Search results

True There have been some rather quaint legal rules regarding women and property in the past...

With respect = They're wrong With the greatest respect = They're very wrong With the greatest respect to my learned friend = They're on something illegal

If they what now? I'm not sure how useful it would be to have first-hand information on people's bowel movements

heh heh I was just kidding folks I'm suprised it's legal though...

If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about? ;)

hmm, you shouldn't antagonise him he has a link on his site to miranda divine :rolleyes:

I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea in principle. However, in reality it is probably far too dangerous to implement

Is Joe still teaching the course?

I should be doing my pols assignment, due tomorrow :( the question I chose: it's a sluggish business

It depends if you're interested in it or not; some com/law people find it pretty boring and pursue the degree for their resume/career's sake. I'm not sure if you'll find it interesting or not but here are some potential factors which might mean you would find it interesting: 1. Are you good...

Employment and education - not to mention housing, welfare, health care, etc.

Marriage today is not a religious recognition, it carries social and legal importance. Therefore if it is the religious tradition that is to be preserved, all marriages should be changed to civil unions and then the church can still use the word or concept of marriage without it being "tainted".

You ought to know that "the church not being happy" is not exactly a persuasive argument with me :P Yes I think that's a good idea - it would remove any inequality involved

There is no religious significance to marriage for a lot of people. I'm not religious but I still want to get married. I don't see how religion comes into it. Marriage is today a legal and social recognition. To a proportion of the population it has relgious importance, so what?

Under the particular circumstances I think the right thing to do would be to let him in I mean if someone comes to your door in panic asking for safehaven from some thug, you'd let them in and protect them. It's a fellow human being in dire trouble, why wouldn't you help them But I suppose...

The (obvious) point was you made a huge generalisation based on one example. The argument that "what is natural is right" is pretty flawed. Hurricanes, earthquakes and natural disasters surely aren't good, but they are natural phenomenon. I don't think you'd argue that we should try and enforce...

Probably not, but I assume he thinks a lot of gays are animals

If they allowed him in they would have potentially made their premises unsafe and liable under negligence within occupier's liability - how can you win?

Society should make those sorts of assumptions when we see some actual evidence and research results. In the meantime, it is mere speculation. My dad has black hair and he is smart. Therefore everyone who has black hair is smart. Because animals are such good role models and all. Nevertheless...

:rolleyes: