Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
One doesn't "own" a concept.
Precisely. And its nice of you to admit it.
-
Multicultural credibility would be damaged by making a law that explicitly denies the cultural interpretations of marriage that are not progressive.
"By not being bigots, you're being bigots"
Nice troll.
We can safely assume that the other side of the debate will be doing the same thing and have the ear of the same politicians.
Absolutely. Which is why it is all the more important to speak up. If you don't speak up to defend your interests, you have no-one to blame but yourself when they get ignored.
-
Yes I would. However I suspect that no politician would be prepared to get rid of "marriage" and replace it with civil unions completely.
Why would they need to? In New Zealand, all marriages are civil. You lost ownership of the word ~ 200 years ago in our legal tradition.
-
As you say, I'm expected to acknowledge same-sex marriage and regard it as legitimate, ontologically, legally and morally.
Only legally (and of course, you can challenge that, though the avenues for such in NZ are limited). Morally is entirely up to you. As for ontologically, that's between you and your psychiatrist.
-
Yes, that means secular humanism wins.
No - no-one wins. No-one gets to force people to pretend to believe their quack or participate in their rituals. No-one gets to oppress or persecute anyone else. You can believe what you like, pray to whatever entities you do or don't believe in. But you can't make others do likewise.
The problem is that for a small fraction of the religious, that is simply not enough. And when these groups start cultivating persecution complexes as political organisation tools and defence mechanisms in the face of declining power, interest and status, you get the sorts of claims seen upthread.
-
Tess: I'm not claiming that sacramental marriage impugns the validity of lawful marriage - I'm claiming that the Catholic doctrine (as expressed by you upthread) that their marriage is the only "proper" marriage does. Now, they're perfectly entitled to hold that opinion - but that doesn't make it any less arrogant.
As for the rest, I think you are conflating the liberal state's distinction between public and private spheres with personal persecution of the religious. Of course you can state your beliefs, vote, whatever. But what you can't do is use the power of the state to inflict your religious beliefs and definitions on others. That's not "persecution" - it's protection from persecution. Unless you believe that people not sharing your peculiar beliefs is somehow "persecuting" you...
-
The silent majority is silent. We don't know what they think until they tell us.
But politicians, being risk-averse, will assume they think the worst unless enough people tell them otherwise. Which is why its important to let those newer MPs know that you want gay marriage - to build the legislative majority for the future.
-
Inserting my tongue in my cheek for a moment, we'll do it the same way we get everything else done: a Greens Private Member's Bill.
Probably. But even they will be wary of acting on it this term, since they'll be concerned about getting the numbers.
-
Your father-in-law is likely to have occupied a position of authority over you while you were a minor.
...
And finally ... eeewwww he was having sex with Mum!!!
Stepfather =/ father in law.
-
Although to be fair you probably have no idea about Catholic sacraments.
Oh no - I know about them. i just don't care about them. What happens in church should stay in church - and certainly keep the fuck out of other people's lives.