Slash Boxes
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.
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

        • 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

          • I am not telling anyone what to do or who to love. I am just stating that I (and the majority of Americans) do not consider homosexuality a normal lifestyle. I stop short in telling them to stop. If they want to risk their health then that is up to them. I even stop short of creating a constitutional amendment. There are better ways to protect marriage.

            You arguments against people groups being abnormal is inane. Those people groups do not have inherent health risks associated with them. The color of some

            • by wickline (135) on 2004.03.06 14:23 (#29153) Journal
              > Those people groups do not have inherent health risks
              > 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 ignoring the evidence that their own race is just as "inferior".

              So, your claim that lachoy's representation was a straw man may need more support. Some folks may in fact claim that different colored skin correlates with different health risks, and may further claim that those health risks are "abnormal" while their own health risks are "normal".

              This reminds me of your claim that certain facets of gay male relationships are "abnormal". (I didn't notice you discussing gay female relationships in the comments I've read so far.) You have selected out those characteristics of gay male relationships which are both distinctive to those sorts of relationships and distastfull to you. You have used that collection of patterns to label the group as "abnormal in a negative sense" (as opposed to a minority race which you might say is "abnormal in a completely neutral sense").

              You do not appear to have closely examined the negative aspects of heterosexual relationships. Due to the rampant sexism in our culture, I suspect (yes I'm failing to provide evidence) that heterosexual marriages are much more likely to result in one partner (the wife) sacrificing goals and dreams for the other. I suspect that the incidence of spousal abuse (and child abuse as well) is much higher in heterosexual relationships. The number of accidental and/or unwanted children must be much higher in hetersexual relationships. Considering the multi-generational effects of depression and abuse, I don't think that these issues are trivial.

              There are differences between the two types of relationships. I do not think it is fair to look at one group of differences and say that it makes the one "abnormal in a negative manner" while ignoring those differences which would lead one to the opposite conclusion. You claim that it's silly to discriminate on the basis of which group is in the minority (which is why you frown upon racism), but I wonder what basis will remain if you look at the problems associated with heterosexual relationships.

              Perhaps you will find yourself thinking that "on the balance, the problems associated with gay marriages are more significant than the benefits" and use that to rationalize your position against gay marriage. If so, I wonder if you would care to apply your balance to the issue of race. Will you take the time to determine exactly which races are best adapted to which geographic regions, and argue that nations' borders should be drawn accordingly and populations relocated as needed?

              I suspect that contemplating such a project (the application of this hypothetical ballance to racial fitness) would leave a very foul taste in your mouth. How then can you feel so comfortable applying the balance to a minority defined by the parity of their love lives?

              What makes it OK to believe that your majority (heterosexuals) is "better" than the minority in this case? At what time in your life will that same premise be turned against you to allow others in your community to judge you as inferior? When the time comes, will you respect the community's judgement as well-founded because it allows you to believe that heterosexuals are better than homosexuals?