Second, same-sex marriage is not an attack on anyone's religious beliefs, but plenty of bigots have worked hard to frame it as such. Think of it - nobody is demanding that same-sex marriage be mandatory for everyone. Gays and lesbians getting married is not an "attack" on your religion no matter how much you or anyone else claims otherwise.
The countries that have passed same-sex marriage have also included the rule that no religious practitioner (priest, pastor, whatever) can be forced by law to perform same-sex marriages, so we're even respecting your rights to practice your religious beliefs in your own way. We just don't want religions to obstruct the ending of discriminatory practices vis. marriage to LGBT. And yet, time and again this easily refuted accusation is made by fear-mongers.
Simply put, saying that civil unions are sufficient and that LGBTetc should accept that is an attempt to impose your beliefs on others outside your church, where you have no business doing so. When you say that ""i want to advise LGBTt people to stop being so irresponsible when demand (sic) their rights" you are treating them as second-class citizens; not only that, but you are publicly making it clear that you and your religion don't believe that equal rights apply to all. That is not "support." Being treated like a second-class citizen, without equal rights in law, is what is being fought here. If religions are against that, then maybe that is what is causing the flood of people who no longer take their beliefs from the church and only go there for the social aspects.
So, when you say that you support the right of LGBT people to "behave that way", you're simply not telling the truth. Marriage is part of people's behaviour. To deny it, and actively denounce their right to marry outside the church based on either sexual orientation or because their gender doesn't match their birth gender is not "supportive." What if people were to lobby that YOUR religion can no longer have marriages, just civil unions? That would also solve the discriminatory nature of the debate - NOBODY gets married. But we don't want to take away your rights - just equal treatment outside the church.
This is something that several religions have already addressed in a positive, inclusive way. Those who don't will just become less relevant to each succeeding generation.
I am not trying to destroy religion - the "religious folk" who engage in discriminatory behaviour and fear-mongering, and make their decisions on how to treat others without fully examining the question, are doing that job better than I could ever do.
And telling them that their life is sinful and they need to repent is NOT supporting the right of LGBT people to "behave the way they do." Far from it. It's paternalistic and insulting.
I'm just pointing all this out, is all. You publicly disagree with the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, well I'm going to defend their rights even though I am neither, just as they have defended mine. Same as I defend the right of Muslims to wear a turban instead of a hat while on duty as police officers. And the right of Catholics to wear a cross as big as they want (the government tried to pass legislation limiting the display of religious symbols a year ago - they got tossed out).
You know, there are both protestants and catholics who both say the same thing - "we support their right to behave that way, but they are sinning and need to repent and come to our way of believing or they will go to hell".
Obviously others disagree with you - just look how many comments it has compared to my story about turning red blood cells into neuron cells - which is undoubtedly biotech.
I would say, judging on the number of comments alone (it beats anything else within the last 48 hours, even though it was posted less than 24 hours ago) that my shorter title has empirically been proven to be more effective than the longer titles in other stories, and nerds do care about it.
The simple fact is that the Internet was part of what made this vote go the way it did.
Who said anything about whether there's a good solution in "our" legal system? That wasn't part of the question until you added it just now. And in Canada, the question of multiple primary partners has already been answered by the courts, so I don't know about "your" legal system, but mine works just fine:-)
You total lack of knowledge on what transsexuality is, and bigotry towards transsexuals, shows. You say I should go to church and I might learn something. I did - I was a fundamentalist evangelical baptist. Probably read the bible cover-to-cover more than 20 times. Entered the whole thing into my computer along with a program I wrote to do quick searches - back before the Internet.
Here's just some of what I learned: Christians are more hypocritical and less shameless about it than atheists. Their claims of "hate the sin, love the sinner" don't match up with their actions, and don't even make sense. You either accept someone as they are, or you don't, and want them to change to conform to YOUR beliefs. Who died and made them god?
And saying "wake up from your sleep boy/girl" is a slur, same as "Listen dude/dudette", that if it were made here would get you hauled before a judge. And I'm not in Europe. This is not "extra rights" - simply the same right as everyone else has not to be harassed, ridiculed, or defamed.
When you write "a child that has no biological connection to at least one person from a LBGT couple should not be adopted by such people" you ignore the fact that same-sex couples have been shown to have much lower rates of child abuse and violence in the home than hetero couples, to the point that here they're given a bit of a preference, because it's not about "parental rights", it's about the good of the child above all other considerations.
