Posts by Stewart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
To some of the uber-rationalists, there is a level at which religious belief appears pathological. I haven't read/remembered enough of their (Dawkins & Hitchen's) combined output to know if they categorically state that religious faith equates to mental illness, but I can well believe that they may have implied some pathology when referencing extreme religious faith.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review: Trusting Voters, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
What would be great would be if National got 55%, Labour 15% and a bunch of electorates and Green 30%, leading to a Green-led government. I'd just love the impotent rage of the righties if that happened.
The reactions of a large number of Labourites would also be worth keeping an eye on!
</dreamsarefree>
-
I am delighted for Valerie Adams that she is to be awarded the gold medal - just a shame that it didn't come with the full trappings of dais, anthem, adulation, etc.
I am also somewhat humbled by her dignity leading up to this. Sure, she was very upset but she handled herself so well and was so non-recriminatory about & to the woman who has been held responsible for the omission of her name. Nothing of the prima donna there AFAIAC.
-
Surely if/when the bill gets passed, same-sex couples can get married but not necessarily in the church of their choice. I can't see the problem but that may be because I am not religious and didn't get married in a church.
If you can't get married in the church of your choice it doesn't matter - you can still get married. Why the churches are weighing in so heavily into the debate is beyond me.
I can't see why couples would want to get married in a church where they are not welcome to do so, so the issue of coercion of clergy seems a poisson rouge to me. -
I reckon Islander's got some valid points to make, as someone who actually is a prominent ANZ author, and while she may be a little heavy-handed in giving grief to Graham I think it is fair enough for her to voice her opinions.
In reading the piece I got a frisson of 'name-dropping, much?' * but anything that raises the profile of, and celebrates, ANZ writers is OK by me.
* Largely because I am a crusty irascible twat, but you knew that.
-
Gonna series-link you up, Russ. Brace yourself...
-
When me & my dearly beloved get down to making the "one flesh" it is #goodtimesinthehouse
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Emma Hart,
"marriage" is just the bit where you sign the piece of paper. The rest is a "wedding". Churches do weddings.
Loving this succinct precis.
-
Thank you Chris and Emma for that clarification.
I trust everyone ignores the objections from the church corner - they're already sorted!
-
If/when the bill gets passed and same-sex marriage is legal in Aotearoa, will churches be forced to enact the ceremonies?
Much of the opposition appears to be centred around religion and being married in a church is not the only way to get married. If there is no legal compunction for churches to enact same-sex weddings surely their objection is essentially null? (I can stil see them decrying the 'devaluation' of marriage, despite love of fellow man being a fairly basic tenet of the Christian faith.)
And I completely fail to see how same-sex marriage can compromise the sanctity, or any other subjective quality, of the nay-sayers' relationships... Has it become a zero-sum game? Are they only defined by how different from teh gayz they are?