Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • If you care. [slashdot.org] It's not my complete thoughts, but it is a fairly succinct and accurate representation.

    Not that your post is necessarily about gay marriage per se, and more about the arguments, but still.
    • [Just to be clear, I'm not railing at you at all pudge.]

      I've head this one before. Government does legal "unions" between two people, leave "marriage" to the churches who are free to do whatever they want. Church and state remain separated as God and the Founding Fathers intended.

      I like this idea. Anyone can get hitched to anyone else and if they want a marriage they can go to whatever church will take them to put a preacher's stamp on it.

      However, I have seen this used as a hypocritical excuse for peo
      • However, I have seen this used as a hypocritical excuse for people to vote against gay marriage resolutions. "I'm voting against because I don't believe government should say what marriage is". Ok, but meanwhile they are. And isn't it convienient that the existing definition is in your favor? As long as marriage is a legal thing, might as well patch it up as best we can.

        I can understand disliking it, and while it may be hypocritical for some people, it is not necessarily hypocritical.

        I would not vote against gay marriage resolution because government should get out of it, I would vote against it because it is an arbitrary change to a fundamental American institution that much if not most of the country is against. I know it is a bit counterintuitive to be against it because people are against it, but my view on a lot of these social issues -- as a conservative :-) -- is that change should not come until society is ready for it, and it is not.

        It's sorta like how Lincoln was against the legalization of slavery, even though he was against slavery, even though he thought whites superior to blacks. I am against the legalization of gay marriage, even though I am against the discrimination of gays, even though I think homosexuality is a sin. Heh.

        As to the arbitrary thing, it's not that there's not good reason to open it up, but what else would that lead to? What about more than two partners? I am not necessarily opposed to that either, but each move is arbitrary. It's changing based on our changing views, not on the essential nature of the institution. I dislike that as a matter of principle, and that combined with the fact that society really is not ready for it at this time ... that's my big reason to oppose it.

        I would likely also vote against any effort to modify the Constitution, state or federal, to prohibit gay marriage. On the other hand, I might vote for one just to prevent the judiciary from imposing it. If the legislature did it, that's one thing, but the judiciary should not, in my opinion (then again, it depends on what your state constitution says).

        That said, sure, people use hypocritical reasons, including that one, on both sides. But just because some people use a hypocritical reason doesn't mean that everyone who has the view is using it hypocritically. Although, you could say Lincoln's view, and mine, are hypocritical. Perhaps. Sometimes life is complicated that way.
        • If your religion see's gay marriage as a sin then its simple, your religon won't hold gay marriages.

          Shouldn't stop people who disagree having a gay marriage. If marriage is good, then allowing gay marriage is good.

          You can't have it both ways - either its religious and a matter for any given church based on its beliefs, or its secular and a matter for the government based on equality and basic human rights.

          Life isn't that complicated, either you are appeasing bigots or you are a bigot, pick one and adm

          --

          @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
          print reverse @JAPH;
        • I would not vote against gay marriage resolution because government should get out of it, I would vote against it because it is an arbitrary change to a fundamental American institution that much if not most of the country is against.

          This is a fine example of "tyranny of the majority", a danger in democracy acknowledged by the founding fathers and something our Constitution tries to defend against. When an overwhelming majority exists (for example, heterosexuals) they can use that majority to take (or i

          • When an overwhelming majority exists (for example, heterosexuals) they can use that majority to take (or in this case, keep) citzen rights away from minorities (for example, homosexuals).

            If you think civil marriage is a right, that would make some sense. As I do not think civil marriage is a right -- for anyone -- I can't really comment on this. As you say when you try to debunk the idea that marriage is a "fundamental American institution," is marriage mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? No.