Why don't you conduct an experiment. You wrote "you can even try to go to some Orthodox/Catholic (or even Protestantic - i speak for what i know for sure) church and you will find love (not sexual, but brotherly/sisterly)." Get dressed up as the opposite sex and tell them you're getting a sex change. Walk a mile or 10 in my shoes (just not the ones with the stiletto heels - you'll break your neck). See how "accepted" and "loved" you feel when they say that "we still love you, but not your sin."
Classifying part of the recognized treatment for an accepted medical condition as "sin" is dangerous. People who have "repented" and de-transitioned because of religious pressure are some of the sorriest, unhappiest people you will ever meet.
But if you're going to answer one question, I'll pose this one again - where in the Bible does it say that transsexuality is a sin that I should "repent" of it? You yourself said that "i also believe that LBGTt people should repent for their behavior ". Please be specific. What behaviour should I repent of?
Also, you prejudge me by saying I don't like you. I DO disagree with you. I disagree with 4 of my 6 sisters on this same issue. Doesn't mean I don't like them. This is slashdot, and a certain amount of directness (or bluntness) in argumentation (to get to the point quicker) is the norm.
Case in point - there was one guy who quite often tried to publicly embarrass me, to the point that I warned him in front of his girlfriend that if he did it one more time I'd call the cops. This only started after he heard the rumours, and I answered his questions honestly and openly. I ran into him a few weeks ago, and he now thinks I'm the greatest thing since sliced bread because he saw how hard I was working for the benefit of the community, including those who openly hated me. Simply put, I don't hate him because I'm too lazy to carry a grudge:-)
BTW, we now also know that sexual orientation is innate - gays and lesbians were born that way. Why should they "repent" any more than someone who was born a particular colour? It's like that with plenty of animals too, so it isn't "unnatural".
I am not here to hate, but to discuss, and when the opportunity arises, to educate. Hence my sig. If transsexuals don't openly stand up for our rights, we will lose them. If we don't debunk misconceptions (some of which are just because the person never really thought it all the way through before or lack of information, such as I believe is your case) and we
Your post is still a lie. I specifically mentioned where you said "my religion is more important for humans (even LGBTt people) than some civil rights" and "i want to advise LGBTt people to stop being so irresponsible when demand (sic) their rights"
You claim that you agree with what Whiteox posted when he said "As far as I'm concerned, we should all accept (therefore not deny) everyone's choice to follow and act with any belief system they wish, as long as it doesn't interfere with the choice of others."
You lie. Plain and simple. Maybe you should apply to be Greece's next finance minister.
Single people have fewer obligations than married people. Marriage involves a curtailment of some rights in return for other rights that can only apply if more than one person is involved. For example, the obligation and right of mutual support in marriage cannot be applied to single people, because there's no "mutual" there. And the single person can't have their spouse decide whether to pull the plug in the ICU because they don't have a spouse.
Just look at the latest family of the hour - the Duggars. Heterosexual son molested 5 children. The family friend (the sheriff) who gave him a "stern talking to" is now doing 56 years in club fed for child pornography. How much of this was caused by people being repressed by their religion and finding inappropriate outlets? There's a reason so many pedophiles are catholic priests. The cure for that is to allow priests to marry - either same-sex or hetero. Celibacy is not normal.
Claim 1 is false. There's a (much) lower level of child abuse in homes with two same-sex parents.
Claim 2 is false. Most hetero marriages have at least 1 spouse who cheats. Also, you presume that gay marriages can't be monogamous.
Claim 3 is false. The majority of hetero marriages are not monogamous. Also, in countries where same-sex marriage has been legal of years, this is not an issue.
Claim 4 is a good thing. Heterosexual marriages need better role models when it comes to raising children and domestic violence.
So, why not just take a look at any country that has already legalized same sex marriages. Society hasn't fallen apart because of it. To the contrary, giving equal right to all makes for a more cohesive society, not one where one group has privileges and recognition that the other one doesn't.
Er....are you referring to online dating sites in any civilized region of the world?
The poster is referring to the grindr app - the place where all those fundie chrisian pastors who denounce anything having to do with LBGT are looking for hookups.
When there's an outbreak of c. difficile or any other highly infectious disease, it's one visitor at a time, wash hands, cap, gown, gloves, do not bring anything else in the room. This isn't to protect the visitor, but rather to prevent the patient from picking up another infection when they're already compromised.
