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.
  • I wish people would stay away from the "religious" argument. There is plenty of other stuff to say. Like the lifestyle being bad unhealthy and bad for families. The 5000 years of traditional man+woman marriages around the world. The historical fight for it in America itself. The slippery slope issue. The list goes on and on without it ever being a religious issue.

    Besides, most of the protesters that show up with religious signs for or against couldn't even tell you where Leviticus is found in the Bible. I

    • Isn't the "unhealthiness" of the "lifestyle" related to promiscuity? Do you really think that allowing gays to marry would increase promiscuity? If so, I'd like to hear how you work that out.
      • The fight is about normalizing the homosexual lifestyle, when it is not a normal lifestyle.

        50% of homosexual men over the age of 30, and 75% of homosexual men over the age of forty, experienced no relationships that lasted more than one year. Source: M. T. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation (Baltimore: Williams Wilkins, 1973), pp. 56-57.

        Two homosexual icons, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, wrote this about male homosexuality: " gay men aren't very good

        • Let's assume those stats you dug up have some basis in reality. Should we legally prevent someone from getting married just because they're a member of a group and thus might be at risk? If we do it for gays, why not every other at risk group? Should we take statistics of STDs, divorce, spouse and child abuse rates amongst various ethnic, social, sexual and economic groups and only give out marriage licenses to those who aren't in an at risk group? If we're going to deny people the right to marry based on statistics, let's at least be consistent about it!

          "I'm sorry, you're a poor white heterosexual male and a member of the Republican party. Your father's criminal record shows that there were five domestic disturbance calls to his residence when you were a child. I see you attended a fraternity while at community college. You're in an at risk group likely to beat your wife and have far too many kids. We can't issue you a marriage license."

          In other news, I'm giving you a homework assignment. Go out and dig up some of the statistics used during the 50s and 60s to prove that interracial marriage should be avoided. Compare and contrast with your own stats.