a Hindu temple or a Catholic church then you aren't married at all. To get married you still have to go and see a civil celebrant.

    Another way would be to separate weddings and the legal paperwork entirely. Everyone has to get the official marriage registration at the Registrars Office and then have a wedding as they see fit.

    Since May 2009 • 258 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to steve gray,

    So if we keep the definition of marriage as a man and a woman it's the fault of filthy, filthy religion. But if we change the definition to include two people of any gender it's also the fault of filthy, filthy religion.

    Let me guess, religion shot JFK, faked the moon landings, and got Muldoon drunk and then forced him to call a snap election.

    Since May 2009 • 258 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…,

    Thanks a lot.

    Since May 2009 • 258 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…,

    Steve: _ I have heard that Louisa is religious and want to know what her motivation is._

    Why would her being religious got anything to do with it? I know the American Episcopal church has just approved a liturgy for blessing same sex marriage/union (not sure what they specifically call it) irrelevant of secular law. If Louisa Wall wants a church wedding then it's not up to the secular law at all, but her own church's position and whatever liturgies they have.

    Since May 2009 • 258 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…,

    Hey all. Does anyone know where I can find the actual bill. I looked on Parliaments website and it talked about the intent of the bill but there was nothing more specific than that.

    Since May 2009 • 258 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: That's Inappropriate!,

    "You cannot expect to be taken seriously with your pronouncements around young women and sexuality when you were once the very sort of person you are having a go at."

    I had boyfriends yes, but I didn't do one night stands, I was always emotionally involved in the men I slept with. I doubt people would take me _more_ seriously if I had been all pure and innocent when I was younger. Basically we're at an impasse as to how we see sexual morality for a variety of reasons and I doubt they will be overcome.

    What we can agree on is that girls (or boys, although it seems to be a female word) shouldn't ever be called sluts, no matter their sexual habits. And that teachers have to be professional. We also agree that no one is responsible for rape or sexual assault except the rapist.

    Since May 2009 • 258 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: That's Inappropriate!,

    " what do you really expect?"

    No I totally expected it. I even said so earlier in the thread.

    Since May 2009 • 258 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: That's Inappropriate!,

    This is may favorite photo :)

    http://sloth.geek.nz/hist1/html/29.html#pic

    Since May 2009 • 258 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: That's Inappropriate!,

    "decreed by supposedly celibate old men with a historical inability to keep their mitts off the altarboys."

    BLAM! Priestly scandal!! I knew it, I just knew it :) LOL.

    Since May 2009 • 258 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: That's Inappropriate!,

    Ahh... my first year was 1992, so I didn't know the origional context of the term. Ta for that. Thanks for explaining it properly.

    And I just wasn't making assumptions.

    Since May 2009 • 258 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 26 Older→ First