I completely disagree. This started as a tempest in a teapot, of the type that any competent CEO has to overcome on a weekly basis. So what, six years ago he donated a modest sum to a cause supported by half the population of California. Surely that can't make a difference today!
Then I read what he recently had to say on his personal blog. You can read it yourself; my takeaway was that if this was the way he handled this particular tempest in a teapot, he was most likely going to hit a concrete wall when there was a real crisis to handle.
In the end, this wasn't about a donation six years ago, or about his right to free speech. It was about the fact that his first public action as CEO now stank up the room worse than a Taco Bell fart.
If you can't tell silicon from silicone, don't become CTO. If you don't know how to do crisis management, don't become CEO.
An outstanding point! It presumes, though, the current and gerrymandered House districts. Redrawing state lines would also mean redrawing House districts, hopefully with less partisan bias.
I keep reading the sentence, "For Democrats, it could be straight out of a nightmare." How exactly is this true? If anything, the current system favors Republicans by overrepresenting rural (mostly red) states.
The main difference is in the language of marriage laws. Two consenting, non-related adults etc. etc. can get married IFF they are not of the same sex. The institution of marriage LEGALLY remains the same if the exclusion is removed, since that exclusion serves no functional purpose in the legal framework of marriage. To the law, a same-sex couple is the same as a different-sex couple that can't produce offspring (with each other).
If society decides to evolve towards polygamy, it certainly can do so, but laws and the judicial system have to changed in a much more fundamental way. The concept of divorce needs to be amended (who leaves whom? is the whole marriage severed when one of the spouses leaves? if not, who gets what?). We have to decide how biological and legal constructs matter (if X is child of A and B, who are married to each other and to C, how is the relationship between X and A different from that between X and C?).
None of those changes are too difficult to figure out, I suppose, but they are an obstacle that same-sex marriage doesn't have.
The Catholic Church doesn't approve of homosexuality, but not for the reasons that many think. Many pro-LGBT people with misunderstandings of the Catholic religion (such as lumping it together with all of the other Christian faiths) think that it's just "forbidden" and "sinful" and an "abomination" for little reason, while the real reason why it's sinful to the Church is that it denies the life-giving aspect of sexuality entirely. For more information, read any of the many books or articles out there summarizing Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body; the Catholic Church's opinion on sexuality is a lot more reasonable than many people make it sound like.
A summary of the position of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality, according to the Mother Church: homosexuality is "objectively disordered." That is the exact same phrase (same place) used about the ills of masturbation. A higher degree of condemnation ("intrinsically evil") is reserved for such grave sins as rape and birth control.
For the geekily inclined: If g(sin) is the gravity of the sin according to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, then the following is true:
There is nothing wrong with the theological position of your Church, as long as it offers full disclosure. According to the RCC, the only sinless reason to have sex is for procreative purposes within a marriage sanctified by the RCC. Everybody else, whether single, unmarried, using birth control, or gay, should just not have sex. Ever.
If your Church picks on homosexuals with an argument that condemns almost everybody, it's hard to find anything but hostility against this particular group.
The San Andreas fault is a strike-slip fault, which means that at its location two tectonic plates rub against each other. That's fairly benign compared to the amounts of energy accumulating at a subduction zone (like in Japan), where one plate has to dive under another.
Slashdot Mirror
I completely disagree. This started as a tempest in a teapot, of the type that any competent CEO has to overcome on a weekly basis. So what, six years ago he donated a modest sum to a cause supported by half the population of California. Surely that can't make a difference today!
Then I read what he recently had to say on his personal blog. You can read it yourself; my takeaway was that if this was the way he handled this particular tempest in a teapot, he was most likely going to hit a concrete wall when there was a real crisis to handle.
In the end, this wasn't about a donation six years ago, or about his right to free speech. It was about the fact that his first public action as CEO now stank up the room worse than a Taco Bell fart.
If you can't tell silicon from silicone, don't become CTO. If you don't know how to do crisis management, don't become CEO.
An outstanding point! It presumes, though, the current and gerrymandered House districts. Redrawing state lines would also mean redrawing House districts, hopefully with less partisan bias.
I keep reading the sentence, "For Democrats, it could be straight out of a nightmare." How exactly is this true? If anything, the current system favors Republicans by overrepresenting rural (mostly red) states.
The main difference is in the language of marriage laws. Two consenting, non-related adults etc. etc. can get married IFF they are not of the same sex. The institution of marriage LEGALLY remains the same if the exclusion is removed, since that exclusion serves no functional purpose in the legal framework of marriage. To the law, a same-sex couple is the same as a different-sex couple that can't produce offspring (with each other).
If society decides to evolve towards polygamy, it certainly can do so, but laws and the judicial system have to changed in a much more fundamental way. The concept of divorce needs to be amended (who leaves whom? is the whole marriage severed when one of the spouses leaves? if not, who gets what?). We have to decide how biological and legal constructs matter (if X is child of A and B, who are married to each other and to C, how is the relationship between X and A different from that between X and C?).
None of those changes are too difficult to figure out, I suppose, but they are an obstacle that same-sex marriage doesn't have.
The Catholic Church doesn't approve of homosexuality, but not for the reasons that many think. Many pro-LGBT people with misunderstandings of the Catholic religion (such as lumping it together with all of the other Christian faiths) think that it's just "forbidden" and "sinful" and an "abomination" for little reason, while the real reason why it's sinful to the Church is that it denies the life-giving aspect of sexuality entirely. For more information, read any of the many books or articles out there summarizing Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body; the Catholic Church's opinion on sexuality is a lot more reasonable than many people make it sound like.
A summary of the position of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality, according to the Mother Church: homosexuality is "objectively disordered." That is the exact same phrase (same place) used about the ills of masturbation. A higher degree of condemnation ("intrinsically evil") is reserved for such grave sins as rape and birth control.
For the geekily inclined: If g(sin) is the gravity of the sin according to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, then the following is true:
g(homosexuality) = g(masturbation) < g(rape) = g(birth control)
There is nothing wrong with the theological position of your Church, as long as it offers full disclosure. According to the RCC, the only sinless reason to have sex is for procreative purposes within a marriage sanctified by the RCC. Everybody else, whether single, unmarried, using birth control, or gay, should just not have sex. Ever.
If your Church picks on homosexuals with an argument that condemns almost everybody, it's hard to find anything but hostility against this particular group.
The San Andreas fault is a strike-slip fault, which means that at its location two tectonic plates rub against each other. That's fairly benign compared to the amounts of energy accumulating at a subduction zone (like in Japan), where one plate has to dive under another.