That title would have been too long. I like my title better. A title should not be an entire summary, just enough to catch the reader's interest. Also, what's wrong with describing how social media contributed to the referendum AFTER describing the referendum? You know, giving context?
I don't understand transgender people. What's wrong with having a masculine personality with a female body or a feminine personality with a male body? Why do they go one step further and say their bodies are wrong?
As far as I'm concerned, we should all accept (therefore not deny) everyone's choice to follow and act with any belief system they wish, as long as it doesn't interfere with the choice of others.
I am really glad my brother in Christ that you agree with me, and i agree with your extra addition to my point
What a LIAR! Or did you forget that you posted that 3 hours ago in this same discussion? You know, the comment where you state this model of intolerance for others, their rights, and their beliefs:
my religion is more important for humans (even LBGTt people) than some civil rights
and
i want to advise LBGTt people to stop being so irresponsible when demand their rights
So, please answer the 15 questions I posed underneath your comment wrt your beliefs vis transsexuals. I've got my baloney detector on high:-)
When you say you don't like LGBT and "t", I would ask these questions, with specific application to transsexuals such as myself:
1. How do you justify that don't you like someone you never even met?
2. Transsexualism is a medical condition. Why should I go against the advice of 5 psychiatrists, a psychologist, and my endocrinologist? I am not a doctor, so I defer to their judgment.
3. Why shouldn't I continue to preserve my civil rights, and speak up for those who aren't so lucky?
4.LGBTIt have always supported the right of churches to regulate who they marry IN THEIR CHURCH - just please don't impose your beliefs on either those churches who do perform LGBTIt marriages or on individuals who want a civil marriage. That's the law here, and there are zero problems with it. Why do you believe the fear-mongerers who claim that we want to force churches to marry those who do not share your beliefs? In other words, [citation required]. Among the 20 countries that support same-sex marriage, please list those that force churches to perform same-sex marriages.
5. My civil rights as a transsexual include the right not to be discriminated on based on either my former or current gender. I've had to take offenders to task before a tribunal twice just in the last year to ensure my civil rights are respected. Why should I believe that your religion is more important to me than my civil rights?
6. Why should I repent for a medical condition with an internationally-recognized treatment that is, in fact, recognized by many religions?
7. When you write:
As a person of religion that has civil rights to decide about such issues i want to advise LBGTt people to stop being so irresponsible when demand their rights: civil unions is your civil right, I support it - having sex with Jesus is not! Please stop suppressing my right to religion.... everyone will benefit from that
7.1 Why is it irresponsible to demand that every member of society have the same rights?
7.2 You wrote "Having sex with Jesus" ??? WTF ??? Who has asked for that?
7.3 Who is suppressing your right to believe in your religion? Who among the LGBTt is saying that religious belief is a thought crime?
7.4 Why do you insist on the right to impose your religious beliefs on others who do not believe as you do?
7.5 If you don't respect their beliefs, why should they obey yours?
8. If the influence of the church is dying (and today's vote proves it), isn't that the fault of it's members and their leadership? Why are you blaming others, who just want to live their lives, for your deficiencies?
9. Where in the bible does it say that transsexuality is a sin (do not refer to cross-dressing in Leviticus - it's not the same thing - and it insults both)?
10. You say you like slashdot sigs, but you don't like mine, which is my slashdot sig. How do you explain this apparent contradiction and why should I care? I'm "paying it forward" for the women who went before me to allow me to have my rights, which includes my sig. Seriously, why should I care whether YOU like it or not? Why don't you do like Jesus said: "If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out?"
Slashdot Mirror
First, who says that I'm not heterosexual? I am.
Second, same-sex marriage is not an attack on anyone's religious beliefs, but plenty of bigots have worked hard to frame it as such. Think of it - nobody is demanding that same-sex marriage be mandatory for everyone. Gays and lesbians getting married is not an "attack" on your religion no matter how much you or anyone else claims otherwise.
The countries that have passed same-sex marriage have also included the rule that no religious practitioner (priest, pastor, whatever) can be forced by law to perform same-sex marriages, so we're even respecting your rights to practice your religious beliefs in your own way. We just don't want religions to obstruct the ending of discriminatory practices vis. marriage to LGBT. And yet, time and again this easily refuted accusation is made by fear-mongers.
