Up Front: Are We There Yet?
777 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
But when Scott Card has turned his work into ever more thinly veiled (and unreadable) Mormon polemics-slash-right-wing political tracts, I don't think I'm the one who has busted that distinction where he is concerned.
Plus frankly Ender's Game is not exactly The Waste Land - it can be turned into fuel without too much regret.
-
Does buying his books second hand count?
I don't think so, but since when do you take my advice? :)
Meanwhile, and competely gratuitously, I've heard of method acting. But at Cannes Pedro Almodovar seriously over-shared about how method a director he is:
'In a film I made a long time ago ... I even performed cunnilingus on an actress to show the actor how to do it,' he said at a press conference as he sat next to Penelope Cruz, who stars in his new movie.
-
I'm experiencing momentary frustration that there isn't any Card in the house, because I do have fire
Is this where I come clean and admit I have a feeling I have your copy of Ender's Game? I also have fire but have lingering qualms about burning books no matter what they are.
-
Is this where I come clean and admit I have a feeling I have your copy of Ender's Game I also have fire but have lingering qualms about burning books no matter what they are.
Is that what happened to it?
And yeah, I'm not a book burner. But... it's not as simple as total dissociation. I'd like it to be, but I still feel kind of gross when I hear people who think Freddy Mercury is burning in a special Fag Hell playing Queen.
But I do think people who buy books in order to burn them are hilarious.
-
I don't think so, but since when do you take my advice? :)
There is that... Not that I've bought any OSC for years and years now in any case.
-
Is it illegal to be married and in a civil union at the same time?
Yes -- though you can have as many friends with benefits as you can handle.
-
Yes -- though you can have as many friends with benefits as you can handle.
Until Nactional slashes the benefits. Zing!
-
All couples need legal protections and access to things like being the next of kin if your partner goes into hospital.
Is there an option for "next of kith" if you don't have a partner?
-
I think all of your regular readers knew the smiley was there implicitly.
-
We weren't married when we bought our house, and hadn't been together for three years. Our lawyer's eyes briefly lit up with dollar signs, thinking of all the clauses and sub-clauses he could draft up. He was a bit put out when we said "write down that we want the Matrimonial Properties Act to apply to us as from today, and we'll sign that". But he couldn't think why it wouldn't work.
When CU's came along we though we'd have one of those (kind of like moving into the ghetto in solidarity), but it hasn't turned out to be any higher a priority than marriage was. And as far as legal protection goes, didn't the Relationships (Statutory References) Act deal with the "next of kin" issue?
-
I forgot the all important :)
I think all of your regular readers knew the smiley was there implicitly.Yep.
Therefore the State should register people's civil unions and de facto partnerships and make "marriage" something that people define for themselves.
Disagree. As someone noted upthread, the term 'marriage' carries meaning not associated with civil unions, and whether to take up that option is a choice I'd like to make for myself thanks. Happy for marriages/civil unions/de facto relationships to be consecrated (or whatever further term you choose) by your chosen religion, but I'm buggered if I can see why I should be shut out of marriage.
Quite frankly I find it downright creepy that someone would think they are are within their rights to decide that the particular characteristics of my sex life ought to limit my participation in my own culture's traditions.
-
Disagree. As someone noted upthread, the term 'marriage' carries meaning not associated with civil unions, and whether to take up that option is a choice I'd like to make for myself thanks. Happy for marriages/civil unions/de facto relationships to be consecrated (or whatever further term you choose) by your chosen religion, but I'm buggered if I can see why I should be shut out of marriage.
I'm not sure it's what Tess is saying. I took her point to be that marriage should not be legislated, hence anybody would be free to marry, whereas the legal side of it would be regulated by the civil union legislation across the board.
-
think they are are within their rights to decide that the particular characteristics of my sex life ought to limit my participation in my own culture's traditions
I agree that the overly confident othering is offensive.
-
'Overly Confident Othering': Tombstone remembrance? Band name? Bit-before-the-colon in a thesis title?
-
Heh. 80s tribute band, mayhaps. Or overly tired lack of motivation to elaborate..
-
'Overly Confident Othering': Tombstone remembrance? Band name?
Slogan/mission statement? "NACTional: Overly Confident Othering Since 2008"
Bit-before-the-colon in a thesis title?
Heh. Back when I was in grad school, it was reckoned that the definitive universal bit-before-the-colon would be "You Can't Argue with the Facts: [insert own project here]". Works for every possible topic.
-
Disagree. As someone noted upthread, the term 'marriage' carries meaning not associated with civil unions, and whether to take up that option is a choice I'd like to make for myself thanks. Happy for marriages/civil unions/de facto relationships to be consecrated (or whatever further term you choose) by your chosen religion, but I'm buggered if I can see why I should be shut out of marriage.
I'm not sure it's what Tess is saying.
Strikes me that wasn't Tess that Mrs Skin was referring to. But that marriage with a two-sexed essence is important in our culture as a secular matter independently of all religions. So suggestions of doing away with it, making "marriage" available only as a religious top-up for those who choose it, would be opposed by a substantial body of centrist people (as well as all the raving bigots of course).
-
(Tess): I think that "marriage" is how the couple defines it within their own cultural context. Marriage isn't something the State should define for everyone. However it is the State's job to confer legal protection onto couples (or more) who choose to share their lives together.
Therefore the State should register people's civil unions and de facto partnerships and make "marriage" something that people define for themselves.
This seems pretty close to TracyMac’s view:
Abolish marriage as a legal form and make CUs only have legal status. If people want to get married in a church, fine, they should go to it and plight their troth and promise to obey.
…Anyway, in the interim (hah, I don't expect my wishes to ever become reality), I reluctantly support the notion of same-sex marriage in order to have proper equal rights under the law. But that's the only reason.
(Full quote is on this page.)
-
Quite frankly I find it downright creepy that someone would think they are are within their rights to decide that the particular characteristics of my sex life ought to limit my participation in my own culture's traditions.
Here's the thing, though: homophobia and misoginy are two of the very cornerstones of this cultural tradition, and marriage is historically steeped in both of them. So why would gay people (or women, for that matter) want to participate in marriage, instead of kicking it while it's down, is a source of genuine personal puzzlement. But so long as they do want to reclaim it, I think that the idea of stripping it of its legalistic definitions and making it a wholly cultural construct has some merit.
-
Strikes me that wasn't Tess that Mrs Skin was referring to.
Well, Mrs Skin quoted Tess immediately before that comment, so I assume it was.
But that marriage with a two-sexed essence is important in our culture as a secular matter independently of all religions.
That's the part I most object to: that the state gives a formal preference to “marriage with a two-sexed essence”.
So suggestions of doing away with it, making "marriage" available only as a religious top-up for those who choose it, would be opposed by a substantial body of centrist people (as well as all the raving bigots of course).
Why would it be just a “religious top up”? Anyone can get married, in whatever way they see as the appropriate ceremony, and the state has nothing to say about it one way or other. As Giovanni said, it would not be legislated, but the across-the-board CU legislation would cover everyone equally; Catholics, atheists, gays, lesbians etc…
I'm fine with this as a solution. (Alternatively, I'm also fine with allowing everyone to marry. As I said, it's the discrimination I object to.)
-
And I agree with what Giovanni said last post on previous page, too.
-
I agree with Giovanni's last post too. But Mrs Skin quoted Tess in order to say "Disagree" and I'm agreeing with Mrs Skin on that.
That's the part I most object to: that the state gives a formal preference to “marriage with a two-sexed essence”.
Does the state give such a preference? It looks to me that marriage so defined and civil unions providing the same rights and opportunities are there as options, with no formal preference for either.
-
As someone noted upthread, the term 'marriage' carries meaning not associated with civil unions
Interestingly (insert usual caveat here), in Britain they have Civil Partnerships, which are frequently referred to as marriages. So when John Barrowman entered a Civil Partnership with his partner Scott, even the papers talked about him 'getting married'. OK had his 'wedding photos'.
Here, we're still struggling to come up with torturous language to get around referring to a CU as a 'marriage'. I have a CU and pointedly NOT a marriage, and I constantly correct the co-worker who can't get it through her head that my partner is not my 'hubby'. (She can't cope with nice stable non-marriage relationships, so her brain just turns mine into a marriage.) I tell her it's not actually LEGAL for her to say that.
So in NZ we have a very sharp linguistic line between a marriage and a civil union. Some people need this line to make them feel that the fags aren't dirtying the carpet in their nice clean house. They can have civil union but they can't have marriage. That's a hierarchy. In Britain, while the laws are similar, the linguistic/cultural line is nowhere near as sharp. Gay people 'get married'.
Does the state give such a preference? It looks to me that marriage so defined and civil unions providing the same rights and opportunities are there as options, with no formal preference for either.
That's not really the essence of the statement you're replying to, Chris, which I think is that the State's 'idea' of marriage includes that two-sexed essence, as oppposed to an idea of marriage which is more inclusive.
However. Pretty much straight after CUs were legalised, we had to go through the DOMA bill, in an attempt to legalise discrimination between married people and those in CUs. As long as the distinction exists between the two, that's still possible, to make rules for one and not the other.
Again, because I'm a supporter of civil unions as an alternative to marriage for everyone, I'm a bit ambivalent about both those things.
-
I see the New Hampshire House just voted against the latest bill that would have made same sex marriage legal because of the Governor's amendment that would have protected religious groups from participating in same sex marriage ceremonies.
-
More on the Catholic Church's culture of abuse, er, I mean occasional lapses by a few individuals that nobody is really responsible for plus what are you going to do, it was a long time ago. Quit living in the past, man.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.