The right is perturbed because men are getting married on Los Lunnis. Their objections are historical rather than theological–no one’s suggesting we respect Genesis 24:3 and 38:6 and allow fathers to select girlies for their sons–and their problem is that the world has moved on. I’d regard myself as a natural PP voter (although that feeling might not be reciprocated), but virtually the only positive proposal I’ve heard from the PP camp since the elections was one made in jest: namely, that if men were to be allowed to marry men, why not allow grandmas to marry their cats? Since marriage now seems to be socially defined as a contractually committed partnership, this seems to me a perfectly reasonable proposition, so long as an animal psychologist can be found to establish that Puss really wants the inheritance. In time, I don’t see why this principle should not be extended to permanently inanimate objects. I can’t see the bicycle saying no, and the hell with Daisy.
- I $hit on your progenitor
I have not the slightest problem with gay marriage (I’d go further and subsume marriage contracts etc under general contractual law
- Facebook: if you form a civil partnership you must be gay
Chez Lexicool, via MM, Katia, who, using Facebook in English, described herself as being in a civil union with Juan, only
- So why shouldn’t I wet my appetite?
I know it’s banned in English, but it seems perfectly natural to me, just as natural as wetting one’s whistle: if
- Ladino lovers in a hole
Just in case you thought Sephardic morality tales were all doom and gloom and putrid canines, here’s one in which true
- Time, a commodity
I always thought that a commodity was an article that could be traded, and that time (99-year lease, delivery in October,