Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Gaying Out

295 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 4 5 6 7 8 12 Newer→ Last

  • BenWilson,

    I expect his book will end up showing he's actually a radical. Not that we'll need the book by then.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to BenWilson,

    With his market bent, I doubt he'll be a free radical...

    I'll get my coat.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2937 posts Report Reply

  • recordari, in reply to Emma Hart,

    Semi-relatedly, if people would like a fun couple of minutes today, try filling out Family First’s Family Issues survey. Yes, I know, some of the questions don’t make a lot of sense.

    It’s times like these I wish I weren’t just a twitter flitterer.

    Ok, FF, first, define ‘the family’. Head explodes. Survey becomes redundant.

    ETA:

    first, define ‘the family’

    No, really, don't.

    AUCKLAND • Since Dec 2009 • 2607 posts Report Reply

  • Yamis,

    When we get name suppression there are enormous rumours and theories about who it might be.

    What we have here is opinion suppression.

    So I suggest we all speculate wildly and start all sorts of rumours about what Key's opinion is.

    That'll get him to come out with it before the book.

    I would kick things off but figure I'll offend too many people unintentionally :)

    I'll go with the toned down, educated guess instead. Key believes in the freedom of people to choose their partners and that they should have roughly equal rights, but he's no homo, but he knows many and has no problem with them, just that he's not into that shit or anything, not that there's anything wrong with it, just that he's more comfortable with the ladies, or rather the lady, as he's happily married thank you very much, in a loving relationship with a lady, who's a woman, and he's a man, and mates with Richie McCaw.

    OK, so kinda drifted down the other path there.

    Yours truthfully (or not)
    Yamis

    Since Nov 2006 • 903 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    I hope yous all had fun with Family First, because

    Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
    The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Emma Hart,

    Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
    The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.

    I feel like I'm all 4Chan and shit.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • recordari, in reply to Emma Hart,

    I hope yous all had fun with Family First, because

    Have a feeling we may have swayed their demographic just a little bit. Maybe the server had an automatic shutdown if too much logic was applied during the taking of the survey.

    AUCKLAND • Since Dec 2009 • 2607 posts Report Reply

  • Islander, in reply to Emma Hart,

    I had lots of fun, adding in neutrals & agrees with the majority of strongly disagrees. Hope it skews the parameters into uselessness.

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • recordari,

    Actually, it seems likely the author of said survey was a graduate from the Dichotomy School of Research.

    What they really needed was an answer;

    - Yes and No.

    AUCKLAND • Since Dec 2009 • 2607 posts Report Reply

  • JoJo, in reply to Emma Hart,

    Thanks for the link, Emma. I suggested the survey to some friends... I like to think we may have been responsible for overloading their server with logic and reasoning.

    Wellington • Since Jul 2008 • 95 posts Report Reply

  • Yamis,

    If you aren't getting the answers you are looking for you always shut the discussion down.

    As a teacher I know something about this. :)

    Since Nov 2006 • 903 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Russell Brown,

    I feel like I'm all 4Chan and shit.

    Or possibly even the Anonymous/Planet Chanology guys.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5446 posts Report Reply

  • Isabel Hitchings,

    I am somewhat pissed off the Family First went down before I had the chance to look at the survey.

    Christchurch • Since Jul 2007 • 719 posts Report Reply

  • Ross Mason, in reply to Emma Hart,

    Bugger PASers. I went there too to have a shifty at the FF survey.

    Overloaded by PAS readers!!! Bet ya.

    Upper Hutt • Since Jun 2007 • 1590 posts Report Reply

  • ,

    Marriage equality? What's that? The right of any adult to marry any adult they please? Brothers, sisters, mothers, children, parents, same sex, opposite sex, group sex.
    Then there's beings that lack capability for consent or for whom consent can be given by proxy, animals, the dead, minor children as long as their guardian consents for them.
    Marriage equality entails too much.
    Marriage should either not be recognised by the state at all or it should be between one man and one woman who are not related as this is the relationship with the stats on its side as being good for society.

    Since • posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Isabel Hitchings,

    they appear to have come here in revenge

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Kumara Republic,

    I feel like I’m all 4Chan and shit.

    Or possibly even the Anonymous/Planet Chanology guys.

    Distributed denial of ... denial?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite, in reply to Sacha,

    This one looks like fun! Let's poke it and see what happens!

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 982 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks, in reply to ,

    The right of any adult to marry any adult they please? ... [such as] children...

    Oops!

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1165 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    This was “well, seeing as someone brought up marriage equality, how about marriage equality?” The next time someone says “If we allow gay marriage it will just lead to recognition of polygamy”, I’d like someone to have the wit to say “damn straight!”

    Agreed. (Although I also would prefer another term to ‘polygamy’.)

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1165 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite, in reply to Steve Parks,

    Well, there’s “polyamory”, but that only refers to one’s orientation, not the definition of the state of an actual relationship matrix as (potentially) recognised by law. “Polygamy” refers only to having multiple wives, while “polyandry” denotes multiple husbands. I’m afraid that my grasp of classical languages is insufficient to find a term/archaeo-neologism for plural marriage, unless it’s “plural marriage”.

    Does anyone have any other ideas?

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 982 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Kracklite,

    Let's poke it and see what happens!

    had enough tussling for one day, ta

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to ,

    "I love my dog but that doesn't mean I should be allowed to marry it." - Stephen Franks.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5446 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite, in reply to Kumara Republic,

    FWIW, you’ve put your finger on what is the essential issue: consent.

    Consent is by definition informed, without coercion or obligation and between equals in power and cogniscance. A dog cannot consent because it is not an equal in cognition or power, so the comparison is absurd and a red herring.

    What interests me about Scalia’s childish bleating – in a clinical sense anyway – is the complete lack of awareness that consent is always intrinsic to any true relationship. They ignore the implicit but obvious assumption of informed consent made by everyone who has discussed non-monogamous, non-heterosexual relationships because their argument (which is by no means original), stupidly or naively, depends on the assumption that it is necessary for there to be some explicit legalistic declaration of the legitimacy of a relationship. It seems that they simply cannot conceive of a relationship in which both or all parties acknowledge one another’s consent on equal terms and do not factor this into their “reasoning”.

    This implies that Scalia could not think of their potential partner having any valid subjectivity at all except in narrow, legalistic terms sanctioned by the state. I could take that further, and I’d leave it to Scalia to provide the straw to make an excellent set of scarecrows, but really, I agree with Sacha – the ennui is overwhelming.

    Nighty-night.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 982 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    Insomniacally… I have to disagree with Idiot/Savant’s earlier points or implications that if established religions do not acknowledge same-sex relationships, then one should simply decide to abandon them. Religions, whatever one may think of them (and I am an agnostic myself), are not simply brands or franchises like utility companies. Religion is a matter of faith, and faith is not determined by reductionist cost-benefit analysis. I have a lot of sympathy for people like Craig who need the acknowledgement of the organisation that represents their faith. To repeat, the organisation represents the faith, and however vile and corrupt it maybe in its practice, it is still not the faith in itself and that deserves some respect.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 982 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 4 5 6 7 8 12 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.