Hard News: Gaying Out
295 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 12 Newer→ Last
-
I expect his book will end up showing he's actually a radical. Not that we'll need the book by then.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
With his market bent, I doubt he'll be a free radical...
I'll get my coat.
-
recordari, in reply to
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.
-
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 -
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. -
Russell Brown, in reply to
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.
-
recordari, in reply to
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.
-
Islander, in reply to
I had lots of fun, adding in neutrals & agrees with the majority of strongly disagrees. Hope it skews the parameters into uselessness.
-
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.
-
JoJo, in reply to
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.
-
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. :)
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
I feel like I'm all 4Chan and shit.
Or possibly even the Anonymous/Planet Chanology guys.
-
I am somewhat pissed off the Family First went down before I had the chance to look at the survey.
-
Ross Mason, in reply to
Bugger PASers. I went there too to have a shifty at the FF survey.
Overloaded by PAS readers!!! Bet ya.
-
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. -
Sacha, in reply to
they appear to have come here in revenge
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I feel like I’m all 4Chan and shit.
Or possibly even the Anonymous/Planet Chanology guys.
Distributed denial of ... denial?
-
Kracklite, in reply to
This one looks like fun! Let's poke it and see what happens!
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
The right of any adult to marry any adult they please? ... [such as] children...
Oops!
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
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’.)
-
Kracklite, in reply to
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?
-
Sacha, in reply to
Let's poke it and see what happens!
had enough tussling for one day, ta
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
"I love my dog but that doesn't mean I should be allowed to marry it." - Stephen Franks.
-
Kracklite, in reply to
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.
-
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.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.