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.

          • by RobertX (3759) on 2004.02.24 18:43 (#28752)
            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
                  • "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.

                    • 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
              • I don't understand why Americans are so much attached to their constitution. A constitution that does not mandate absolute separation of church of state is anti-democratic; be it two centuries old or not. One of the problems here is that some people continue to think that civil marriage and the form of marriage practiced in their favourite religion are related in some way; they are not. Several religions authorize polygamy; should a government allow it, then? So why a government should ban a form a marriage
                • I've been hearing the "no separation of church and state" claim for a while now. People who utter it are absolutely right that those exact words are not in the Constitution. However, they're dead wrong that it's not mandated. I don't know who started this ridiculous lie, but many people have been parroting it blindly that it's become this piece of Right Wing Christian propaganda that they keep throwing at unsuspecting people (mind you, I have no problem with Christians or people who are right wing, thoug

                  • No it isn't in there. It isn't even implied. That whole argument is from taking one statement out of context from a letter written to a church that was afraid another church was getting "national" status like the church of England. That is a historical FACT. Nothing you can say changes it. You are part of the "say it long enough and a lie becomes the truth crowd".

                  • No, there is nothing in the Constitution mandating a separation of church and state, as that phrase is understood today. The very assertion is ridiculous, because the people who wrote, voted, and ratified the First Amendment used religion in the government in many ways.

                    Maybe you mean something different by "separation of church and state" than most people today do. Most people think it forbids putting the Ten Commandments on the wall of a government building; the historical context does not support that
                • A constitution that does not mandate absolute separation of church of state is anti-democratic

                  No, you have it backwards: any Constitution that DOES that is anti-democratic. If you tell people they cannot have laws that mandate Christian teaching in public schools, even if a majority favor such a law, you are rejecting their rights as a democracy. This is an issue of liberty, not of democracy, and it is why the U.S. is a Republic, not a Democracy.

                  One of the problems here is that some people continue to
                  • I don't agree with the 1st point : a democracy, besides listening to the majority of citizens, is built on a small set of moral principles, notably that every citizen is equal under the law. A government that has a religious bias (or a public school, part of the governement) is simply promoting religious discrimination, which isn't better than racial or sexual discrimination.

                    I remember, when civil unions were introduced in France, a far-right deputee who was against them waved a Bible in the Assembly. This

                    • A government that has a religious bias (or a public school, part of the governement) is simply promoting religious discrimination, which isn't better than racial or sexual discrimination.

                      That's your opinion. You present it as fact. One could make the same argument about incest or pedophilia: it's discrmination! You're not treating people equally! I happen to think those are good discriminatory policies that benefit society. Simply noting they are discriminatory does not mean it's a bad thing.

                      And reg
                    • Incest and pedophilia hurt people, and thus hurt the Republic, such as thievery, murder and other crimes. Homosexuality does not, nor does having a darker skin or another ethnic origin. Discrimination happens when it targets a class of people instead of individuals, and when the incriminated individuals didn't hurt the society in any way.

                      To me, that reads as perfect nonsense -- what I was saying is that it's a perfectly sensible point of view in France, where the common opinion is that religion has nothing

                    • Incest and pedophilia hurt people, and thus hurt the Republic, such as thievery, murder and other crimes. Homosexuality does not

                      In your opinion. Many millions of people would disagree with you. That's the point. That's why you're wrong when you say absence of religion-state separation is anti-democratic, because you're defining terms the way YOU want them defined, which is itself anti-democratic. In a democracy, majority rules in everything, including how the terms are defined. If the majority rules
                    • Fair enough. And in fact I did point out (in my other blog, the one with non-perl rants and without comments, follow the appropriate link) that there are, indeed, societies that are hurt by homosexuality. I just don't think that the current French society -- the one I live in -- is threatened by homosexuality, or by giving a legal status to same-sex unions.
            • What about domestic violence where men beat the crap out of their wives? That's neither moral nor right yet unsurprisingly there is little legislation for it much less a constitutional amendment. What about prostitution and human trafficing that is rife in the US? A few people are in love and want to share in the legal benefits that come from a civil union and somehow it's the most immoral act one could imagine.

              You can't legislate religion or morality. Stalin figured that one out the hard way. One would h