Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

The Meaning of Marriage

Entry 1521, on 2013-04-19 at 14:04:43 (Rating 4, News)

The biggest local story here in New Zealand over the last few days has been the passing of same-sex marriage legislation, making us the 13th country in the world, and the first in the Asia-Pacific region, to legalise same-sex marriage. Considering we have a conservative government this is quite an impressive achievement and shows what happens when MPs are allowed to vote based on their conscience instead of voting for what their party tells them to.

Surely all votes should work this way. Apart from the dictatorial NZ First party all the others have members who voted for the legislation even when you might not expect it (Act and United Future for example). You have to ask if these votes are "conscience votes", does that mean that the others require some MPs to vote against their conscience? Is that really OK?

Anyway the vote was fairly comprehensive in the end - 77 for and 44 against - which is considerably better than the more common 61 to 60 votes we get when people vote based on their party's orders rather than what they think is right.

Of course the more conservative (and nutty) parts of society are already predicting disaster just like they did when other controversial social laws were passed.

When homosexuality was made legal, when prostitution was made legal, and when the anti-smacking law was passed the more extreme conservatives predicted disaster but of course nothing happened.

Let's look at some of the ignorant, bigoted comments about similar changes in the past.

When the homosexual law reform bill was passed in 1986 some politicians predicted that it would cause a decline in morality, that homosexuals would come to New Zealand in their thousands, and that the country would be a Mecca for homosexuality and sodomy. I see no signs that this has happened.

When the civil union legislation was passed the Destiny Church suggested that we should not forget the name of Lord God Almighty (what is that exactly?) and organised a march of 5000 people against it. They predicted legalised child sex and bigamy would be next. Again, I see no signs that this has happened.

When the prostitution law reform law (decriminalising prostitution) was passed in 2003 there were predictions it would lead to more prostitutes. A later review showed no signs that this has happened.

When the ani-smacking law was passed there were dire predictions that innocent people would be prosecuted for reasonable discipline of their children. Since 2007 there have been 8 prosecutions for smacking, and the police (hardly a source of liberal propaganda) say the guidelines are working fine. So yet again there are no signs that the bad predicted outcomes are real.

So what predictions are we getting this time?

Family First predicts marriage celebrants will be bullied into performing same-sex marriages against their will. This right is specifically protected in the law and who would want a ceremony to be performed by someone who doesn't want to do it anyway? It's just silly, bigoted nonsense.

The National Marriage Coalition says it will be an open door to group relationships and incest type marriages. This is the old slippery slope argument. Another good one is the prediction that people will be able to marry animals in the future. There is a general trend to liberalisation of laws and who knows, maybe one day group marriages will be OK, after all many respected characters in the Bible had multiple wives, so it must be OK!

The Catholic Bishop of Auckland tried really hard to sound reasonable and to not admit that his objections were based on the intolerant ideas promoted by his belief system. But you could see they were, and it was hard to listen to a member of the Catholic Church lecture the rest of us on the topic of sexual morality. Is it possible to think of anyone with less credibility on the subject?

He made a few vague references to it being a sad day for New Zealand, and to re-defining the meaning of marriage being bizarre, and not being sure what the implications might be for the future (presumably his god will take a terrible revenge on us after he has dealt with the other 12 countries who have already taken this step).

After all of this mindless drivel it was refreshing to hear from a supporter of the bill who treated the subject with intelligence and humour. He described how he had received messages from Christians threatening eternal torment in Hell. He replied that he had calculated the thermodynamics of burning in Hell and it would take only a few seconds for him to be consumed: a sacrifice he was prepared to risk! Ridicule of primitive superstition is great!

But the way so many believers react so badly in these situations is bizarre. They are always so intolerant and unforgiving. Didn't they listen to what Jesus told them? As I always say: if you really want to see an example of true evil have a look at religion!

Many people ask me why I care. Well that's the whole point, I shouldn't. I'm not gay, and I don't know any gay people who want to get married, so why should I care? It's just a matter of fairness. The people who object to this law might find gay and lesbian lifestyles unpleasant, and it's their choice to feel that way, but what real difference does it make to them if same-sex marriage is allowed or not?

Some people say it discredits the "real" meaning of marriage. I would say that there are plenty of heterosexual couples who have done a good job of that already. Celebrity marriages which last a few days, people who marry multiple times and split up seemingly at a whim, married couples where the relationship is maintained through violence and intimidation. What else could possibly make it worse than it already is?

Another argument is that marriage is primarily to produce children and gays can't do that. Well neither can post-menopausal women or people with various medical disorders. Should that be a pre-requisite for being allowed to marry as well?

In reality there is no good reason not to allow same-sex marriage. There is really only one (bad) reason to reject it in the final analysis: that the objector is uncomfortable with same-sex relationships. Well they are a fact and it's time to grow up and accept them even if you don't like them. Progress is inevitable and by trying to halt it, especially by presenting dishonest objections which disguise your real opinions, you just look like a fool.

And just like with past changes of this sort, in a few years we will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.

Comment 1 (3500) by Richard Coulbeck on 2013-04-20 at 15:45:01:

Ok Owen, once again, I have taken the (rather obvious) bait. We shouldn’t be surprised by now that what should have been a rational, balanced, courteous and reasoned debate on the important topic of Marriage, has quickly turned into your standard attack on religion (or in fact anyone that doesn’t share your view). I would remind you of the meaning of the word 'bigot' that you have used throughout the post. This is taken straight from the internet, but I think you will agree is close enough: “A person who is extremely intolerant of another's creed, belief, or opinion”. It’s a word that is bandied about way to often, and too often used to shut down reasoned debate, which means it can be hard for the user to avoid the same label. The key principle is of course ‘tolerance’. Does your article overall reflect the tolerance of others ‘creed, belief, or opinion’ that you are asking others to demonstrate?

In my response, I am actually less focussed on the topic itself, even though of course there is much to debate and I am concerned about that too, but more interested in addressing the inflammatory and downright misleading statements you have made. Unfortunately, there are so many…

Firstly though, I DO agree with you on a few points. There has indeed (unfortunately), been plenty of embarrassingly silly behaviour from religious people in this debate, but it is wrong to place all people with belief into the same ‘nutty’ bucket. There are nutty Christians out there just as there are nutty atheists but highlighting this doesn’t do anything to provide the slightest clarity or truth on any particular topic under debate. The media has a clear social agenda when it highlights such ‘nonsense’, and preventing access to the more ‘reasonable’ debaters on many similar topics.

Also - I for one totally understand your implied point that invoking any religious or ‘Theistic’ arguments for any particular position on any topic, is completely meaningless and pointless to those who disregard theism. It’s a simple issue of ‘authority’, and there are literally only two choices here – we either DO answer to a ‘higher authority’ or we don’t, and if you believe we don’t, then asking you to behave in a certain way, (as apparently decreed by that authority) is equally pointless. I get that, as I suspect do most thinking theists.

Bear in mind again though as an aside, that those (like yourself) that have concluded there is NO higher authority, also have NO valid place for any complaints or statements like this one you made: “As I always say: if you really want to see an example of true evil have a look at religion”.

Evil – whats that under your philosophical naturalist worldview? Answer: There is absolutely no such thing – there is only different physical/chemical brain states resulting in all beliefs and all behaviours, whether that’s heroism/cowardice, homo/hetero, altruism/selfishness, nuture/torture, or pro gay marriage/against. All the above are equally ‘natural’ and equally ‘valid’, without any reference or ‘standard’ sourced outside of ‘human culture’. You know you are borrowing from a theistic worldview when you use any reference to ‘evil’. You might say that it’s right we demand that we should all ‘act’ in a way that ‘promotes human flourishing’, but why? Even that is inappropriately assigning a theistic notion of ‘good’ to the state of human flourishing . Does the ‘impersonal universe’ care a jot if we flourish as a species – Nope – then why ‘on earth’ should we?! You are prompted only by your impartial physical chemistry to write your blog and I am prompted by my chemistry to write mine. There is no place for any ‘complaints’ about either of them - under your world view. Conveniently for me though, my world view does allow me a grounding for complaint! LOL

Anyway – to the specific ‘complaints’ re your post... they are on the way...

