Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
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.)
-
(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.)
-
Strikes me it should be not just permissible, but compulsory, to marry someone who looks like Sean Connery.
I'm against this.
-
Hell, the more we talk about it, the more I lean towards TracyMac's idea - let's blow this thing up.
Me too. But wait... Isn't that also Tess's position?:
All couples need legal protections [Civil Unions], how we understand "marriage" should be something personal and done within our own cultural context.
Isn't she also saying the state should not formally recognise any marriage, just as TracyMac did?
Tess, please clarify/correct if I'm missunderstanding.
-
This case precisely shows why the s59 repeal was so necessary. It seems fairly plausible that he may have got away with punching his 4 year old in the face under the old laws.
I'm not sure I agree. It's hard to see how anyone could argue punching a child in the face was reasonable force.As Fletcher has noted, people argued that hitting a child with a bullwhip was reasonable force, and it worked. Before that case, would you have said: "It's hard to see how anyone could argue hitting a child with a bullwhip was reasonable force"?
And some people on Your Views are arguing that the conviction was too much:
"Realist (Auckland)
PC world gone mad. And what double standards. If this is 'assault' then I expect boys who fight at school to be prosecuted. Also rugby players who throw a punch - often see by us all on TV. I want them in court too for the sake of fairness.... Who was injured? Who needed medical attention? Sorry, I cant see that this is assault at all. It's BS".
-
I've long suspected that literacy is going the way of visiting cards and dressing for dinner.
I don't even know what visiting cards are.
I do like dressing for dinner, though.
-
I'm fine with you loving both the hip and the hop. knock yourself out wicki wicki wicki
Dad Joke. You're getting old, Rob.
-
… I also believe that CUs should not be confined to two individuals
Agreed. There’s no reason the legal arrangements can’t be extended to whomever wishes to participate.
…the tax regime in the US, where spouses get a fat rebate by virtue of the fact they've stood up in stupid outfits and signed a piece of paper makes no sense to me. Sure, get something knocked if you have kids, or you have someone in your care, but that shouldn't be contingent on your relationship status.
Agree with that as well.
-
Oh robbery. Are you a 'hiphop sucks' person? Don't be that guy!
And here I thought he was young!
-
bands I was in 15 years ago were charging and getting twice what the average band feels they can charge now, and that's adirect result of eroded respect for the value of music.
You need some education, Rob.
as for L.E.D's, yes indeed 2 good albums, (I particularly like the track Slow from the new album). all self funded and recorded. ...
But hasn't that always been the case? Haven't acts often had to pay their own way for a time?
everyone wants to put the face of success on their projects cos nothing breeds success like... well success,
The more things change...