Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 02:57:01PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> I already have, just not in this forum. Go read the other sources I listed.
> But if you want more context in which to read, I'll offer you two words:
> "Civil union" (I won't use "Marriage", because I find the mention of it
> in law to be one of the primary examples of religion intruding upon the
> secular law).
See, this is where the world is so fucked up: I'm sure you are aware
that in Greek and Roman times homosexuality was quite normal. In fact,
I saw on TLC one evening a program about some Gnostic gospels that
weren't selected at the Council of Nicea which described using sperm as
a sacred sacrement of communion, and that Jesus was gay, and that Paul,
"the disciple whom Jesus loved...", well anyway.
Incidentally, the references to homosexual Jesus weren't left out
because they offended anybody, because in those days homosexuality was
perfectly normal. They happened to be left out because they were more
poorly written, they just weren't good literature.
I bring this up because the truth is something we rarely get to in these
discussions, and the relgion-haters are more accurately tyrant-haters,
and then they get all mixed up and say relgion necessarily leads to
tyranny. It is fair to say that today anti-relgionisim has become
tyranical itself, which is why I dislike it. I hate all jerks.
I've two points, which you shouldn't argue with: (1) there are probably
many thousands of subtly nuanced opinions toward <foo> that you aren't
considering which maks pomposity or strong feelings probably wrong, and
(2) if you say: "I hate <foo>; <foo> is a scourge" you're probably
wrong.
EORant
Reply to: