Hard News: Gaying Out
295 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last
-
nzlemming, in reply to
You guys clumsy or what? :-)
-
Christopher Dempsey, in reply to
Heh - no. My brother in the wheelchair listens for me, I walk for him, and we both see for our other blind brother. :)
-
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-
-
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. -
nzlemming, in reply to
The family that sticks together...
...gets wiped out by the runaway truck! ;-)
-
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
-
Just FYI, I banned Mr Derailing Asshole McTroll before I went to Wellington last week, so he shouldn't be back.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Aw... :)
-
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.
-
Sacha, in reply to
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.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Mr Derailing Asshole McTroll
Which one? ;)
-
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.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Ahem. Still here ;-)
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
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.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
Which one? ;)
Well, it wasn't me.
Must have been Graeme Edgeler.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
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.
-
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.
-
Jacqui Dunn, in reply to
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?
-
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.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Unless the CactusLab guys have got something going with sacrificing ponies to make banned users bleed from the eyeballs or something.
Sssshhhh...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.