RSS

Other…

30 Oct

1. Go to English/ESL — and more today if you enjoy Shakespeare. And YouTube. It’s in the “and more” department really.

2. I see The Rabbit has garnered some serious support for his views on marriage. David Smith was in my Year 10 of 1996 and is now doing a Political Science doctorate in Michigan. UPDATE: Jim Belshaw is intrigued by The Rabbit’s idea as you will see on Let’s take the law out of marriage. I await further developments.

3. I had that postponed blood test today… Two hours. Afterwards I discovered a lovely new coffee shop on Crown Street.

4. Antony will be pleased to know I am watching the wormed version of the Treasurers’ Debate on Nine. Thomas has live blogged it. He must have better typing skills than I have…


5. Daniel (Seeking Utopia) has gone behind a password again. I guess I ought to have seen it coming… I have deleted him from the side bar but the address is still in the main blog roll, just in case. He writes very intense jeremiads mostly, but also some quite beautiful posts. He is undoubtedly sincere but also perhaps expected too much… To each his own way, but I prefer to drop quite serious messages at intervals rather than maintain a constant state of angst. This is partly for my own sake; after all one function of blogging, for me, is to relax a bit, to unwind, if sometimes to vent, sometimes be silly… Whatever.

Site Meter

Advertisements
 
2 Comments

Posted by on October 30, 2007 in blogging, Cultural and other, Personal, Surry Hills

 

Tags: ,

2 responses to “Other…

  1. AV

    October 31, 2007 at 12:16 pm

    Re: the Rabbit’s views on marriage . . . I think that if the endgame is getting rid of legal discrimination against gays and lesbians, then making marriage a purely private affair is a very good idea. I’ve never really supported the idea of civil unions because

    (i) if they grant less rights and privileges than legal marriages, they are unjustly discriminatory,
    (ii) if they grant equal rights and privileges as are granted to legally married couples, then you have pointless duplication: two legal institutions where one will suffice.

    If there are good reasons for the state to be involved in legal unions (whether heterosexual or homosexual), then perhaps civil unions ought to replace legal marriages.

    That way, those with an emotional investment in keeping marriage heterosexual/religious are free to define it thus in private, and should be mollified. The only people with cause for complaint, then, will be those with an emotional investment in maintaining unjust legal discrimination against gays and lesbians.

     
  2. Bruce

    November 3, 2007 at 2:22 am

    To each his own way, but I prefer to drop quite serious messages at intervals rather than maintain a constant state of angst. This is partly for my own sake; after all one function of blogging, for me, is to relax a bit, to unwind, if sometimes to vent, sometimes be silly… Whatever.

    Hmm, I think I set myself a bit too serious a remit with “The Thinkers Podium” and occasionally I need a silly rant like the older days. Good for the mind.

    I just need an out clause. 😉

     
 
%d bloggers like this: