Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:What a guy (Score 1) 372

by I'm New Around Here (#49786603) Attached to: Obama Asks Congress To Renew 'Patriot Act' Snooping

It is funny how you guys still can't understand that the housing bubble was a direct result of liberal Democrat policy. The recession would have happened even if Gore won the 2000 and 2004 elections. But if that had been the case, you would find some way to blame it on those 'evil Republicans'.

As for 'the recovery', what recovery? Pumping billions into Wall Street to keep the economy limping isn't a recovery.

Thankfully, I can honestly state I didn't vote for McCain or Romney. I voted for Obama in 2008, and Green Party in 2012. But who I vote for doesn't blind me to reality.

Comment: Re:This isn't a question (Score 1) 615

by I'm New Around Here (#49770861) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage

I'm finding it hard to believe that there was a legal structure developed 5,000 years ago that included marriage, yet that was completely separate from any religious or spiritual basis. Not just separate, but not even evolved from a religious or spiritual basis.

Church and state were tightly coupled in early human history (and many parts later too). That you don't find a legal framework completely detached from spirituality isn't evidence that there is causation between marriage and spiritual (Correlation does not imply causation). It's just evidence that church and state were tightly coupled.

That wasn't ledow's argument though. He stated "Marriage pre-dates religion."

For that to be true, it would require a legal framework (since marriage has to come from some authority higher than the couple getting married) that came into existence among a group of people, before that same group started to have religious or spiritual beliefs. And since it seems all groups developed religious or spiritual beliefs very early, his argument would require the date of creation of a purely civil government to be pushed back thousands of years.

Maybe ledow interprets 'marriage' as two people mating, or even forming a life-long bond, without any authority sanctioning it. But that isn't marriage, by any definition in common use.

Comment: Re:This isn't a question (Score 1) 615

by I'm New Around Here (#49768977) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage

It's impossible to prove, but even Judaism admits that before Judaism there was marriage.

And before Judaism started, people believed in gods.

I'm finding it hard to believe that there was a legal structure developed 5,000 years ago that included marriage, yet that was completely separate from any religious or spiritual basis. Not just separate, but not even evolved from a religious or spiritual basis.

If any such legal system existed in the time before Judaism, or in any of the surrounding concurrent cultures, I'm sure there are academic sources outlining them.

Let me point out, I think that government should be out of marriage completely, since it is a personal issue. Two people don't declare their undying love because the government allows it. But declaring their undying love shouldn't change any legal status they have. What does a declaration of undying love have to do with anything in secular law?

"When it comes to humility, I'm the greatest." -- Bullwinkle Moose

Working...