![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
First a maintainance report, then some words on Deeper Meanings...
It's supposed to rain all weekend; Lammas will probably be off, but then so might the @!##$ JazzFest. On balance, I'm rooting for the rain.
Snip is still behaving herself. Although I still don't trust her enough to take off the dropcloths.
In regards to the Diablo 2 1.10 beta-test, I actually did turn up something of interest the other night with the bear-druid; software permitting (a story in itself, which involves a lot of indiscriminate swearing), I might head round to the forums at Diabloii.net to see what the diehards think...
Mum tripped over a hose Thursday afternoon and bruised her knee; she's not badly hurt, just too stiff to do the Mindless Delivery Drone Job for a couple of days, so she's been underfoot. But, on the bright side, she finished reading the draft! So I can begin attacking the printout with the pink highlighter as soon as I can get her back out of the house (it's too distracting otherwise).
A random thought on the gay-marriage controversy, since the Pope was condemning people from all the newsboxes today: wouldn't it be nice if people could get straight (no pun intended) the distinction between marriage as a religious sacrament and marriage as a legal contract? If your religion doesn't choose to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages, that's your prerogative, but a legal contract is the business of the state, and I seem to remember something in the paperwork about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and all. Because otherwise you're coming dangerously close to making the claim that heterosexuals who choose a state/civil ceremony instead of a church wedding "aren't doing it right" either, and that's just loony. Remember, you can 'get married' by a clergy-figure of Jehovah or Diana or Mammon or a bungee-jumping Elvis impersonator if you like, but it's not 'real' in the eyes of the law without the legal document that says 'marriage license' on it -- and the law is expressly not supposed to be interested in who you said your vows in front of, if anyone. Therefore, isn't it rather discriminatory to decide that Persons A and B may enter into a certain kind of contract, but Persons C and D may not, so long as they're all sane and consenting adults? (Dearie me, I sound like a Libertarian. For the record, I'm straight, for all the good it's ever done me, and I think it ought to be immediately obvious to anyone with half a shred of sense that Ayn Rand never had kids. BTW, never trust a used-car salesman who's sitting at his desk reading "The Fountainhead"... but that's another story entirely.)
But I'm bloviating, and I actually did have something I thought was interesting to write about today... and it's run long, so I'll have to enter it separately. All the better to sticky it, my dears...
It's supposed to rain all weekend; Lammas will probably be off, but then so might the @!##$ JazzFest. On balance, I'm rooting for the rain.
Snip is still behaving herself. Although I still don't trust her enough to take off the dropcloths.
In regards to the Diablo 2 1.10 beta-test, I actually did turn up something of interest the other night with the bear-druid; software permitting (a story in itself, which involves a lot of indiscriminate swearing), I might head round to the forums at Diabloii.net to see what the diehards think...
Mum tripped over a hose Thursday afternoon and bruised her knee; she's not badly hurt, just too stiff to do the Mindless Delivery Drone Job for a couple of days, so she's been underfoot. But, on the bright side, she finished reading the draft! So I can begin attacking the printout with the pink highlighter as soon as I can get her back out of the house (it's too distracting otherwise).
A random thought on the gay-marriage controversy, since the Pope was condemning people from all the newsboxes today: wouldn't it be nice if people could get straight (no pun intended) the distinction between marriage as a religious sacrament and marriage as a legal contract? If your religion doesn't choose to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages, that's your prerogative, but a legal contract is the business of the state, and I seem to remember something in the paperwork about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and all. Because otherwise you're coming dangerously close to making the claim that heterosexuals who choose a state/civil ceremony instead of a church wedding "aren't doing it right" either, and that's just loony. Remember, you can 'get married' by a clergy-figure of Jehovah or Diana or Mammon or a bungee-jumping Elvis impersonator if you like, but it's not 'real' in the eyes of the law without the legal document that says 'marriage license' on it -- and the law is expressly not supposed to be interested in who you said your vows in front of, if anyone. Therefore, isn't it rather discriminatory to decide that Persons A and B may enter into a certain kind of contract, but Persons C and D may not, so long as they're all sane and consenting adults? (Dearie me, I sound like a Libertarian. For the record, I'm straight, for all the good it's ever done me, and I think it ought to be immediately obvious to anyone with half a shred of sense that Ayn Rand never had kids. BTW, never trust a used-car salesman who's sitting at his desk reading "The Fountainhead"... but that's another story entirely.)
But I'm bloviating, and I actually did have something I thought was interesting to write about today... and it's run long, so I'll have to enter it separately. All the better to sticky it, my dears...