Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:news[fnord!] (Score 1) 623

Churches DO approve of sex, but only if it is done expressly for the creation of more tithers. The Catholic Church appears to have always preferred quantity of life over quality of life. They took over 300 years to "forgive" Galileo, so I doubt of they will be changing their stance on creating as many Catholic baptized babies as humanly possible any time in the near future. Homosexuality has traditionally been discouraged precisely because it lowers the birth rate; see the history of Sparta as a case in point.

Comment Re:Definitions, Definitions (Score 1) 623

The problem is that there is crossover between the religious tradition of marriage and the legal status of marriage. My recommendation would be to make the two completely independent, thus finally achieving the ideal of separation of church and state. Churches have the right to not consecrate unions they disapprove of, for whatever reasons. But the state should not be allowed to discriminate, especially when that discrimination is based on religious mythology, not scientific evidence.

Comment Re:What is marriage for? (Score 1) 623

Refusing to grant same-sex couples the same legal status as other couples is blatant discrimination against the children of same-sex couples, of which their are many, regardless of whether or not you consider them "natural". Eliminating this discrimination is a fundamental civil rights issue. Yes, we probably should have a discussion regarding whether or not all the legal advantages conferred with the legal status of marriage are appropriate, but it appears obvious that you can't grant rights to some families while denying those same rights to other families -- that flies against the basic principles upon which our nation (USA) was founded. Is Ireland different? There the state has traditionally deferred to the church in ways that make uncomfortable those of us that believe in the principle of separation of church and state, but I believe the same civil rights arguments apply universally.

Comment Re: San Bernardino County Resident (Score 2) 104

Which points out a basic flaw of the system: taxpayers are punished for the law enforcement officer's failure to follow the rules, and the law enforcement officers themselves are apparently not held accountable for their own actions. Granted, people would be reluctant to work as police if they could be held personally responsible for any damage they cause, but couldn't we strike a better balance? Doctors are required to pay exorbitant sums for insurance to cover their mistakes, but police are bailed out by the state even in blatant cases of willful misconduct... something doesn't sound right about that. The advantage of making cops self-insured would be that eventually bad cops would find it too expensive to continue in that field, as their insurance rates would skyrocket after multiple claims.

Comment Re:America is finished! OVER! (Score 1) 285

Leveling out of wages should be seen as an inevitable consequence of globalization. If you want to have huge inequalities of compensation again, the only way to achieve it is to make transportation much more expensive. We live in an age where jetting halfway around the world and owning cell phones is considered normal by low wage workers in even the most impoverished countries -- which is both a good thing and a bad thing. More of a bad thing, if you're used to being one of the privileged few. More of a good thing, if you're used to being poor and easily exploited.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry

Working...