SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that states can not prevent same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their marriages from other states. In the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy it is stated:
The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
...and:
It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.
Original Submission
(Score: 2, Touché) by DutchUncle on Friday June 26 2015, @08:38PM
All of the food rules were very simple health advice (at the time). Shellfish spoil faster than fish; even today people get sick at raw clam bars. Pork at the supermarket has little stickers about cooking fully to prevent trichinosis, a parasitic infestation which is less frequent with ruminants (because they chew harder and their stomachs are chemically harsher). The cuts and tattoos thing, and hair, was probably more about looking different than their neighbors (and incidentally avoiding opportunities for infection).
As for no divorce, that's nonsense added later, because the old testament has clear and sensible statements about divorce and compensatory payment (which became alimony) and child support. The old book actually makes some sense for its time.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:53PM
So you're saying all the biblical laws where nothing more than the society of the time choosing to say "God said not to" because it was easier to lie to get them not to do those things than to convince them it's not in their best interests? Then why do we still follow it? It got geography and astronomy wrong, it's wrong on biology and psychology as well.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:07AM
So you're saying all the biblical laws where nothing more than the society of the time choosing to say "God said not to" because it was easier to lie to get them not to do those things than to convince them it's not in their best interests?
It's still easier today :-) I don't have a clue how you would explain to an illiterate goat herder the statistics about pork... Priests were better educated, or just naturally smarter; they got it figured out and put into the books as a recommended practice.
Then why do we still follow it?
Don't know who "we" is, but I certainly follow only whatever happens to make sense today. I do not like to interact with gays IRL because I am not sure how to. Roughly, I have one template to talk to men and another to talk to women. It's not that I consider gays "wrong", and I am not involved with any religion. Communication on the Internet is agnostic to personal preferences of participants.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @05:40PM
You interact with them the same way you do every other human being, you fucking bigot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:23AM
So you're saying all the biblical laws where nothing more than the society of the time choosing to say "God said not to" because it was easier to lie to get them not to do those things than to convince them it's not in their best interests?
It was a bit more authoritarian than that. Basically, the political leaders of the time decided to push their agenda into the holy texts. Did you think that the Romans invented that particular practice?
Then why do we still follow it?
Because most people are conservative in nature. It's a built-in survival mechanism and it's very helpful when you are a dumb animal. When you are subject to the mercy of nature, change tends to be bad.
(Score: 1) by DutchUncle on Thursday July 02 2015, @08:53PM
>>Why do we still follow it?
>> ... people are conservative in nature ...
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that (something) long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. "
- wiser men than I
(Score: 1) by DutchUncle on Thursday July 02 2015, @08:47PM
Back then, people said, "You eat this, you get sick, so I guess God doesn't like it when you eat this." I think it's an oversimplification born of ignorance of the detailed real reasons (rather than an explicit telling of an untruth == "lie"), and a little stronger than "Because Mom says so." Nowadays we know enough to say (with apologies to XKCD) "Because SCIENCE, bitches!" You're going to argue that the creation myths are not scientific? No argument here! And at least it improved over time - for example, in the first book one guy marries two sisters, by the fourth book there's an explicit rule prohibiting this. "We tried this, it didn't work out, I guess God doesn't like it, so don't do it." Give 'em credit for learning.