Simply put, saying that civil unions are sufficient and that LGBTetc should accept that is an attempt to impose your beliefs on others outside your church, where you have no business doing so. When you say that ""i want to advise LGBTt people to stop being so irresponsible when demand (sic) their rights" you are treating them as second-class citizens; not only that, but you are publicly making it clear that you and your religion don't believe that equal rights apply to all. That is not "support." Being treated like a second-class citizen, without equal rights in law, is what is being fought here. If religions are against that, then maybe that is what is causing the flood of people who no longer take their beliefs from the church and only go there for the social aspects.
So, when you say that you support the right of LGBT people to "behave that way", you're simply not telling the truth. Marriage is part of people's behaviour. To deny it, and actively denounce their right to marry outside the church based on either sexual orientation or because their gender doesn't match their birth gender is not "supportive." What if people were to lobby that YOUR religion can no longer have marriages, just civil unions? That would also solve the discriminatory nature of the debate - NOBODY gets married. But we don't want to take away your rights - just equal treatment outside the church.
This is something that several religions have already addressed in a positive, inclusive way. Those who don't will just become less relevant to each succeeding generation.
I am not trying to destroy religion - the "religious folk" who engage in discriminatory behaviour and fear-mongering, and make their decisions on how to treat others without fully examining the question, are doing that job better than I could ever do.
And telling them that their life is sinful and they need to repent is NOT supporting the right of LGBT people to "behave the way they do." Far from it. It's paternalistic and insulting.
I'm just pointing all this out, is all. You publicly disagree with the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, well I'm going to defend their rights even though I am neither, just as they have defended mine. Same as I defend the right of Muslims to wear a turban instead of a hat while on duty as police officers. And the right of Catholics to wear a cross as big as they want (the government tried to pass legislation limiting the display of religious symbols a year ago - they got tossed out).
You know, there are both protestants and catholics who both say the same thing - "we support their right to behave that way, but they are sinning and need to repent and come to our way of believing or they will go to hell".
Obviously others disagree with you - just look how many comments it has compared to my story about turning red blood cells into neuron cells - which is undoubtedly biotech.
I would say, judging on the number of comments alone (it beats anything else within the last 48 hours, even though it was posted less than 24 hours ago) that my shorter title has empirically been proven to be more effective than the longer titles in other stories, and nerds do care about it.
The simple fact is that the Internet was part of what made this vote go the way it did.
Who said anything about whether there's a good solution in "our" legal system? That wasn't part of the question until you added it just now. And in Canada, the question of multiple primary partners has already been answered by the courts, so I don't know about "your" legal system, but mine works just fine :-)
You total lack of knowledge on what transsexuality is, and bigotry towards transsexuals, shows. You say I should go to church and I might learn something. I did - I was a fundamentalist evangelical baptist. Probably read the bible cover-to-cover more than 20 times. Entered the whole thing into my computer along with a program I wrote to do quick searches - back before the Internet.
Here's just some of what I learned: Christians are more hypocritical and less shameless about it than atheists. Their claims of "hate the sin, love the sinner" don't match up with their actions, and don't even make sense. You either accept someone as they are, or you don't, and want them to change to conform to YOUR beliefs. Who died and made them god?
And saying "wake up from your sleep boy/girl" is a slur, same as "Listen dude/dudette", that if it were made here would get you hauled before a judge. And I'm not in Europe. This is not "extra rights" - simply the same right as everyone else has not to be harassed, ridiculed, or defamed.
When you write "a child that has no biological connection to at least one person from a LBGT couple should not be adopted by such people" you ignore the fact that same-sex couples have been shown to have much lower rates of child abuse and violence in the home than hetero couples, to the point that here they're given a bit of a preference, because it's not about "parental rights", it's about the good of the child above all other considerations.
Why don't you conduct an experiment. You wrote "you can even try to go to some Orthodox/Catholic (or even Protestantic - i speak for what i know for sure) church and you will find love (not sexual, but brotherly/sisterly)." Get dressed up as the opposite sex and tell them you're getting a sex change. Walk a mile or 10 in my shoes (just not the ones with the stiletto heels - you'll break your neck). See how "accepted" and "loved" you feel when they say that "we still love you, but not your sin."
Classifying part of the recognized treatment for an accepted medical condition as "sin" is dangerous. People who have "repented" and de-transitioned because of religious pressure are some of the sorriest, unhappiest people you will ever meet.
But if you're going to answer one question, I'll pose this one again - where in the Bible does it say that transsexuality is a sin that I should "repent" of it? You yourself said that "i also believe that LBGTt people should repent for their behavior ". Please be specific. What behaviour should I repent of?
Also, you prejudge me by saying I don't like you. I DO disagree with you. I disagree with 4 of my 6 sisters on this same issue. Doesn't mean I don't like them. This is slashdot, and a certain amount of directness (or bluntness) in argumentation (to get to the point quicker) is the norm.
Case in point - there was one guy who quite often tried to publicly embarrass me, to the point that I warned him in front of his girlfriend that if he did it one more time I'd call the cops. This only started after he heard the rumours, and I answered his questions honestly and openly. I ran into him a few weeks ago, and he now thinks I'm the greatest thing since sliced bread because he saw how hard I was working for the benefit of the community, including those who openly hated me. Simply put, I don't hate him because I'm too lazy to carry a grudge :-)
BTW, we now also know that sexual orientation is innate - gays and lesbians were born that way. Why should they "repent" any more than someone who was born a particular colour? It's like that with plenty of animals too, so it isn't "unnatural".
I am not here to hate, but to discuss, and when the opportunity arises, to educate. Hence my sig. If transsexuals don't openly stand up for our rights, we will lose them. If we don't debunk misconceptions (some of which are just because the person never really thought it all the way through before or lack of information, such as I believe is your case) and we
Put simply, your expressed views on LGBTt issues ARE hate speech. Also, referring to me elsewhere as a boy/girl or dude/dudette is a slur.
Your post is still a lie. I specifically mentioned where you said "my religion is more important for humans (even LGBTt people) than some civil rights" and "i want to advise LGBTt people to stop being so irresponsible when demand (sic) their rights"
You claim that you agree with what Whiteox posted when he said "As far as I'm concerned, we should all accept (therefore not deny) everyone's choice to follow and act with any belief system they wish, as long as it doesn't interfere with the choice of others."
You lie. Plain and simple. Maybe you should apply to be Greece's next finance minister.
Single people have fewer obligations than married people. Marriage involves a curtailment of some rights in return for other rights that can only apply if more than one person is involved. For example, the obligation and right of mutual support in marriage cannot be applied to single people, because there's no "mutual" there. And the single person can't have their spouse decide whether to pull the plug in the ICU because they don't have a spouse.
In reality pedophiles are mostly heterosexual.
Just look at the latest family of the hour - the Duggars. Heterosexual son molested 5 children. The family friend (the sheriff) who gave him a "stern talking to" is now doing 56 years in club fed for child pornography. How much of this was caused by people being repressed by their religion and finding inappropriate outlets? There's a reason so many pedophiles are catholic priests. The cure for that is to allow priests to marry - either same-sex or hetero. Celibacy is not normal.
Claim 1 is false. There's a (much) lower level of child abuse in homes with two same-sex parents.
Claim 2 is false. Most hetero marriages have at least 1 spouse who cheats. Also, you presume that gay marriages can't be monogamous.
Claim 3 is false. The majority of hetero marriages are not monogamous. Also, in countries where same-sex marriage has been legal of years, this is not an issue.
Claim 4 is a good thing. Heterosexual marriages need better role models when it comes to raising children and domestic violence.
So, why not just take a look at any country that has already legalized same sex marriages. Society hasn't fallen apart because of it. To the contrary, giving equal right to all makes for a more cohesive society, not one where one group has privileges and recognition that the other one doesn't.
Spouses testify against each other all the time - divorce, domestic violence, abuse, etc.
I mean, what possible justification is there to extend special rights to you because you are in a sexual relationship with someone else?
I thought this discussion was about marriage, why do you bring up sexual relationships?
Possibly because one the fun is out of it, the only things keeping some couples together are money and mutual hatred.
Er....are you referring to online dating sites in any civilized region of the world?
The poster is referring to the grindr app - the place where all those fundie chrisian pastors who denounce anything having to do with LBGT are looking for hookups.
And unlike god, we can prove the sock exists :-)
When there's an outbreak of c. difficile or any other highly infectious disease, it's one visitor at a time, wash hands, cap, gown, gloves, do not bring anything else in the room. This isn't to protect the visitor, but rather to prevent the patient from picking up another infection when they're already compromised.
