Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hah! See, my English strikes again. Sorry, I see now that pike also means a kind of fish. Delicious misunderstanding.
I always assumed you meant pike as in what Vlad was fond of using. WH had me very confused for a minute there.
-
Sorry to drag so far back, but ...
That’s what you said: “Everybody must obey the law, regardless of their religion.”
No, that's not the same. The same level of obligation, which is not absolute. I think the obligation and the consequences should be the same whether you break the law for religious reasons or not. I don't think, for instance, that protesters who trespass or do physical damage should be treated differently on the basis of whether or not I agree with their cause.
I don’t see how it’s not the same, other than whether you agree or don’t agree with the law in question. You’re saying to Tess that people of her religion need to obey the law, not their conscience. You wouldn’t have said that to gays prior to the 80s, nor apparently to Rastafarians who smoke marijuana today.
We don't need to be moral absolutists just because we are arguing with moral absolutists, you know.
I’m not a moral absolutist. I think you might be interpreting me to be saying that everyone should always obey the law (e.g. you should have served your training). I’m actually saying what you probably agree with: that some laws are shit and should be disregarded. The state can be wrong, too. However, in good conscience, I don’t tell other people I disagree with that they should behave a certain way because it’s the law, which is how Emma’s statement read to me.
-
Because everybody, regardless of religious affiliation, has the same level of obligation to obey the law?
That’s what you said: “Everybody must obey the law, regardless of their religion.” I took Tess to be effectively saying there was a “conscientious objection” aspect to her position. To which you seem to be saying “everyone must obey the law”. I think that’s a problematic response.
Which leads me to:
Obviously, there is civil disobedience and civil disobedience .
“But, but, but…That’s different! It applies to me, but not to the people I disagree with…!”
[My emphasis] Back home, I refused to go in the army and was put to work for a year in a hospital instead (got off easy - my grandfather spent quite a bit of time in jail for the same 'crime'), but arguably nobody was getting hurt by my decision. Refusing to perform an abortion or prescribe a day after pill obviously are decisions that affect others.
Performing the abortion “affects others” in the view of the anti-abortionists. Everything’s arguable. At least be consistent: if you are going to say “stick to the law of the land”, then don’t make exceptions when it’s not convenient.
-
Steve, I know it's dragging on tediously but...
-
Was sex illegal in NZ prior to 1984? Interesting!
You missed the double negative.
-
And really the greatest threat to your beliefs won't come from shrinking polite Christianity, but from a disgruntled Islam.
Funny you should mention that. Going back a bit:
So I'm coming around to yes, let's have gay marriage in the churches, by golly.
Is this to apply to ALL religions, btw? I presume Islam will no longer be allowed any bigotry? Same question for Danielle: "'oh noes, you are oppressing [religious sect] by forcing them to treat people equally!'?"
Islam should be forced to treat people equally, right?
-
Fuck!
I mean, prior to 1984, no one should have engaged in homosexual acts?
-
Everybody must obey the law, regardless of their religion.
Hmmm.... so, prior to 1984, no one should not have engaged in sexual acts?
-
Hm. If you're a bigot, can you still hang a sign in a shop window saying 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish' without legal repercussions?
I don't know, for IANAL.
By the way, I wasn’t originally talking about the law as such. But no, you can’t refuse service for those reasons in NZ. It happened recently though.
-
...that proposal has some merit, but there would be implementation difficulties in achieving majority support... .
Sure. I wasn't arguing it would be very practical, just that Tess's position had merit as far as I could see, and was similar to if not the same as TracyMac's.
...leaving marriage having a legal basis is more realistic
Then I still say we should push for the right of same sex couples to marry, then. And I think this will eventually happen.
Emma's post on the more advanced evolution of language in Britain around essentially the same laws points the way things may go in NZ soonish.
I agree with this I think. You're saying that eventually CUs will be seen effectively as a kind of marriage? So much so that most people will not really make a distinction in most discourse?