[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 11:30:57PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:15, Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> wrote:
> > The Anglican church is, in fact, the most likely among anyone except the
> > UUs to (eventually) decide that it's OK, for the same reasons that they
> > have (now) decided that it's OK to have gay clergy and formal recognition
> > of committment ceremonies (they won't call it marriage, or treat it as
> What are the UUs?

Universal Unitarians. Sort of a cross between Christianity Lite and Pagan
Lite; a very "feel good" religion, for the most part.

> One Anglican minister I knew told me of a couple who had been living together 
> ("living in sin" as some people will say) for several years.  They approached 
> him about arranging a wedding ceremony, and he suggested that they need not 
> bother as having established commitment through living together for so long 
> was good enough.
> Of course lots of vicars won't share that opinion.  But in urban areas it's 
> pretty common to shop around for a vicar who's opinions agree with yours 
> anyway.

Well, yes. Like I said, many individual persons don't have any problem with
what I do, particularly not once they see the relationship for any length
of time. It's the collective that has issued policy statements condemning
it, and *that* tends to influence a lot of people's assumptions.

In other words, it's very much like someone saying "Black people are all
stupid and evil. Present company excepted, of course". (Note that I'm not
trying to claim the breadth or depth of bias that was, and often still is,
directed against that particular group; it's just an example that most
people will be able to put into context.)
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>                                        ,''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter                                       : :' :
                                                                     `. `'

Attachment: pgpJncfI9_SRq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: