I'm sure it's actually still illegal. What it's not, according to the actual case, is on the wrong side of the "anti-peeping tom" law. I'm guessing the prosecutor fucked up, tried to go for a charge with a bigger sentence, and couldn't make it stick.
The summary is truly fantastic. I don't think the article's writer could have put it better himself!
Although I don't really agree with paying women less on the chance that they might get pregnant and take 6-12 months off work
I don't think that actually happens. What does happen is that they stop getting paid once they DO take the time off (and burn their sick leave).
I'm the last one to jump on the "businesses have to make money, so whatever they have to do to that end is OK" bandwagon, but honestly, this one just boggles my mind. Moreso because the intersection of people who consider it a problem (apparently a business is supposed to pay someone who stops working for a year, so they can make life decisions) has such a large intersection with the set that is devoutly opposed to the concept of paternity leave.
In the US, the married/unmarried divide is pretty small (within 5%) .
So... [Citation needed].
I don't suppose there's a transcript or video of that around you could point me to. I'm intrigued, and would love to hear what her logic *was*.
The fundamental principle of feminism is that woman are morally equal to men
What the hell does "morally equal" even mean?
For example, this essay by a gay man can be found on the BBC website
Boils down to "Well, I'm not going to do that. It feels weird..." He doesn't want it, great, but he even says that he's not against the idea, it's just "not for him." Good for him. I'm straight and marriage is "not for me," either. Even if I misread and he IS against the idea, his reason boils down to "I don't want it." Not legitimate.
And here is a blog by a gay man who disavows the gay marriage movement: http://nogaymarriage.wordpress...
He says takes issue with the insistence on "marriage" terminology, and the narcissism of the weddings, as opposed to "civil unions" and the like getting the same legal rights. (And then goes on to rant about "economically ignorant liberals" and tax breaks.)
Here is a site with lots of links on the subject: http://www.againstequality.org...
Complains about gay marriage "propaganda", not gay marriage.
When I'm sorting things in meatspace, I use a heap sort.
I throw all the shit into a heap, then pick out the good bits.
killall | god | sort > out.dat
I don't know about that. Discomfort with Glass seems to span across the Geek and Mundane populations, alike.
Unless the cultural divide in question is "Glassholes" and "Not Glassholes."
Nah, he could just be Australian.
From my limited understanding, the spectrum starts at "no attempt to hide it" and includes everything more "open" than that. I'm not sure, but I think it coincides with the term "out of the closet."
You didn't say "humans" made laws, you said that "society" makes them according with some "collective morality," a concept so utopian as to border on willful naivete. Morality and legality are utterly orthogonal concepts, and if law were to be limited only to that which is "collectively" accepted, "law libraries" could be replaced with "law post-it notes."
Have you ever heard a legitimate (i.e. excluding religious) argument against gay marriage?
"Blithering idiot" is a prerequisite for this sort of discussion.
Are you sure Americans are anti-gay, and not just a country of a third of a billion people who have a handful of bad apples, a media system faking controversy to generate viewership, a slashdot reader who's forgotten what percentage of the internet is trolling, and a parochial political system pandering to margins to get voted in?
Your point about over-generalization is valid, but to be fair, it's far more than just "a handful of bad apples" when it can be reasonably leveled at, for example, 47% of voting-age people in the state of Florida (2008 election, 61.9% in favor of anti-gay marriage amendment out of 75.2% turnout).