Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: When is it time to stop posting to CPAN?

by LanX (Saint)
on Oct 14, 2020 at 17:14 UTC ( [id://11122836]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: When is it time to stop posting to CPAN?
in thread When is it time to stop posting to CPAN?

One can read it in two ways, and I prefer the "in dubio pro reo" approach.

Personally I never understood why some straight people are opposing gay marriage, why should it be their business?

That's how I understand this.

I find it more troubling that free communication becomes censored by an inquisition of current "political correctness".

Please calm down everybody, and leave room for lazy wording.

Cheers Rolf
(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: When is it time to stop posting to CPAN?
by syphilis (Archbishop) on Oct 16, 2020 at 12:30 UTC
    Personally I never understood why some straight people are opposing gay marriage, why should it be their business?

    Interestingly, in this wonderful land of 'straya (often mistakenly referred to as "Australia" by those not versed in the native tongue), our extremist right-wing fascist Government decided to decree that it was the business of every citizen (be they opposed to, or in favour of, gay marriage) to decide whether gay marriage be allowable or not.
    Consequently we had a survey conducted - at great taxpayer expense, needless to say, to determine whether gay marriage be permitted, or nay.

    Of course, all citizens who were registered to vote in our (so called) democratic elections were allowed to register their opinion ... and they didn't call it a survey, instead choosing the term "plebiscite".
    Now "plebiscite" sounds like something that every left-wing commy socialist anarchist like me should engage in so, of course, I registered my "yes, gay marriage should be allowed" vote.
    (Why should gay people be spared the pain ?? ... and, besides, our fascist 'strayan government was against it, so voting against their wishes was obviously the right thing to do.)

    I should add that I'm not gay, and the part to which I'm looking forward will happen a few years down the track when we have another plebiscite to determine whether gay marriages be allowed to be dissolved in divorce.
    Whereupon I shall take great pleasure in voting "no", because:
    1) I'm an arsehole;
    2) I really enjoy telling people to be wary of what they wish for.

    Cheers,
    Rob
      you know... another thing irritating me is how readily people are calling each other communists or fascists.

      strange world...

      Cheers Rolf
      (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
      Wikisyntax for the Monastery

[OT] gay marriage controversy (How the heck did we get here?)
by jcb (Parson) on Oct 15, 2020 at 22:35 UTC

    The source of much rancor seems to be the conflation of two meanings of the word marriage: an ancient religious meaning (where "gay marriage" directly contradicts many long-standing doctrines and deeply held beliefs) and the more recent meaning of a civil union recognized by the state.

    The problems come when it does affect you. The controversy over a baker's refusal to bake a special cake for a gay wedding (because doing so would conflict with that baker's own religious beliefs — note that the baker was willing to make a cake but not to decorate it in a gay wedding theme) is an example.

    The correct answer to the whole mess, of course, is to get the state out of the marriage business: the state can grant civil unions (all existing marriages would be recognized retroactively as civil unions) and "marriage" is rightly between you and your religious beliefs or lack thereof.

      You'd be surprised about the annoying and far reaching consequences of granting power over marriage to religious "authorities", like prohibiting inter-faith marriages.

      But honestly, I don't wanna discuss it now, my emphasis was on debate culture.

      Sorry.

      For completeness: Ikegami said "wedding" not "marriage", there is a difference. My fault!

      Cheers Rolf
      (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
      Wikisyntax for the Monastery

        The idea is that "marriage" should be strictly a religious matter and not recognized by the state at all — you would fill out the paperwork for a civil union and check the box "conditional upon completion of religious marriage ceremony" before you go to the church if you want what "marriage" means today. The state does not care whether your church allows inter-faith marriages or if your church even has marriage at all &mdash it is the same civil union in any case.

        Apologies for furthering the off-topic diversion, but I did need to clarify that.

      Honestly I think the state should get out of the marriage entirely. No "civil unions" either. Marriage can be an entirely private business. If a church wants to marry two people or not, then let them. If a pizzeria wants to marry two people, then let them. Why should the state even care?

        Marriage is a contract changing your legal status.

        I don't want a pizzeria to decide who is raising my kids, has the right to switch off my respirator and inherits my Perl books ...

        Cheers Rolf
        (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
        Wikisyntax for the Monastery

        Why should the state even care?

        It seems to me that the original purpose of marriage was to support forming families and raising children who will be the next generation of society. The state, being (theoretically) the collective will of The People in a supposedly representative system, has a legitimate interest in the future of the society. This suggests that perhaps the notion of "civil union" should be further unbundled, but the first step is still getting the state out of the marriage business.

      Poorly thought out nonsense. Might as well get rid of cities, states,... all gov. Marriage predates religion, every current named religion.... Separation of church and state
Re^4: When is it time to stop posting to CPAN?
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 17, 2020 at 18:36 UTC

    I don't see two possible readings???

      One can read it in a way that nobody should care about gay weddings.

      And you are implying that we are all straight, since you omitted the "if" in "It doesn't affect you".

      So depending on context and mood one can read it as a derisive comment on "gay weddings".

      Cheers Rolf
      (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
      Wikisyntax for the Monastery

        That only makes sense if one presumes that it doesn't affect gays (or others on the spectrum), or if you think I presume that. Obviously, that's false. It does benefit them, and not just intangibles like validation (which includes representation on the census!); they get tax benefits, insurance benefits, etc. (Upd to added this paragraph.)

        We were talking about removal.

        Same-sex marriages are legal here in Canada. I was also going under the assumption that it's the same in the US (though now I wonder if it's only some states). There's no such thing as same-sex marriages; the are just marriages between two people.

        Same for the module on CPAN. It's already on CPAN.

        As such, I was speaking about caring about their removal (attaching importance to their removal, looking after or providing for the needs of their removal). Sorry about the confusion.

        And no, I didn't assume "you" was straight. Straight or not, you have no reason to want it removed.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://11122836]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others having a coffee break in the Monastery: (5)
As of 2024-03-28 23:36 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found