Raycom-- Re: "partner", I could have worded it better. I think "partner' is suitable if a couple are not legally married but living as if they were, or if they are of the same gender. Neither can be said to be married. Marriage--is a contract between a man and a woman usually ( but not always) with the aim of having children.

I agree with not messing with the English language e.g the silliness of referring to actors and actresses as actors

Noelreg,

Language is not a static entity.

It's constantly evolving.

i acordan eac Noelreg... titigga eac hwam gere? Hwam ymbutan baem 12 aeldu? Faciunthic sy sum earnung cwide.

Ah, the good days of (Old) English – before any of this modern nonsense…

@david f

>> "Several years ago a man said to me, "You are not going to like what I have to say." Then he launched into an attack on George Bush 2. He assumed that because I am an American I then must bear the responsibility for what Dubya did whether or not I approve of Dubya. I am an American. However, that does not mean I should be found guilty for whatever my country does.

I don't think that analogy is apt. That you happen to live in a particular country doesn't mean you actively support the current Government's politics.

A better analogy would be if you had told that man that you were a member of a neo-Nazi political party. Would it not have been appropriate then for him to have assumed you support a neo-Nazi ideology?

Same thing when people identify as Catholics.

>> "I plead guilty to wanting to make everyone behave according to my spiritual best-guesses. I would like everyone to accept people as individuals and not regard them as an enemy because of the group they belong to."

I don't regard Catholics enemies simply because of the group they belong to. I regard them as enemies because of what belonging to that group necessarily entails; what it requires them to think and to do, natch.

Hi Jimmy,

With respect to "I don't regard Catholics [as] enemies simply because of the group they belong to. I regard them as enemies because of what belonging to that group necessarily entails; what it requires them to think and to do, natch."

What if someone was a member of the Catholic Church and had identified certain aspects of the theology and praxis which warranted reform - or abandonment - and were working internally towards that?

Would you still regard them as enemies, Jimmy?

>>I regard them as enemies because of what belonging to that group necessarily entails; what it requires them to think and to do, natch.<<

It doesn't necessarily entail anything except identifying as a Catholic: people have different ideas about what that means. For some people it's just writing 'Catholic' on the census form and some vague belief in God; for other people it's Mass every holy day of obligation and rosaries and confessions in their spare time.

Catholics come in all shapes, sizes and political outlooks: it is fair to say that the Catholic Church has more than its fair share of homophobic dicks but as with any large organisation there are all types of people and that includes plenty who see no conflict between their faith and tolerance.

And they certainly don't all toe the party line and agree with every thing the Church says because it's the Church. These are people not sheep and they are naturally going to find fault with their leadership and their policies. Most of the Catholics I know think that our nob - Cardinal Pell - is a knob: and not just the laymen. I think you'd pleasantly surprised to hear what some of the priests I've met think about Pell and his ultra-conservative crap.

Cheers,

Tony