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
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Thanks for setting the scene... (Score:1)
-DA [coder.com]
Well... (Score:1)
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
Re:Well... (Score:1)
I couldn't agree more...
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.
As someone who was raised as a "Baptist"... I'd like to thank you for reminding me why I don't give a damn for the entire lot... Say one thing... do another.
---
Meanwhile, while watching this in the news the other night... my wife and I have decided that religious people must be
Remember Sodom and Gamorrah... in bed. (Score:2)
One guy had a very professionally made sign "Remember Sodom and Gamorrah", while everyone else's were hand made. Since this issue came to a head so fast, we speculated how he got such a professional sign done so quickly.
We figured he just took it down from over his bed.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
So if I'm part of any group that has a tendency toward promiscuity I can't marry? Or does that only apply if I'm part of the group that you consider "abnormal"? Weren't eastern europeans considered abnormal? African americans? Or for that matter, anyone with a darkish hue?
If you consider homosexuality abnormal that's your business, I couldn't care less. When you use your belief to tell other people what to do and who to love, that's a different matter. Why should you even care?
I realize it's pointless t
Re:Well... (Score:2)
How are two people getting married "forcing their beliefs" on you? When two muslims get married they're not asking you to believe the Koran is the holy word of God, they're just asking you to respect their beliefs in their own religion and for one another. How is this different?
The other arguments, "it's always been that way" and "it's a health risk" are also wrongheaded. I hate to trot the argument out again but history is rife with examples of traditional practices that have been overturned with progres
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
For that matter, they also remind me of people who trumpet scientific studies saying that homosexuality is genetically determined and claim that means it should be legal and socially accepted. If tomorrow studies found that it wasn't genetically determined, would they then beli
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Besides, homosexuals aren't the only people who engage in "abnormal" sexual practices. Are you in favor of outlawing all such behavior, so as to avoid legitimizing it?
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Tasty pictures (Score:2)
(*) for those of you heathens who aren't familiar with the Torah, this is actually true.
Fun, but this isn't about taunts. (Score:2)
He wasn't there yeseterday. Instead it was just a doudy group of very quiet Fundies. I thought about doing a little needling, but then I realized that jeez, people are getting married here
God Hates Shrimp (Score:2)
Re:Tasty pictures (Score:2)
What about the naked sushi chef? :)
Forcing me, forcing you, forcing me again. (Score:2)
A) Nobody's forcing their beliefs on you. Nobody's hand-cuffed you to another man, dragged you down to the county clerk and demanded you get a marriage license. By declaring that before the eyes of the law, only a man and a woman can have a legal union you are forcing your beliefs on other people. Mar
Re:Forcing me, forcing you, forcing me again. (Score:2)
It's a cop out for saying we shouldn't change, but it's a damn good reason for saying we should only make those changes legally and deliberately, collectively, instead of by fiat of a few (unless those few happen to be supreme court justices
Re:Forcing me, forcing you, forcing me again. (Score:2)
Also ?
Re:Forcing me, forcing you, forcing me again. (Score:2)
While its good to remember that all law is, in some way, enforcing belief, its about as interesting in the context of this discussion as having a physics argument and someone chiming in, "but you can never really prove anyt
Re:Well... (Score:2)
> associated with them
Actually, there are very clear health risks associated with people groups defined by skin color. Folks with more melanin (skin pigment) are at a much lower risk for skin cancer. The correlation runs the other direction regarding heart disease. You can find trends like this for many health risks.
Some racists would look at a hand-picked collection of these correlations and claim that other races are genetically inferior while
Why stop with gays? (Score:2)
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
Legal Error in Your Favor! (Score:2)
Multnomah's an interesting case because, unlike San Francisco, the interpretation so far is that same-sex marriage upholds the law as the law is written on the books and that it would be unconstitutional by the fourteenth ammendment not to allow the marriages. The county's actions seem to be legal. Of course, people are arguing what the intentions of the lawmakers were (and they're right), and there's already a lawsuit i
Literal (Score:2)
Laws should be taken literally, and if you don't like them, you make new laws. That's how it has always been meant to work.
How would you like it if we didn't take the First Amendment literally? Who would get to decide that? It's just such a ridiculous notion