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.
  • If you care. [] It's not my complete thoughts, but it is a fairly succinct and accurate representation.

    Not that your post is necessarily about gay marriage per se, and more about the arguments, but still.
    • [Just to be clear, I'm not railing at you at all pudge.]

      I've head this one before. Government does legal "unions" between two people, leave "marriage" to the churches who are free to do whatever they want. Church and state remain separated as God and the Founding Fathers intended.

      I like this idea. Anyone can get hitched to anyone else and if they want a marriage they can go to whatever church will take them to put a preacher's stamp on it.

      However, I have seen this used as a hypocritical excuse for peo
      • However, I have seen this used as a hypocritical excuse for people to vote against gay marriage resolutions. "I'm voting against because I don't believe government should say what marriage is". Ok, but meanwhile they are. And isn't it convienient that the existing definition is in your favor? As long as marriage is a legal thing, might as well patch it up as best we can.

        I can understand disliking it, and while it may be hypocritical for some people, it is not necessarily hypocritical.

        I would not vote aga
        • If your religion see's gay marriage as a sin then its simple, your religon won't hold gay marriages.

          Shouldn't stop people who disagree having a gay marriage. If marriage is good, then allowing gay marriage is good.

          You can't have it both ways - either its religious and a matter for any given church based on its beliefs, or its secular and a matter for the government based on equality and basic human rights.

          Life isn't that complicated, either you are appeasing bigots or you are a bigot, pick one and adm


          @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
          print reverse @JAPH;
        • I would not vote against gay marriage resolution because government should get out of it, I would vote against it because it is an arbitrary change to a fundamental American institution that much if not most of the country is against.

          This is a fine example of "tyranny of the majority", a danger in democracy acknowledged by the founding fathers and something our Constitution tries to defend against. When an overwhelming majority exists (for example, heterosexuals) they can use that majority to take (or i

          • When an overwhelming majority exists (for example, heterosexuals) they can use that majority to take (or in this case, keep) citzen rights away from minorities (for example, homosexuals).

            If you think civil marriage is a right, that would make some sense. As I do not think civil marriage is a right -- for anyone -- I can't really comment on this. As you say when you try to debunk the idea that marriage is a "fundamental American institution," is marriage mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? No.
  • Kansas just passed a state constitutional amendment defingin marriage between one man and one woman, making that 18 states that have done so. 70% of the residents of Kansas voted in favor or it. That is in line with a recent gallup poll that on the same question where 68% also were in favor of marriage between one man and one woman and only giving "marital benefits" to married couples. That and 38 states that currently have DOMA laws makes it pretty clear that we should not redefine what marriage is. Marria