Sanding our assholes with 150 grit.

10 reasons Gay Marriage is wrong

1. Being gay is not natural. And as you know Americans have always rejected unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because, as you know, a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Not mine - got it in the mail. :)
Permalink Flasher T 
January 9th, 2006
Nothing terribly original, there, but cute.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 9th, 2006
++1. Being gay is not natural. And as you know Americans have always rejected unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.


Don't forget the metric system!
Permalink I am Jack's metric mania 
January 9th, 2006
The metric system is most natural of all, because the meter is 1/(100*100) of the distance between the pole and the equator.

Inches and miles are just completely arbitrary. :P
Permalink Flasher T 
January 9th, 2006
Arbitrary is how we likes it!!
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 9th, 2006
And yet anal is an atrocity...
Permalink I am Jack's animal art 
January 9th, 2006
That is in the bible, at least.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 9th, 2006
Well dude when you think about it anal sex is pretty violent, not to mention gross.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 9th, 2006
11. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Isn't intelligent design a cute matter? God plays games.
Permalink Lost in the jungle 
January 9th, 2006
The appalling thing is no.5 was a major plank of opposition to "Civil Partnership"* in the UK.

*It's not marriage apparently. It just carries the same rights & responsibilties and takes place under the same conditions in the same places in ceremonies usually called "weddings".
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 9th, 2006
Miles aren't arbitrary - they're roughly 1000 standard Roman paces. Most other old units are something you could approximate from materials generally to hand in a farming community.

SI is just neater as it was designed from scratch.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 9th, 2006
++Miles aren't arbitrary - they're roughly 1000 standard Roman paces.

Haha... in 1000 frigging paces, wouldn't even a quarter inch differential in leg length make a huge difference? I think we just like being different and flaunting it.
Permalink I am Jack's flaunted freeway fun 
January 9th, 2006
Not really - Roman soldiers were trained to march a regulation length pace. When the Western Empire fell the successor nations just carried on using the system with distance markers already in place on the major roads - some of which are still in use albeit after a lot of resurfacing work.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 9th, 2006
I dont understand why we dont just bite the bullet like every other country and switch to metric. It sucks at first, but one generation later no one knows the difference.
Permalink Phil 
January 9th, 2006
Ok, so that is a little more sensible. You had only said Romans before, not specifically soldiers.
Permalink I am Jack's steady step 
January 9th, 2006
He did say "standard".
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 9th, 2006
We've *mostly* converted - miles & pints (proper 20 fl.oz ones) haven't changed. Produce in pounds & ounzes went a couple of years ago but retailers have worked out a way of obeying the letter rather than the spirit of the law.

After hearing a reporter in Strasbourg buy a pound of potatoes at the time I don't think Imperial units will disappear just yet.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 9th, 2006
I recently saw some UK thing listing weight in "stones". I had no idea that was even a measurement, wonder how that didn't make its way here.
Permalink Phil 
January 9th, 2006
The trouble with changing to the metric system in the US is that there will be an INSANE amount of price gouging for produce and the like, initially. I know how much a pound of potatoes should cost, but I've no fucking clue what to pay for half a kilogram of them.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 9th, 2006
Ok, so the mile is 1000 paces, but that doesn't explain why it's some abstract number of yards to the mile, why yards are 3', and why a foot is 12". And then there are 16oz in 1lb, some number of pints that escapes me for the moment in a gallon (which then varies depending on whether it's an Imperial or US pint/gallon). Then there's the whole peck/bushel business...

Give me SI units or give me death!
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 9th, 2006
Yeah but you know that 4 or 5 potatoes should cost around $3 or whatever right? The main concerns I would see would be in driving, since everyone would look at the big numbers, not the little ones, and get thrown off my mileage to the next exit (plus they just finished upgrading all the exit numbers to reflect mileage)
Permalink Phil 
January 9th, 2006
"...I've no fucking clue what to pay for half a kilogram of them."

Fractionally more than you pay for 1lb, given that 1lb = 454g...
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 9th, 2006
Sure I do, Phil, but Joe Average is going to be clueless. Or Josephine Average.

As far as the speed limits go, chaos!

Of course, nobody pays much attention to them anyway. If I go less than 80mph on my way to work, I'm getting passed left and right.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 9th, 2006
"Yeah but you know that 4 or 5 potatoes should cost around $3 or whatever right?"

Where the fuck are you buying your potatoes? Are they made of gold?
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 9th, 2006
School zone: Slow to 50!

