posted by
eftychia at 10:43am on 2003-10-13
"Every time I hear the phrase 'defense of marriage', I ask exactly how my marriage is being defended by excluding homosexuals from marrying. I have yet to hear a decent explanation." -- Mark Amidon
Daphne Eftychia Arthur, guitarist+. Quote of the Day.
"Every time I hear the phrase 'defense of marriage', I ask exactly how my marriage is being defended by excluding homosexuals from marrying. I have yet to hear a decent explanation." -- Mark Amidon
Defenseof Marrirage
Anyone brave/foolish and optimistic enough to commit to a marriage should be able to do so with any other human being who's brave/foolish and optimistic enough to do the same back. And have all the rights, privileges, joys, and miseries that accrue unto that state. Period. But I repeat myself.
Re: Defenseof Marrirage
(no subject)
Second - how do you get your computer to post a quote every day without having to do it manually? I'd like to do the same, as I have a whole bunch of weight loss type quotes I'd like to add. Any help you could give would be appreciated! Thanks!
(no subject)
This might not be helpful to you, but my technique is this:
I have a file in my home directory called LJQUOTES and a subdirectory called quotetmp. The LJQUOTES file looks like this:
Then I've got a script called qotd:
And finally, in /var/spool/cron/dglenn, is the following line:
(The 'tail' at the end is so that just enough of the output to troubleshoot when things go wrong gets mailed to me each morning by the 'cron' daemon.)
If you're running Windows or MacOS 9.x or earlier (no clue here about BeOS) you'll have to do things a little differently or a lot differently, depending on what extra goodies you have or haven't installed. The same basic approach should work as long as there's a scheduling tool to take the place of 'cron' and something that'll chop the quotes file up and massage it apropriately. I haven't tried this under MacOS X yet, but I don't see why it wouldn't work as long as you can get 'clive' to compile (which shouldn't be hard).
There's probably a less-roundabout way do do it using Perl or Python, but it was quicker for me to hack it together using tools I didn't have to think about. I should really add error-checking so it'll automatically notice (and react to) problems such as my net connection being down or LJ being twitchy, but currently I just check it when I wake up and manually post any entry that didn't work automagically.
Dunno whether this helps or not ... I guess it depends on what tools you've got handy. I don't think I know what operating systems you use.
Because it's brought to you by the "Dept. of Strategery"
Re: Because it's brought to you by the "Dept. of Strategery"
Re: Because it's brought to you by the "Dept. of Strategery"
It even goes back to the writing of the Constitution. The idea of the strong central govt (SCG) wasn't popular, so the supporters for the SCG coopted the name "Federal" (which the govt under the Articles of Confederation supposedly was) and thus were born the Federalist Papers, redefining the term for their own purpose -- and guess what, they won. So thoroughly did they win, that today almost no one realizes that the term they use for our SSG came about from a marketing ploy.
Anyway, to put it accurately, what the anti-gays are doing is "Defending (their definition of) Marriage". They aren't claiming to defend any individual's marriage per-se, as much as the institution itself.
I would argue that even the institution won't be hurt if the definition doesn't match what they think it should be. The assumption they make is that it somehow *is* what they say it is in the first place.
I mean, when you stop to think about it, about the only "legal" things that marriage gets you that you cannot get any other way are the tax form thing and "spousal privilege" in a courtroom. Pretty much everything else can be handled contractually.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Whether other people respect the institution of marriage has little or nothing to do with the likelihood and hope that my partner and I will stay together as long as we both shall live.
More to the point, "some people won't respect marriage as much if just anyone can do it" is a sad basis for legislation.
(no subject)
I like that! Maybe "just anyone" should be not be allowed to do it.
But how many of each sex should not be one of the qualiications.
How about couple stress tests? Required counseling? (Even if you do not believe in them, being willing to put up with the torture counts. You should see some of the tests the early space program had. Most of what they tested was determination.)
And those artificial babies some of the schools hand out, where they can tell if you mistreat them.
Yes, even for gay couples. It's a great test of character.
And make it "family" stress tests. No reason to restrict it to just a pair.
(no subject)
But y'know, that would almost certainly reduce the divorce rate noticeably.
Supporters of marriage
Re: Supporters of marriage
Go Mark!
Re: Go Mark!
Re: Go Mark!