skirtcafe.org

couyalair wrote:I,d love to know:

I wonder too whether Taj,s list of knots meant anything to the Brits and Irish, or vice versa.

Martin

No hidden message from me except a bit of dry humor. I use those knots plus a few others occasionally. As a sailor for the USA I turned wrenches most of the time which limited my need for rigging knots.

The question seems a little strange but I have a favorite knot: a garlic knot. Beside this, when I started my career in dredging (I'm Dutch!) I had to learn to splice rope and steel wire and a few basic knots. It could save my life they said but most knots are forgotten and I'm still alive (more or less).

Ah! I have used it several times. It isn't a knot which I have needed often and I can't think where I would use it on my boat, I am always ready to learn though!

I use the Knots that are exactly 1852 metres long.
Jan.

janrok wrote:I use the Knots that are exactly 1852 metres long.
Jan.

Well, I think that to get a knot of those 1852 metres you need one hour.

I think this thread may be "tied out" now.
One thing intrigues me, does the knot you use determine the skirt you wear?
For some this may even be a "naughty" question.
Steve.

Why knot?

Another slant on this: As of yesterday over (down?) in Sassannachshire Gay Couples can now tie the Knot.....and shure, why knot, as B&B sez.

My opinion is that they ought to have invented another word for that, as the word Marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman for the procreation of the Human Race.

Although the protagonists' feelings may be the same, the purpose of such unions is altogether different. (Thread drift!)

Tom.

Just came across this pic. which I had lost.

It solves the knotty problem of tying up for lunch on a blisteringly hot day in late June on the 36th parallel in the E. Mediterranean.
Two loops round a convenient little rock and a left-handed bowline courtesy of Yours Truly.

Swim first, followed by a serious salad lunch in the cockpit under the bimini, washed down with moderate libations of beer or wine.
Nothing better!

Tom.

Kirbstone wrote:My opinion is that they ought to have invented another word for that, as the word Marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman for the procreation of the Human Race.

What, then, of transgenders marrying. What if no children will ever be involved in a relationship of a born-male and born-woman? It quickly gets to be a sticky question.

The way I see it is that marriage involves certain very specific legal rights and responsibilities (e.g. inheritance and health-care rights) that are administered by and seen to by the State -- not the (or a) church or any other non-state entity. Since in all non-theocratic states religion is technically excluded from primacy, the matter then becomes one of contract law, and what right does the State have to forbid any individual or class of individuals from entering into contracts for any legal reason?

If a certain organization (e.g. a church) takes such offence that it cannot sanction the idea, then it's the right of that organization to not enter into the contract with the couple to solemnize their decision on the organization's premises. It is not the right of the organization to attempt to forbid, using (usurping) the power of the State, the two individuals undertaking that decision.

Kirbstone wrote:Two loops round a convenient little rock and a left-handed bowline courtesy of Yours Truly.

That's a seriously beautiful shot, Tom. How'd you get it an keep the camera dry at the same time?

Hi Carl,

Finding pics like that makes me want to go there again ASAP. I rowed ashore in the dinghy in my normal (for there!) clothes, so my little digital camera in my pocket was dry. After lunch and a good siesta I donned my little rubber slip-on swimshoes , swam over the the rock & let go. The volcanic rocks there are very sharp and rubber slip-ons are advised.

When I briefly touched on the hot potato subject of Gay Marriage I didn't mention anything about anybody forbidding it. It conveys the same legal & social rights (and not before time) as traditional marriage has done. The debate here is among religious groups about solemnising it in churches/mosques/synagogues. While the secular State laws have been updated to include it, there will be some time lapse before religious solemnisation will be widely embraced.

The new Chief Rabbi of Great Britain was on the BBC radio 4 this morning and when drawn on the subject of Gay Marriage he was quick to start off with the fact that ALL Jewish people are very welcome to their religious gatherings, but he said that they would not be solemnising gay marriages in a religious sense. They must remain secular.

This is my view, also.

Tom

Kirbstone wrote:Finding pics like that makes me want to go there again ASAP.

I can see why!

When I briefly touched on the hot potato subject of Gay Marriage I didn't mention anything about anybody forbidding it. It conveys the same legal & social rights (and not before time) as traditional marriage has done. The debate here is among religious groups about solemnising it in churches/mosques/synagogues. While the secular State laws have been updated to include it, there will be some time lapse before religious solemnisation will be widely embraced.