Comment 2 (3501) by Richard on 2013-04-20 at 15:46:13:

1 – Most of your post is re ‘doom and gloom’ predictions. Note carefully first that I am certainly not in the camp of making any such predictions, as I agree that these are way too often ‘overstated’. I am merely pointing out, that the single argument you have made (multiple times) is invalid. You claim that because in the last 20 years or so you have not seen any significant changes, that prediction arguments are obviously flawed. IF such changes were going to happen, it is reasonable to assume they would take more like 80-100 years to realise, i.e. when the generations who grew up pre-change are no longer around to impart any parental/grandparental ‘social influence’. Even disregarding the question of how to accurately measure such changes, they occur as subsequent generations are born in the ‘post change state’. This is obvious, when you compare ‘now’ to 80 years ago, rather than 20 years ago. Remember, this is not at all about whether any of the particular changes are in fact ‘good/desirable or bad’, but whether you have been correct in dismissing predictions at this early stage.

Comment 3 (3502) by Richard on 2013-04-20 at 15:47:30:

2 – You have claimed that all opposers to the bill, are doing so simply because of an ‘unpleasant’ reaction to the homosexual lifestyle, and that simply because they are (quote) ‘uncomfortable’ with same sex relationships, they wish to impose their moral view. Similarly, you have labelled all opponents ‘intolerant’. This is largely incorrect, unfair, and downright insulting. Are their ‘bigots’ out there who are reacting in this way alone – yes there are. Some are even Christians. This notion that Christians are somehow ‘special’ and won’t make the same mistakes everyone else does is certainly not a part of the religion itself, so why are you assuming it? However, it is completely unfair to apply the bigot label across the board.

Do Christians feel uncomfortable by these behaviours – ‘as dictated by their beliefs’ – yes of course. It should be obvious though to most reasonable folk that any sense of ‘uncomfortableness’ felt by Christians regarding homosexuality / same sex marriage, and in fact any other behaviours listed as (shall we say) ‘contrary’ is not born of any sense of personal abhorrence or superiority at all, rather more it is likened only to the sense of uncomfortableness that would be felt if countless people choose to drive past a ‘Danger - Bridge Out’ sign and off a 200 foot high broken bridge. Clearly the motivation to ‘warn of perceived imminent danger’ is a selfless, not a selfish nor intolerant one, and that should be understood, or dare I even use the word ‘appreciated’, by reasonable thinkers. We would applaud as a hero the person frantically waving a warning to drivers on such a bridge. As I stated above though, there is no place in Christianity for any ‘enforcement’ to believe the warning, and anyone has (and should have) the freedom to make a decision to ignore the warning because they don’t believe the ‘signs’ are true. However, it is completely unfair ‘bigoted’ nonsense to suggest that Christians MUST be ‘comfortable’ with a law change, that they see as equivalent to putting a ‘New Motorway Onramp’ sign on that same bridge. To make that demand is the true definition of intolerance, when the freedom to ignore the sign has not been affected.

To use your phrasing Owen, I suggest that maybe you should understand that this is: “a fact and it's time to grow up and accept them even if you don't like them”.

Comment 4 (3503) by Richard on 2013-04-20 at 15:50:50:

Having said the above – it is also not true that I was opposed to this bill due to the above ‘religious conviction’ alone. As mentioned, that holds no ‘weight in an atheist society ’. I (and the vast majority of ‘thinking’ opponents), object on the basis of independent research that indicates that (overall, ie taking into account all the exceptions you can come up with, where this ‘ideal’ isn’t possible) that childrens outcomes ARE in fact better, when raised in a stable ‘family unit’ consisting of their two biological parents. Not a moral judgement in the slightest – just fact. I will post references in a subsequent comment.

Rather than the ‘I WANT the marriage label too’ motivations of the proponents of this bill (and note that this is the ONLY justification we have heard, ‘I want this, I want respect’ etc), opponents are more motivated by considering the future children who are denied access to their best chances of success – namely a mummy and a daddy. This is why bucket loads of ‘tolerance’ has already been granted by society, (and rightly so), such that gay couples ALREADY enjoy ALL legal protection and recognition under the law, access to ALL the same ‘rights’ and respect as a marriage (by way of their civil unions), to publically declare their long term love for each other, why have you not considered that perhaps, they are the ones who have been intolerant, i.e. not prepared to ‘tolerate’ the status quo, for the sake of countless future childrens outcomes.

