Posts by Deborah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
(Deborah, I haven't forgotten about that idea for a a PAS community announcements column -- there are just a few things ahead of it in the queue, but I've commissioned the first upgrade and we're moving along.)
Oh good! I didn't want to mention it again, because that would be very boring. Paul managed to find a very effective work-around, all the same.
-
I love a new baby - don't want any, mind.
I would love to have another baby. I just don't want to repeat the toddler years. Not that my girls were difficult, at all. But the constant work, watchfulness, never resting of the toddler years is something that I'm just not so keen on. ('Though maybe I'm biased after having twins... definitely twice the work at that stage, 'though also so much fun!)
In the meantime, my heart does this funny squeezy thing when I hear that someone else's baby has arrived safely, even if it's someone I know only through teh interwabs. And even my secular atheist soul thinks that a new baby is a blessing.
-
That's lovely news, Paul. Congratulations! Fantastic. I think daughters are wonderful ('though I'm sure sons must be too - it's just that I don't have any personal experience of sons.) Beautiful names you have chosen for her (unless you're doing something terribly radical with respect to gender...).
-
Taking such a myopic view of religion isn't becoming.
Isn't becoming? FFS! Now we have to be polite and look nice when discussing a fundamental human rights failure, a failure that is positively embraced by many religions.
-
I used to be an accountant...
-
To be fair, in those days the involvment of two people probably counted as group sex. Everyone was doing it, basically.
Very good, Giovanni.
-
I though that for a long time, Steve i.e. that the state should not be involved in marriage at all. I think it's got a legitimate interest in household formation, because we tend to distribute rights and responsibilities to households, and I also think that it's got a role in helping people to manage the dissolution of households fairly, in the same way that it has a role in helping people to manage other situations where contracts break down or aren't fulfilled.
-
but there's no "the institution of marriage" thank god.
Well...I have this image in my mind of some Monty Pythonesque big brown forbidding building, with low steps and faceless windows, into which two separate lines of people are marching, one from each side of the building, and inside they go through one of those made assembly line machines, until eventually they are paired up and come marching together out the front, off into the wilds of Camden (or some such place).
-
Yes.... but to the extent that Father What'isname is performing a role mandated by the state, then he needs to perform that role in respect of any couples / trios / quartets etc. who come his way and ask him to to the job.
-
well how are people feeling about I/S's plan to amend the Marriage Act?
Sounds good to me. 'Though very roughly I think that the state ought to get out of the marriage business altogether, and only maintain a register of people who have formed households, or something like that, for the purpose of adjudicating any disputes, and delivering the standard benefits we deliver to households. But until then, amending the Marriage Act would be the way to go. You would think one of those libertarian MPs would be happy to pick it up.