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.

So very gay marriage. 28 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 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

        • 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 to argue because nothing I say is going to change your mind, but... oh, whatever.

          • 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

            • 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

              • Nice straw man argument.

                • Okay, I'll bite: Assume I'm a moron and explain the differences. Without using a gussied up version of "those fudgepackers are evil".
                  • Why do people who argue that they're opposed to homosexuality for health reasons, not because of religion, remind of people who rave about the benefits of hemp clothing but claim their interest is unrelated to marijuana legalization?

                    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
            • If your argument is based on health risks, then perhaps only lesbians should be allowed to marry, since the risks of lesbian sex are lower than those of heterosexual sex.

              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?

              • But we do already...

              • Though only articles I quoted where were about males, the risk of lesbian sex is HIGHER that hetero as well.

                • So how do you feel about gay men who marry to hide their lifestyle and have children, too?
                  • Schwern...you should put on your overalls and go down there and start shouting "FUCK THE FARMERS! FUCK THEM RIGHT UP THEIR ASS" next to the fundys. Get someone with a camera to go along with you as I want pictures, too. :D
                    • I want pictures of Schwern holding Bible quotes about God forbidding shrimps(*) in front of an evil sushi restaurant that destroys our traditional values.

                      (*) for those of you heathens who aren't familiar with the Torah, this is actually true.

                    • I thought about it. Part of the reason I went down there in the first place was there's this REALLY LOUD street preacher who was there on Wednesday condemming the people there in his REALLY LOUD BOOMING VOICE! This guy can project. I was hoping he'd be there again and I could counter-preach in my own Conference Voice.
                      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
                    • Somebody already beat me to it. [godhatesshrimp.com]

                    • What about the naked sushi chef? :)

            • What makes it right for them to force their beliefs on me when 5000 years of marriage has always been traditionally defended here (for the last 200 or so) and around the world as one man and one woman?

              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

              • Nobody's forcing their beliefs on you. .... 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.

                Holy Cognitive Dissonance, Batman!

                  • So if he likes a law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, he's forcing his beliefs on other people, but if someone else likes a law that defines marriage as between two people regardless of gender, that other person is not forcing his beliefs on the first person?

                    I fail to see how that's not a contradiction.

                    Then again, surely the purpose of law itself is to enforce a set of beliefs.

                    • Then again, surely the purpose of law itself is to enforce a set of beliefs.

                      Good point. So the question really comes down to: where is the line drawn? When do we as a society say "That is immoral?". And if we continue to vacilate on the moral lines, "Where does it stop?".

                    • Yes, legalizing same-sex marriage is forcing beliefs on other people in the same way that the fourteenth ammendment is forcing beliefs on other people. That is, all law is forcing your beliefs on someone at some point, even if that law is about freedom. I hope we all knew this already.

                      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

                    • My hope is that people will stop bringing up the tired old pseudojustification "don't force your beliefs on me". It may be amazingly obvious to you and to me that that's exactly what law is, but as long as people whine and cry about how their rights are superior to those of everyone else, I reserve the right to tell them that their arguments are stupid and completely unconnected to reality.

                      Then again, I can be a real jerk sometimes. :)

              • Tradition is a cop out

                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 :-).
            • > 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
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.