Comment 5 (3504) by Richard on 2013-04-20 at 15:54:30:

3 – ‘This is the old Slippery Slope’ – I’ve already said that it is true that some slippery slope type predictions have indeed been overstated. However that is not the point though of such an argument, and you know it, and it’s not the point of most bill opponents who grasp this simple fact. SS arguments are valid not on the basis of whether they are likely to actually happen or not. They are true simply IF the reasons justifying the first change apply equally to any other conceivable change. What this means is NOT that polygamous marriage is ‘inevitable’ – no one can predict or should rightly claim that. It IS simply undeniable though that there is now NO logical or reasonable rational by which such unions can be dismissed in future, once you have made an arbitrary decision that marriage can be redefined at all. You did of course acknowledge that (and by implication the SS argument) in your post. So the real question that should have been considered, is whether any change proposed is worth ALL conceivable SS consequences. Clearly proponents feel that it is. I don’t think it was worth it, given the alternatives available that should have satisfied ‘tolerant’ people.

4 – Celebrity Couples and countless other heterosexuals who do not take marriage vows seriously, or even worse violent marriages, is all incredibly sad indeed, but it has no affect whatsoever on the ‘real meaning’ of marriage. That is a statement about them, not about the model of ‘real marriage’. Invalid red-herring.

5 – Likewise you asked ‘Should couples not be allowed to marry’ as a response to the argument that Marriage is primarily about children and families. On the contrary, the fact that infertile couples can and do marry still promotes the ideal ‘model’ of marriage (1 man & 1 woman, not immediate family) that society should promote as ‘ideal’ given that it produces the best statistical chance of overall success factors for offspring. Invalid argument again.

That's all - obviously another 'provoking' article - thanks & Cheers!

Comment 6 (3505) by Richard on 2013-04-20 at 16:24:56:

As promised: A reference to research on the outcomes of adult children of same sex relationships here.

Comment 7 (3506) by OJB on 2013-04-20 at 20:56:29:

In response to your first post...

This question of tolerance is one which is being debated in the atheist community. The question is this: should we be tolerant of intolerance? I think there are things it is OK to be intolerant of (people trying to push their opinions on others through laws, etc) and things which we should be tolerant of (reasoned debate even if it does become somewhat critical).

I don't think I suggested all religious people were intolerant and bigoted. The closest thing I said was "so many believers". You used the phrase "nutty atheists". Could you name one?

You say there is no basis for belief in morality and evil in an atheist worldview. I disagree. Morality comes from a code of conduct which has evolved among humans as a result of being a social species. This may not be as absolute as one imposed by a god but at least it is based on reality.

Religious morality only works if the god imposing it exists. Not only that but that god must be totally good and competent. I would say the Christian god clearly doesn't exist, and even if he did his goodness and competence would be very open to question. Therefore any morality arising from him is worse than no morality at all.

Comment 8 (3507) by OJB on 2013-04-20 at 21:04:37:

Regarding comment 2...

If you look at the specific predictions I listed you will see that none of them suggested the changes would take decades to become apparent. It seems to me the suggestion was that these things would happen more or less straight away.

And how you would even know that any social change decades in the future (especially 80 to 100 years) was the result of a minor law change today is difficult to say.

Comment 9 (3508) by Richard on 2013-04-20 at 21:06:40:

Hmm - the last post should have read "5 - Likewise you asked 'should INFERTILE couples not be allowed to marry...'. I had the missing word in angle brackets (since it was just a paraphrase of your quote). Did your wonderful Mac blog software remove it by any chance? Cheers!

Comment 10 (3509) by OJB on 2013-04-20 at 21:12:44:

Regarding comment 3 (you labelled 2)...

Again I don't think I said anywhere that all Christians are bigots but a very common cause of bigotry is religion. I certainly don't think Christians do have or should have higher standards than anyone else. Quite the contrary!

Christians, just like anyone else, are perfectly entitled to oppose any law change which affects them. But as I said in the post, how does this law really do that? Whether same-sex couples live together under a label of marriage or civil union surely doesn't affect them.

So why do Christians have to try to block a law change which can make one group in society feel happier and more accepted without any real negative effects on them? There's no good reason I can think of - but I can think of some bad ones!

Comment 11 (3510) by OJB on 2013-04-20 at 21:19:11:

And on to comment 4...

Social science research tends to lead to contradictory and difficult to analyse results. If you have research which indicates children with gay "parents" have worse outcomes than those in "traditional" families then I respect that, but I am assured by experts that the balance of research shows no consistent difference.

Also, I didn't criticise anyone who opposed the law because of scientific evidence but at the same time I didn't see a single person quote any. Clearly the objections of the vast majority were based on personal opinion and I suspect (but of course can't prove) that anyone who claims to have real evidence is just cherry picking the findings to fit the beliefs they already have.

Comment 12 (3511) by OJB on 2013-04-20 at 21:31:29:

Right, number 5 (your 3, 4, and 5)...

Actually I don't know it. These people often use deliberately silly slippery slope arguments to try to make rhetorical points. Have you heard the "today gay marriage, tomorrow marry your dog" arguments? If that isn't a slippery slope argument I would like to know what is!

The possibility that the current changes might be extended further in the future cannot be used as an argument against them. In certain countries inter-racial marriage was illegal. Was it bad to redefine marriage there (to allow races to marry) or should they be concerned that next thing people will be marrying the neighbours Labrador?

I don't believe the bad marriage argument is invalid. If one of the arguments against same-sex marriage is that it lessens the dignity of marriage then we must first show that it has dignity to start with. In so many cases now it doesn't.

And (you will be unsurprised to hear) I also reject your criticism of the producing offspring argument. If that is the specific criticism then it shouldn't be used against just one type of couple who can't have children. If the specific problem is that married couples should be able to have children then that requirement should apply to them all.

Thanks for the discussion. I know that there are many people who read my thoughts and disagree but don't comment. I really appreciate those who do - even if I do still think they're wrong! :)

Comment 13 (3512) by OJB on 2013-04-20 at 21:33:31:

Yeah, angle brackets (< and >) are treated as tags. I wrote this blogging software myself and there are a few things I still need to fix... one day when I stop wasting so much time arguing with people and do some more programming instead! :)

Comment 14 (3513) by OJB on 2013-04-20 at 21:46:04:

As I said, I respect genuine, rational objections which quote real data such as the study you quote which, I must admit, I find quite surprising. However it is dangerous to take a single study too seriously. Generally I think it's safer to accept the position statements of the relevant professional organisations.

Here's a quote from the American Sociological Association on Same-Sex Parenting and Child Outcomes...

The social science consensus is both conclusive and clear: children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents as when they are raised by opposite sex parents. This consensus holds true across a wide range of child outcome indicators and is supported by numerous nationally representative studies.

Comment 15 (3515) by OJB on 2013-04-20 at 22:01:46:

Ah! Now I see what's happening. The study you quote is commonly used by conservative commentators (I wonder where you got it from: a religious or conservative source of some sort?) and has been discredited by a large number of researchers. The study deliberately skews the sampling of families with same-sex parents to get the required result. This is exactly what I mean when I say the results of a single study can be misleading. But, of course, that's what some people want!

Comment 16 (3517) by Richard on 2013-04-22 at 17:24:56:

Thanks in return Owen - Likewise, I totally respect your tenacity, and your right to your view as well, and appreciate the chance for discussion, knowing full well in advance, that we won't agree. Always still enjoyable discussion! I was happy for you to have the last word - it is your blog after all, and will try to when/if you reply. Had only one exception to make though sorry - re your Comment 15. (And sorry btw re the numbers - I'll make sure I just make proper use your comment numbers in future to avoid confusion).

I have mentioned this before too - it's not a good idea to use ad-hominems, which are not really arguments. Even if the source was actually commonly used by conservative or 'religious' commentators, it's not good case making to attempt to devalue the information provided on those grounds alone. The source of any information is in itself pretty irrelevant. After all are you seriously expecting pro-bill supporters to publish that reference for 'us', or conservative commentators to publish your opposing results? Obviously not - the point is no real clarity is provided by your comment 15, or even comment 14, where you too provide a quote from a (single) professional organisation with the view you prefer. :-)

In actual fact the reference I provided is from 'sciencedirect.com' - and the paper from Univ' of Texas. I thought you'd at least have appreciated that domain name. LOL. That paper even begins by noting concerns about previous quoted studies that have used non-representative samples of same sex parents, (and they provide multiple references so that claim can be tested). So of course the point is there is indeed considerable debate on the topic in the research, and it is thus entirely fair to say at very least the jury is still out on the findings. All the more reason to air on the side of caution, before making radical changes - when serious outcomes are at stake, AND when the status quo does NOT really have to impinge on same sex partners human rights at all!

To insist that society isn't actually clever enough to understand the different labels for 'Civil Unions' and 'Marriage' and thus cannot be expected to apply the same respect for both is somewhat insulting to most people I'd have thought. And of course those that are fair enough to apply the same respect for both labels, still won't do it now with newly labelled same sex 'marriages'. So what's the point?

Every year there is Gay Pride week - Do we really think this is a week to celebrate the fact that 'we are all exactly the same' - no it is clearly a chance to declare that while there ARE undeniable differences in lifestyle choice (highlighted pretty clearly in the parades) - that difference should however be accepted and appreciated - fair call too imo! So why not leave Marriage alone and include 'Civil-Union pride' as part of that, to garner society's fuller acceptance of that 'celebrated difference label'? The reason is, they know that most people (i.e. you and me) already understand completely the part about accepting different lifestyle choices. No, they are actually trying to convince us that same-sex marriage is actually EXACTLY the same, when clearly nature, the scientific research, (and our obvious intuition) shows that it is NOT 'the same' (this is not at all a moral distinction at this point) - Equality is NOT calling everything the same, so why insist on the same label? We may as well label a PC a Mac - Sorry Owen - I went too far there!

On a similar note, just claiming that the paper is skewed, doesn't make it so in the slightest. You have actually made quite a serious allegation against the Univ of Texas there. What on earth is their motivation to 'skew the results'?

To illustrate my point another way (wrt ad-hominems not making a case, and this is more for other readers benefit), is that I could copy your Comment 15 word for word, (except for reversing the sources to say athiest, or gay), and the post would appear to have just the same 'rhetorical force', for the opposing side, yet is also not a real 'case'. We should therefore all try to avoid doing that when making a case.

Finally - To end on a big compliment - Congrats on your blog software - it is really really good! No complaint at all about the tags - I'll just know now to avoid them in future. Cheers Owen!

Comment 17 (3518) by Richard on 2013-04-22 at 17:27:49:

Sorry Owen - darn it - where did the word NOT go to. The sentence was supposed to read: And of course those that are NOT fair enough to apply the same respect for both labels, still won't do it now with newly labelled same sex 'marriages'. Cheers.

Comment 18 (3519) by OJB on 2013-04-22 at 20:45:20:

The reason I mentioned the suspected source of that particular study was that it indicated you had started your research from a biased source instead of looking at the total body of literature in the area. I have no proof of this but you can understand my suspicions! And I don't really see it as an ad-hominem.

I realise the paper is from sciencedirect but why did you choose that one (which contradicts the consensus) instead of any other? Can you honestly say you found it as a result of an unbiased search or were you referred there from a conservative or religious blog or other source?

The statement form the "single" organisation (which was the most relevant one I could find and not chosen arbitrarily) did include this statement: "The social science consensus is both conclusive and clear" and "This consensus holds true across a wide range of child outcome indicators and is supported by numerous nationally representative studies". Doesn't sound like a biased view based on a small amount of evidence, does it?

I don't think you can say the jury is still out at all. There is always room for doubt, especially in social science, but the consensus is clear enough according to the experts. This claim of doubt is exactly the same strategy used by other fact denying groups such as global warming deniers and creationists (maybe we shouldn't get started on those though) and is quite dishonest.

The point is that, as a result of a government restriction, a group in society was being denied a right other groups had. I agree it is largely symbolic but that symbolism (and it's presumed lack of practical importance) applies to both supporters and detractors, doesn't it?

I don't think anyone is trying to say gays and straights are the same (I don't think either side wants that), and I agree many people won't see a same-sex marriage as being as good as a heterosexual marriage. That's fair enough. But at least laws now encourage equality. Having equal rights in law and being the same aren't the same thing.

Regarding the alleged errors in the paper. I'm just saying what I have read. I have no idea whether the paper was deliberately skewed or whether there was an error in methodology. It's even possible the claims of an error aren't true. Whatever the case, the consensus is contrary that particular study and there must be some reason for that.

You couldn't reverse comment 15 at all. To do that the consensus would have to be that children of same-sex couples have a worse outcome and that isn't the case.

Again thanks for the debate and thanks for the positive feedback on the software. BTW, did you see my blog entry today? You might also want to comment on that one!

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.