I was specifically referring to some of the insanity and incongruity we have in the USA where it's legal in some jurisdictions, illegal in others, and no reciprocity between the states on the matter. So, it's possible to be married in one spot and not a couple of miles away. This can have a profound impact on things for the individuals involved as if something happens to one (e.g. a car crash in which one partner is injured) the other has no rights to participate or advise in the medical care of the partner. That's profoundly unfair.

As far as individual non-governmental agents' treatment of the matter, what they say or do with their own private property is their business and nobody else's.

In any event, any time one is broaching "hot-button" issues it's vitally important to stay civil and on-topic. I'm quite impressed with how well the collection of individuals here behave. It's very rare indeed that we go completely off the rails.

Tom, regarding thread drift, I think the opening poster left it open to anything to which the word "knot" can be appropriately used, and it is the rest of us who (mostly) set the topic to be arrangements of line - though the whole thing surely belongs in Off Topic.

crfriend wrote:The way I see it is that marriage involves certain very specific legal rights and responsibilities (e.g. inheritance and health-care rights) that are administered by and seen to by the State -- not the (or a) church or any other non-state entity. Since in all non-theocratic states religion is technically excluded from primacy, the matter then becomes one of contract law, and what right does the State have to forbid any individual or class of individuals from entering into contracts for any legal reason?

If a certain organization (e.g. a church) takes such offence that it cannot sanction the idea, then it's the right of that organization to not enter into the contract with the couple to solemnize their decision on the organization's premises. It is not the right of the organization to attempt to forbid, using (usurping) the power of the State, the two individuals undertaking that decision.

This sums up my opinion on the subject quite well. The state side provides a framework of contracts for certain relations in the public sphere for two who trust each other and wish to live together for the rest of their lives, a set of contracts that is hard to get recognized if drawn up any other way. The religious folk don't seem willing to acknowledge even the slightest fraction of that, though.

I would be quite willing to see added to any law allowing gay civil (state) marriage language that (in my best facsimile of legalese): "This law shall not be construed as to require any religious group or entity to sanctify or hold ceremony for any 'marriage' that defies the tenets of said religion. However, the preceding sentence shall not permit such a group to deny any rights granted one spouse by the other through civil marriage." The second part probably needs work by someone better versed in legalese, but this might at least take some of the wind out of the religious folk's sails (to keep this somewhat nautical:)).

Well, time to get to work so I can reach my goal at which point I will start skirting and brave the (probably non-extant) storms.

Tor wrote:Tom, regarding thread drift, I think the opening poster left it open to anything to which the word "knot" can be appropriately used, and it is the rest of us who (mostly) set the topic to be arrangements of line - though the whole thing surely belongs in Off Topic.

It may well get moved at some point, and I've been contemplating that. Of note is that some of the more interesting and, indeed, thought-provoking bits in this community do surface in the "Off Topic" section.

I must admit to laughing out loud regarding one chap's (proper) assertion that, "It'll take an hour to make that true" (or something very much to the effect, referring, of course, to the use of the term knot as being the traverse of one minute of longitude, at the equator, in one hour of time).

I would be quite willing to see added to any law allowing gay civil (state) marriage language that (in my best facsimile of legalese): "This law shall not be construed as to require any religious group or entity to sanctify or hold ceremony for any 'marriage' that defies the tenets of said religion. However, the preceding sentence shall not permit such a group to deny any rights granted one spouse by the other through civil marriage." The second part probably needs work by someone better versed in legalese, but this might at least take some of the wind out of the religious folk's sails (to keep this somewhat nautical:)).

I worked on the notion of "gay" (and I admit to really hating that term) marriage as contract law for some time, and am actually quite happy with the way it sorted out. It requires precisely no changes to other law (case or precedent) or even special verbiage: it's merely an interpretation of what the notion of marriage actually is -- and, even in historical times, when sometimes the law was administered by various religious authorities it's always been such a matter. Two individuals enter into a binding long-term contract with one another to protect their interests in the face of competition -- nothing anywhere explicitly states, other than for the sole point of (temporal) convention that the "institution" MUST be "between a man and a woman" (why not "a woman and a man"?).

Well, time to get to work so I can reach my goal at which point I will start skirting and brave the (probably non-extant) storms.

If you are comfortable with (1) who you are, (2) what you are, and (3) the look you choose to wear you will be fairly well immune to criticism -- especially shallow criticism.