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.
  • Money? (Score:3, Insightful)

    Let's skip the moral/ethical stuff and get right down to what people are really willing to fight for - money.

    Anyone have any stats on how a federal law that allows same-sex marriage affects insurance, taxes, etc? Or is it insignificant.

    Anyway, the lawyers will be happy if this passes. Just think - an instant 3% increase in divorce court clients!

    • I don't have the stats on hand -- I doubt the government has ever commissioned a study of the financial impact of gay marriages -- but if we consider some of the financial benefits of marriage (and other special rights automatically granted to married couples), then we get quite a list:

      • joint parenting;
      • joint adoption;
      • joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
      • status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
      • Why does this have to be about sex? What about single heterosexuals? What about the celibate? Why not push for equal protection for everyone, where "everyone" doesn't have a little asterisk?

        • I agree completely. I don't think that the special rights that marriage conveys should be something enshrined into law. However, given that married people are going to fight viciously to maintain their special rights, I think the easier tactic is to at least end the discrimination against homosexuals.

          • Money has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with what is moral and right. Same sex marriage is neither. If it takes an act of Congress to cement what a marriage is in stone then so be it. I look at the moral slide this country is making and I do not wonder why talking about God is not allowed anywhere any more. Our founding fathers would weep if they could see us now. And those would not be tears of joy.
            • I look at the moral slide this country is making and I do not wonder why talking about God is not allowed anywhere any more.

              There is nothing wrong with talking about God. There is everything wrong with a government that is supposed to recognize the separation of church and state failing to do so.

              One of the biggest threats our country faces today is the hate and intolerance that the religious right is teaching us. To try and take their values and enshrine them in the Constitution would not only be de

              • There is everything wrong with a government that is supposed to recognize the separation of church and state failing to do so.

                Sorry to inform you that that is NOT in the constitution. At all. Period. Read the document and you will not see it in there.

                One of the biggest threats our country faces today is the hate and intolerance that the religious right is teaching us.

                I do not hate anyone so you are wrong there. You obviously need to look up the word 'intolerant' since you obviously do not understand i

                • Sorry to inform you that that is NOT in the constitution. At all. Period. Read the document and you will not see it in there.

                  You are right. It is an ammendment to the constitution.

                  Meanwhile, slaves were discussed in the constitution. Did that make it right?

                  And... I don't particularly care about homo/hetero-sexual marriage.

                  I believe marriage is a vow between two (or more) people. If those people want to follow some religious teaching... more power to them. And, as you will notice, I see no reason that i
                  • by RobertX (3759) on 2004.02.25 12:09 (#28779)
                    "And, as far as the "line" goes... there is this thing called the age of consent. That is the line."

                    Really? Since sodomy was illegal and now isn't what makes the age of consent out of bounds? Nothing. Get the right Judge on the bench at the supreme court level and wow that changes as well. Never happen? Please. Don't be naive. There is a group called MANBLA that is after just that.

                    "And... it isn't against the law for people of consenting age to have sex with each other. "

                    Actually you are not correct. That is what sodomy was. But now that has been struck down. And if that was struck down so can every other law based on a morality that this country no longer espouses. So how far down that slope are we going to slide now?

                    • Since sodomy was illegal and now isn't what makes the age of consent out of bounds?

                      We, as a country, have a long established history of age based laws. The only thing I can see that will change that... is the far right's insistence of extending "rights" to a fetus. They will (ironically) be the ones to "pierce the veil" of age based laws. But they aren't bright enough to see that...

                      When the mouth and genetials come in contact, you have sodomy [gaylib.com].

                      It isn't just a "gay thing". It is a sexual act.

                      What is "mor
                    • Interested quote from the second article: Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species.

                      Obviously we need a Constitutional Amendment to ensure they cannot be protected by the Endangered Species Acts.

                    • We, as a country, have a long established history of age based laws.

                      We, as a country, have a long established history of marriage based on one man and one woman. If that changes, anything is up for grabs.

                    • We, as a country, had a long history of segregation. We, as a country, had a long history of denying women the right to vote. We, as a country, had a long history of many other things. Similar arguments as yours were raised for segregation and women's suffrage. Just because "that's the way we do things" doesn't make those things "right".

                      Of course, even then your statement is ridiculous. Many states had anti-bigamy laws, but it wasn't until the Morrill Act of 1962 that the we outlawed bigamy "as a cou

                    • I find this kind of argument completely silly. More than 450 species of animals eat raw meat and go naked out of their nests/holes/etc. Should humans do the same thing? Bloody hell no -- I wouldn't, for sure. Even if there was no homosexuality at all in nature, that wouldn't justify discrimation against human homosexuality in any way.
                    • Well, actually, before I became a vegetarian, I used to eat raw meat all of the time. I had no problem with a nice, raw steak with a bit of salt (I'm not kidding.) As for being naked, I really don't have a problem with that, either, but US society has clearly identitified Janet Jackson's right tit as a greater threat to society than watching murder acted out on TV, so who am I to argue with such brilliant reasoning? Now if you had pointed out that cats often cripple their prey and play with it before eat

                    • Instead, I *think* the original poster of that link was pointing out that homosexuality is not this unnatural abomination that it's often painted as.

                      That was the intent.
                    • What does marriage have to do with "anything"?

                      You aren't seriously saying that there is a relationship between marriage and sex are you?

                      The correlation is weak, at best.

                      This entire issue is about discrimination... not sex.

                      Passing a constitutional ammendment limiting marriage to a man and woman changes nothing about sex.

                      It simply codifies the preferential treatment the government gives married people as a legal form of discrimination against people of the same gender.

                      Seriously, is that the only qualifi