Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Gaying Out

295 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last

  • nzlemming, in reply to Christopher Dempsey,

    You guys clumsy or what? :-)

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2913 posts Report Reply

  • Christopher Dempsey, in reply to nzlemming,

    Heh - no. My brother in the wheelchair listens for me, I walk for him, and we both see for our other blind brother. :)

    Parnell / Tamaki-Auckland… • Since Sep 2008 • 659 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    I come from a family of sibs who are all very shortsighted: I didnt realise just how much we weirded out my sibs' potential partners until one confessed - decades after her marriage to one of my sibs had ended- that she couldnt stand having breakfast with us. Because we hadnt put our 'eyes' (family slang for contact lenses) in, and the table had fingers, lots of fingers, straying over it in search of the butter (or whatever.) It was the done thing to warn about the teapot or the hotplate after you had encountered it....

    Yeah. Just one sib putting the lens in would've etc. -but we are not and never have been morning people, and we dont expect any notice to be taken of our way of dealing with our slight sight problems.

    Which is all quite a way from the thread, but-

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

  • Steve Parks,

    Not that it helps one jot, really, but I imagine that there are quite a number of us who think you should be legally allowed to have as many spouses as you like, Tracy. <raises hand in a voting ‘aye’ fashion>

    +1. Although apparently discussing this issue is on the list of things Christopher finds annoying.

    To be totally honest, I think it should all be civil contracts, … and if you want to do the whole package with one person only, and call it “marriage”, great, go to it.

    I have some sympathy for this view. The state only administers the application of the contractual/paperwork side, called a civil union, leaving the meaning of marriage up to the individual. For some, the most important part may be the “marriage”, which for them is the blessing of their church (although they’d get the formal contractual rights/protections from the state a la a civil union). For many, a service with an official and family and friends present will be both the point at which they enter the legal arrangement of a CU, and the point at which they count themselves as married.
    Under this scenario, I think for a lot of secular people “marriage” would come to be an informal term referring to the fact that they’re in a civil union – but less clinical and with connotations of an emotional bond over and above the legal. The state’s job is to take care of the legal; for the emotional, spiritual, religious etc… that’s over to the people.
    Having said that, I can’t see that approach happening any time soon, whereas I can see the possibility of same sex couples being able to have their union recognised as marriage the same as for heterosexual couples. That’s a step in the right direction.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1164 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Christopher Dempsey,

    The family that sticks together...

    ...gets wiped out by the runaway truck! ;-)

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2913 posts Report Reply

  • Tony Siu,

    I'm overseas at the moment and I might be a bit slow in reading this thread but I found this at a local bookstore the other day while buying a gift last Monday: http://yfrog.com/gysj9bpj

    Auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 82 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Just FYI, I banned Mr Derailing Asshole McTroll before I went to Wellington last week, so he shouldn't be back.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22584 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Aw... :)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    Mr Derailing Asshole McTroll

    The next time we're in the same city, I'd like you to say this out loud so I can use it as a ring-tone.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4644 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Russell Brown,

    I banned Mr Derailing Asshole McTroll

    I applaud your post-bounce shaming policy - and you've more than earned the right by now to get rid of problem commenters pronto. All strength to your deleting finger.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19594 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Mr Derailing Asshole McTroll

    Which one? ;)

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    The thing about the religious ceremony, and the reason why so many secular people (like myself) still submit to it, is that it's all about making a big fuss of the day. While I've no problem with people wanting a small affair, or no affair whatsoever, and still enjoying all the privileges of marriage, I do think that the big-wedding-in-a-church is something that's going to continue to be massively popular. The religious side of things is basically taken with a grain of salt, most of the time.

    I attended one this weekend, in a church. The guy was agnostic like most NZers of my acquaintance, the girl was formally a member of that church but has never mentioned any religious ties. They were attended on either side by their children, one by both of them, the other hers by another guy. It was most enheartening when the pastor asked the question "does anyone have a reason why these two should not be married...any moral reason?" that the entire crowd burst out into laughter. It was like it was a ridiculous thing to even ask.

    For this reason I find the inability of gay people to get married, and in churches if they want, increasingly ridiculous also. That an entire crowd could see nothing but humour in the idea that having clearly and blatantly lived in sin with multiple partners, and caring not one whit for the religion itself, should suggest that two people who loved each other should not be married, goes to the crazy arbitrariness of the exception applied to gays.

    Indeed it was twice as touching to see two beautiful boys whose parental security was being publicly confirmed sharing the occasion.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10596 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    Ahem. Still here ;-)

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2913 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Just FYI, I banned Mr Derailing Asshole McTroll before I went to Wellington last week, so he shouldn't be back.

    I could have sworn there was more than one of him.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5405 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    Which one? ;)

    Well, it wasn't me.

    Must have been Graeme Edgeler.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1164 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to BenWilson,

    The thing about the religious ceremony, and the reason why so many secular people (like myself) still submit to it, is that it’s all about making a big fuss of the day.

    Quite -- I know people I've never seen in a church beyond weddings, funerals and christenings (but only if there's an open bar afterwards) but judging people's motivations for having a religious wedding would not only be massively impertinent on my part, but is most definitely not a legitimate interest of the state.

    But, yeah, you've nicely pointed out another hypocrisy of the "the fags are threatening my marriage" crowd. One of the most rancid specimens of my acquaintance is a serial divorcee (due to his compulsive and flagrant adultery) who makes Newt Gingrich look like the paragon of uxorious virtue. I don't know who he's blackmailed to be allowed to re-marry (more than once) in a Catholic Church, since my understanding of Catholic canon law is that his string of civil divorces would render all the rest invalid.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Nick Shand,

    While feeding most forum trolls is not likely to be a good discussion, I’ve noted that the internets use of the word ‘troll’ has acquired some positive connotations in recent months i.e. good ‘parental troll’ stories tend to proudly acclaim the deviously clever and creative parents of the world.

    Adding the negative qualifier Mc [Mc + Trolls = McTrolls] on the other hand denotes a garden variety troll of limited imagination and thus deserving of the banhammer.

    auck • Since Aug 2008 • 79 posts Report Reply

  • Jacqui Dunn, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Adding the negative qualifier Mc

    For some added info, Russell, banning someone...does this mean they can't look at the site either? Doesn't seem likely, but then, I'm new to all this and don't really know.

    I laughed though at the name, but then the Scots side of me bridled a bit. A sensitive wee chappy, en I?

    Deepest, darkest Avondale… • Since Jul 2010 • 585 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    For some added info, Russell, banning someone...does this mean they can't look at the site either? Doesn't seem likely, but then, I'm new to all this and don't really know.

    Someone who's been banned can do anything on the site you can do without being logged in. So view but not comment. Unless the CactusLab guys have got something going with sacrificing ponies to make banned users bleed from the eyeballs or something.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4644 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Emma Hart,

    Unless the CactusLab guys have got something going with sacrificing ponies to make banned users bleed from the eyeballs or something.

    Sssshhhh...

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 8 9 10 11 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.