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.
  • It is a shame that the Law *is* being broken. I read the Oregon statute and the courts are going to say the man->woman inference is implied. Unfortunately, I think this whole thing is going to piss off the majority of Americans and it will end up as an amendment to the constitution. I hope it doesn't end up like that but I think because people have taken the law into their own hands its going to force it to go that way.
    • Agreed.

      These people have no respect for the rule of law. Civil disobedience has it's place, but only when every other mechanism has been tried. This issue is currently being decided in the courts and legislatures nationwide and now is not the time to disregard the law.

      I don't seriously believe that many of these people even want to be married. I think they just want to participate in destroying a traditional institution that they have been excluded from for reasons of revenge.

      That being said, I do bel

      • Civil disobedience has place when civil rights are being ignored by a governement. I'm not well placed to judge whether it's the case currently in the US, but I'd like to point out that the black people who fought for their most basic civil rights decades ago faced exactly this kind of discriminatory remarks.
        • That's why I said that civil disobedience has it's place. Clearly, the black people's rights were not being addressed by the government at that time and thus, they had the right to take matters into their hands.

          I don't see how my remarks are in any way discriminatory, however.

          • You wrote: I don't see how my remarks are in any way discriminatory, however.

            From dictionary.com [reference.com], the difinition of discriminatory: Marked by or showing prejudice; biased. Head over there and take a look at their definitions of prejudice [reference.com], if you must.

            Give that definition, let's take a look at something you previously wrote:

            I don't seriously believe that many of these people even want to be married. I think they just want to participate in destroying a traditional institution that they have been ex

            • And I obviously can't spell worth a darn.

              s/difinition/definition/;
              s/down their/down there/;
            • Same-sex couples want equal rights (equal rites?)

              What about singles? What about celibates? Why should what I do or do not do with my naughty bits have anything to do with my legal status?

              • Because many of these special rights have no meaning outside of the context of more than one person [perl.org]. Joint health insurance, wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner, domestic violence protection orders and many other special rights are granted free of charge once you get that piece of paper signed.

                Those, and many other rights make no sense in the context of a single person. It's like asking "what color is Wednesday?" (Assuming you're not flying high on acid). Either end discrimination in who

                • Ahh, so because I was born single, I don't deserve to be able to identify another person who should share health insurance with me, who should receive benefits if I die accidentally, or who can make medical decisions for me?

                  • OK, I see what you're asking now. I didn't before. Sorry about that.

                    Because of the way the law works, if I get married, I automatically have those rights conferred on my spouse. If I am not married and I want to have those rights, I frequently have to hire a lawyer, assign power of attorney, make a will, etc. This is not only expensive, but it's more easily challenged in court by relatives or other interested parties who might not approve of my decisions. I think this falls back to my feeling that th

                    • Are you suggesting that these special rights should automatically be available to everyone regardless of marital status?

                      Absolutely. If our goal is equal protection under the law, we ought to do it right, not piecemeal. If it's wrong to deny a citizen the right to assign power of attorney based on that person's marital status, we ought to remove that right from marital status.

                      I realize this won't solve all of the difficult issues (homosexual marriage for green cards?), but it seems to make a lot of p

                    • This is my position, too.

                      If so, it seems as if the legal basis for marriage becomes irrelevant and marriage reverts to a religious institution. As such, giving same-sex couples the right to marry would be moot as they could easily find a minister who is willing to officiate at their ceremony the legal concept of marriage could cease to exist.

                      Exactly.
            • A Terry Pratchett reminiscence ?
              • From dictionary.com [reference.com], the difinition of discriminatory: Marked by or showing prejudice; biased. Head over there and take a look at their definitions of prejudice [reference.com], if you must.

                Give that definition, let's take a look at something you previously wrote:

              I don't seriously believe that many of these people even want to be married. I think they just want to participate in destroying a traditional institution that they have been excluded from for reasons of revenge.


              • To broadly impugn the motivations of same-
              • In this article [family.org] a paper by Gay Activists is described [...]
                Would it be your position that none of the gay couples who are now marrying actually have as an agenda to destroy traditional institutions like marriage?

                Citing a Focus on the Family web page, and then challenging someone to prove a negative? That's argumentation barely worthy of a Jack Chick tract. [epsilonminus.com]

                  • Citing a Focus on the Family web page, and then challenging someone to prove a negative? That's argumentation barely worthy of a Jack Chick tract.

                  Well, at least I haven't stooped to guilt by association and attacking a source without addressing the point being made. That would be really low.

                  However, I wasn't challenging him to prove a negative. I was asking him if he believes a positive statement that applies to all of the gays who get married.

                  You might assume that his answer might have begged me to