Of course... lil buggers can't run that fast!
Permalink I am Jack's stolen stitch 
January 9th, 2006
Mat -

Firstly I was being facetious about what to pay for half a kilo, since I knew that it's roughly a pound. :)

Secondly, 4 or 5 potatoes in Connecticut can very well cost you $2 - $3, depending on the variety. $2-3 is probably an average price, actually.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 9th, 2006
Mat, I don't do the shopping in the house, but according to the local circular it looks like a 5lbs bag of Idahos is on sale for $3.
Permalink Phil 
January 9th, 2006
5 lbs of Idahos is probably more like 8 potatoes, give or take.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 9th, 2006
So is it a good deal, should I pick some up? ;)
Permalink Phil 
January 9th, 2006
You'll be discussing the price of fish next...
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 9th, 2006
Potatoes in Connecticut cost between 79 and 99 cents a pound, usually, unless you buy in 5 pound bags. Then they go bad, so buying in bulk isn't worth the discount.

Heck, they're cheap compared to things like avocados and citrus fruit!
Permalink Dana 
January 9th, 2006
"Not really - Roman soldiers were trained to march a regulation length pace."

And the regulation is - say it with me - arbitrary. :P

"The trouble with changing to the metric system in the US is that there will be an INSANE amount of price gouging for produce and the like, initially."

That's what everyone kept saying when we joined the EU, and what was supposed to happen when countries switched to the Euro... in fact, there was hardly any difference at all (with the exception of things being priced at e1 as opposed to e0.94 as they would in a direct conversion).
Permalink Flasher T 
January 9th, 2006
++Flasher T

Everybody said that that would happen when transitioning to Euros but it didn't. Perhaps because people were expecting it.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 9th, 2006
There was a huge cost to consumers when Britain switched to the metric system because every retail business had to replace or convert their weighing and pricing equipment. Those costs were passed on to the customer but people didn't see it--it was an invisible cost like VAT is.
Permalink Ian Boys 
January 9th, 2006
Cynic, given that 1 mile is 1760 yards, that would make one standard Roman pace about 5 feet long. Something doesn't seem right there, unless Roman soldiers were 8 ft giants?

Mat, how can you not know there are eight pints to a gallon? I despair of education standards today, I really do.

Oh, and potatoes in England are about 25-30p a pound at the moment, which would be about 50 cents. So a 5 lb bag would work out at a bit less than $3.
Permalink Ian Boys 
January 9th, 2006
On the Unisys 2200 mainframe memory comes in blocks of 1792 words.

Brownies for the background of this metric.
Permalink Erik Springelkamp 
January 9th, 2006
"Mat, how can you not know there are eight pints to a gallon? I despair of education standards today, I really do."

I wouldn't know what a gallon looked like if my life depended on it. (We'd gone metric before I got to school, and no-one ever mentioned gallons to us; they're an outdated unit of measure, along with rods, chains, cubits, pecks, and all that other nonsense. Plus it's been over 15 years since I left school, so what today's educational standards have to do with it I don't know)

"...given that 1 mile is 1760 yards, that would make one standard Roman pace about 5 feet long."

The standard Roman pace was two steps. How can you not know that? I despair of education standards today, I really do.

:D
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 9th, 2006
"Brownies for the background of this metric."

Off the top of my head, 1792/64 is 28 so possibly there were 64 blocks of 32 words on some storage medium, 4 bytes of each blcok being used as some sort of sector ID?
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 9th, 2006
>Off the top of my head, 1792/64 is 28 so possibly there were
>64 blocks of 32 words on some storage medium, 4 bytes of
>each blcok being used as some sort of sector ID?

Kudos, but there's an inverse-square relationship between "street cred" and "geek cred".
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 9th, 2006
Dammit!
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 9th, 2006
Did you just say "street cred"?

http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?off.9.260569.9
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 9th, 2006
Reason #1 why gay marriage should be banned: Why can't gay people be spared? Haven't they suffered enough already?
Permalink Still not original... 
January 9th, 2006
Excellent answer, "Still...".

I liked the whole thread -- even the Roman Legion part. I think it's somehow appropriate that Roman Legions and gayness be discussed in the same thread.

Yup, that "Sanctity of Marriage" argument is hard to support, when you have statistics that 50% of CHRISTIAN marriages end in divorce.
Permalink AllanL5 
January 9th, 2006
The standard Roman pace was 5 ft. Say you start on the right foot it was counted to where the right foot next went down. The Roman mile was 5000ft. The mile was extended to 5280 ft. in 1592 to make the mile an even number of furlongs (the distance of one ploughed furrow). Wikipedia has this stuff in tedious detail...
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 9th, 2006
Back to the orignal post:

12. Ambiguous "yes, dear" recipient/responder causes societal crisis.
Permalink hoser 
January 9th, 2006

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics