Funny how people misunderstood this comment. It obviously means : "if you aren't gay, gay weddings don't affect you, therefore you have absolutely no reason to care about them / criticize them" (thus if you don't use this or that module, it shouldn't bother you at all that it exists). It's a basic appeal to tolerance, but apparently hysterical political misreading / absence of rhetorical generosity is the norm on the internet now, even in a soft, peaceful place like the Monastery. That's quite sad, really.

One can read it in two ways, and I prefer the "in dubio pro reo" approach.

Personally I never understood why some straight people are opposing gay marriage, why should it be their business?

That's how I understand this.

I find it more troubling that free communication becomes censored by an inquisition of current "political correctness".

Please calm down everybody, and leave room for lazy wording.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Personally I never understood why some straight people are opposing gay marriage, why should it be their business?

Interestingly, in this wonderful land of 'straya (often mistakenly referred to as "Australia" by those not versed in the native tongue), our extremist right-wing fascist Government decided to decree that it was the business of every citizen (be they opposed to, or in favour of, gay marriage) to decide whether gay marriage be allowable or not.
Consequently we had a survey conducted - at great taxpayer expense, needless to say, to determine whether gay marriage be permitted, or nay.

Of course, all citizens who were registered to vote in our (so called) democratic elections were allowed to register their opinion ... and they didn't call it a survey, instead choosing the term "plebiscite".
Now "plebiscite" sounds like something that every left-wing commy socialist anarchist like me should engage in so, of course, I registered my "yes, gay marriage should be allowed" vote.
(Why should gay people be spared the pain ?? ... and, besides, our fascist 'strayan government was against it, so voting against their wishes was obviously the right thing to do.)

I should add that I'm not gay, and the part to which I'm looking forward will happen a few years down the track when we have another plebiscite to determine whether gay marriages be allowed to be dissolved in divorce.
Whereupon I shall take great pleasure in voting "no", because:
1) I'm an arsehole;
2) I really enjoy telling people to be wary of what they wish for.

Cheers,
Rob

The source of much rancor seems to be the conflation of two meanings of the word marriage: an ancient religious meaning (where "gay marriage" directly contradicts many long-standing doctrines and deeply held beliefs) and the more recent meaning of a civil union recognized by the state.

The problems come when it does affect you. The controversy over a baker's refusal to bake a special cake for a gay wedding (because doing so would conflict with that baker's own religious beliefs — note that the baker was willing to make a cake but not to decorate it in a gay wedding theme) is an example.

The correct answer to the whole mess, of course, is to get the state out of the marriage business: the state can grant civil unions (all existing marriages would be recognized retroactively as civil unions) and "marriage" is rightly between you and your religious beliefs or lack thereof.

I don't see two possible readings???

That is indeed what I meant. It doesn't mean you or your religion has to support it. If you have no stake in the game, you should respect/tolerate their wishes as you should have yours respected/tolerate.

Same with the module. Having it on CPAN doesn't affect me in the least, so why would I care if it's there or not?

I will guess that you have much less rancorous discussions in Canada. The problem we have here in the United States is activist factions that are not satisfied with tolerance but demand others actively endorse their positions, so gay weddings are a poor analogy about this issue for us.

The controversy over a cake illustrates the problem. Tolerant people would have understood the baker's religious objections and either found another baker or purchased an undecorated cake (which that baker was willing to make) and decorated it themselves, but (as far as I can tell) that was not the purpose — the whole incident seems to have been a deliberate attack on that bakery because certain activists did not like that baker's religious beliefs.

This same hypocritical intolerance is now extending to transgender issues and I worry about the future of America. Not that I believe for a minute that the hypocritically intolerant have a chance of winning in the end, but I do worry about the inevitable backlash against them.

I feel disgusted by this association! It is hugely offensive!

If you don't want to install someone's CPAN work, disable it using distroprefs. In this case it might look like ~/.cpan/prefs/PERLANCAR.yml.

---
comment: "I personally do not care about their work"
match:
    distribution: "^PERLANCAR/"
disabled: 1
[download]

(this is a literal translation for a file I do have installed for a different author but with different comments)

It's like gay weddings. It doesn't affect you, so why do you care?
[download]

Stop, Stop, Stop.
He hasn't taunted anyone, specially the LGBT community, instead, he used a metaphor for describing its ideas, he hasn't said anything related to hate or similar.
In this moment I need the power of KEKISTAN.
Edoardo Mantovani, 2020