|
Re^3: When is it time to stop posting to CPAN?
by LanX (Saint) on Oct 14, 2020 at 17:14 UTC
|
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.
| [reply] |
|
|
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
| [reply] |
|
|
you know... another thing irritating me is how readily people are calling each other communists or fascists.
strange world...
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
| [reply] |
|
|
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!
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
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".
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
Re^3: When is it time to stop posting to CPAN?
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 17, 2020 at 18:24 UTC
|
That is indeed what I meant. It doesn't mean you or your religion has to support it. If you have no stake in the game, you should respect/tolerate their wishes as you should have yours respected/tolerate.
Same with the module. Having it on CPAN doesn't affect me in the least, so why would I care if it's there or not?
| [reply] |
|
|
I will guess that you have much less rancorous discussions in Canada. The problem we have here in the United States is activist factions that are not satisfied with tolerance but demand others actively endorse their positions, so gay weddings are a poor analogy about this issue for us.
The controversy over a cake illustrates the problem. Tolerant people would have understood the baker's religious objections and either found another baker or purchased an undecorated cake (which that baker was willing to make) and decorated it themselves, but (as far as I can tell) that was not the purpose — the whole incident seems to have been a deliberate attack on that bakery because certain activists did not like that baker's religious beliefs.
This same hypocritical intolerance is now extending to transgender issues and I worry about the future of America. Not that I believe for a minute that the hypocritically intolerant have a chance of winning in the end, but I do worry about the inevitable backlash against them.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
I'm well aware of the situation in the US, which is why the comment was made.
Your example is not one of seeking endorsement; it's an example of wanting to avoid discrimination. Worse, this is discrimination on the basis of sex.[1]
But not all discrimination is illegal. Not even discrimination on the basis of sex. It's my understanding that Freedom of Religion was a relevant factor in the case you mentioned.
If the baker doesn't want to make a cake for a client that is male wedding a male, but they're ok with making a cake for a client that is a female in the same situation (wedding a male), this is discrimination on the basis of sex. So says the SCOTUS (videoed reading) in crystal clear terms in a more recent judgement.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|