> gender they feel Too late. You've already bought into the gay agenda without knowing it.
If you were logged in and could see my sig you'd know how funny/inappropriate what your saying is.
Except that's not what "raising a child gender-neutral" is.
That title would have been too long. I like my title better. A title should not be an entire summary, just enough to catch the reader's interest. Also, what's wrong with describing how social media contributed to the referendum AFTER describing the referendum? You know, giving context?
I don't understand transgender people. What's wrong with having a masculine personality with a female body or a feminine personality with a male body? Why do they go one step further and say their bodies are wrong?
Because the two are different things.
Multiple lovers maybe, but multiple primary partners?
Sure. It's called divorce and remarriage. Or widow / widower remarrying.
And then there are some Mormons, Muslims, etc. who believe in multiple simultaneous wives.
As far as I'm concerned, we should all accept (therefore not deny) everyone's choice to follow and act with any belief system they wish, as long as it doesn't interfere with the choice of others.
I am really glad my brother in Christ that you agree with me, and i agree with your extra addition to my point
What a LIAR! Or did you forget that you posted that 3 hours ago in this same discussion? You know, the comment where you state this model of intolerance for others, their rights, and their beliefs:
my religion is more important for humans (even LBGTt people) than some civil rights
and
i want to advise LBGTt people to stop being so irresponsible when demand their rights
So, please answer the 15 questions I posed underneath your comment wrt your beliefs vis transsexuals. I've got my baloney detector on high :-)
When you say you don't like LGBT and "t", I would ask these questions, with specific application to transsexuals such as myself:
1. How do you justify that don't you like someone you never even met?
2. Transsexualism is a medical condition. Why should I go against the advice of 5 psychiatrists, a psychologist, and my endocrinologist? I am not a doctor, so I defer to their judgment.
3. Why shouldn't I continue to preserve my civil rights, and speak up for those who aren't so lucky?
4.LGBTIt have always supported the right of churches to regulate who they marry IN THEIR CHURCH - just please don't impose your beliefs on either those churches who do perform LGBTIt marriages or on individuals who want a civil marriage. That's the law here, and there are zero problems with it. Why do you believe the fear-mongerers who claim that we want to force churches to marry those who do not share your beliefs? In other words, [citation required]. Among the 20 countries that support same-sex marriage, please list those that force churches to perform same-sex marriages.
5. My civil rights as a transsexual include the right not to be discriminated on based on either my former or current gender. I've had to take offenders to task before a tribunal twice just in the last year to ensure my civil rights are respected. Why should I believe that your religion is more important to me than my civil rights?
6. Why should I repent for a medical condition with an internationally-recognized treatment that is, in fact, recognized by many religions?
7. When you write:
As a person of religion that has civil rights to decide about such issues i want to advise LBGTt people to stop being so irresponsible when demand their rights: civil unions is your civil right, I support it - having sex with Jesus is not! Please stop suppressing my right to religion.... everyone will benefit from that
7.1 Why is it irresponsible to demand that every member of society have the same rights?
7.2 You wrote "Having sex with Jesus" ??? WTF ??? Who has asked for that?
7.3 Who is suppressing your right to believe in your religion? Who among the LGBTt is saying that religious belief is a thought crime?
7.4 Why do you insist on the right to impose your religious beliefs on others who do not believe as you do?
7.5 If you don't respect their beliefs, why should they obey yours?
8. If the influence of the church is dying (and today's vote proves it), isn't that the fault of it's members and their leadership? Why are you blaming others, who just want to live their lives, for your deficiencies?
9. Where in the bible does it say that transsexuality is a sin (do not refer to cross-dressing in Leviticus - it's not the same thing - and it insults both)?
10. You say you like slashdot sigs, but you don't like mine, which is my slashdot sig. How do you explain this apparent contradiction and why should I care? I'm "paying it forward" for the women who went before me to allow me to have my rights, which includes my sig. Seriously, why should I care whether YOU like it or not? Why don't you do like Jesus said: "If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out?"
(Except, maybe, lack of a partner...)
This is Slashdot. What is this "except maybe" you are talking about? :-)
So post a demand to hold a referendum on "We The People." It would pass, you know.
And don't forget that they endorse Mike Huckabee, whose own followers are castigating him for defending the indefensible.