Slashdot Mirror
Xbox Live Now Allows Gender Expression
Last year we discussed news that an Xbox Live gamer was banned for identifying herself as a lesbian on her profile. Microsoft said at the time that nothing sexual in nature could appear in Gamertags or profiles. Now, they seem to have reconsidered their stance, and they've updated their Code of Conduct accordingly. Xbox Live General Manager Marc Whitten wrote:
"[The update] will allow our members to more freely express their race, nationality, religion and sexual orientation in Gamertags and profiles. Under our previous policy, some of these expressions of self-identification were not allowed in Gamertags or profiles to prevent the use of these terms as insults or slurs. However we have since heard feedback from our customers that while the spirit of this approach was genuine, it inadvertently excluded a part of our Xbox LIVE community. This update also comes hand-in-hand with increased stringency and enforcement to prevent the misuse of these terms."
...transgender lesbian, and let Microsoft try to figure out what that means. They'd probably have to google it!
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
"That decision is like, SO GAY!"
Gay rights are the civil rights struggle of our generation. When you have two consenting adults living and loving each other and then telling them they cannot get life insurance on each other to cover their mutual home in case of tragety is bigotry. This "marriage is between a man and a woman" bit is exactly the same as "coloreds don't drink from the white fountain." I don't even happen to be gay and I can still clearly see this.
Shh.
More chances to have religious and political flame wars with 13 year olds. What could go wrong?
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
Yeah right. Try "Feedback from our lawyers".
Even though protection is still wholly inadequate at the federal level; microsoft does business in a number of states where anti-gay discrimination is very illegal and very actionable. I don't believe for a second that they've had a sudden change of heart in the direction of equality and fairness. More likely, legal and PR informed the decision makers that they were about to be on the losing end of some pretty hefty legal action and bad press.
Imagine all the people...
It's a great change, but I'll be curious to see how many LGBT users actually opt to specify such in their profiles. Knowing the user population of Xbox Live, it's pretty reasonable to assume that such users would be subjecting themselves to severe denigration by other users on the service. Likewise, I fully expect LGBT users who identify themselves and who receive such responses from other users to cry foul at Microsoft for not doing enough. That isn't to say Microsoft is doing enough to police Xbox Live (the service is a festering cesspool of bigots and homophobes), but I don't feel as though there are many more policing options open to Microsoft on the service, and I don't see this move making good business sense. More importantly, I see the new freedoms of expression to be lightly used at best for the previously mentioned reasons, and it's most likely it'll be used by trolls and bigots in an effect to mock LBGT users, effecting the opposite of the intended result, and stymieing users' desire to express themselves on the service in the process.
What's with the urge to tell people that you're homosexual? I don't go around telling people that I am heterosexual and usually find it inappropriate when somebody tells me their sexual orientation. What do I care? When I make a move, shoot me down when you are not interested because you're homosexual or when you're just not interested. When we work or play, I don't need to know.
Nah, all of these policies are caused by lawyers and fearmongering. I don't think any Microsoft exec cares how you call yourself on Xbox live, as long as you pay your yearly fees. However, Lawyers probably said that "inappropriate" words in the Gamertag could result in a lawsuit - which is why they were forbidden in the first place.
The information isn't really for you, it is for other homosexuals.
semantics are everything!
Don't tell me you're gay, or straight, or white, or black, or a hairdresser or a hobbit fetishist. I don't care. Either pull out the BFG and start fragging some bad guys, or stick your head in the way of my shots.
You may choose to play first-person shooters exclusively, but not all gamers agree. I don't have an Xbox 360 console yet (I want one for XNA, but I'm waiting for hardware reliability issues to be solved; are they?) and therefore know little about its available games, but I'm certain that at least a couple games revolve around socializing, much like Nintendo's Animal Crossing 3 for Wii.
Microsoft is based in Seattle. We tend to be quite liberal and supportive of civil rights out here. Hell, I had two jobs with two lesbian managers in a row -- in IT! How often does that happen?
Microsoft learned about this the hard way in 2005: Originally opposed to a gay rights bill in Washington state, they quickly changed position.
Said Balmer at the time:
I read that as "our employees [probably smart, talented, and many quite senior in the company] threw a fucking fit over our ignorance."
True to their word, in 2009 Microsoft donated $100k to support partnership rights in Washington.
I agree with other commenters that this is a civil rights issue, and seriously doubt Microsoft will screw the pooch on gay rights ever again.
I got enough crap in my own life to worry about.
Sorry, we don't care that you've "got enough crap in your own life". You're now banned from Slashdot for saying something that isn't approved of, and that no one cares about.
Don't go whining about it - there are more important things to worry about than a Slashdot account, right?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
[...] it inadvertently excluded a part of our Xbox LIVE community [...]
How come? Did gay people avoid joining because they couldn't state that they were gay?
Evidently Microsoft cared, if they decided to ban someone for it.
(And again, I find it amusing to have Anonymous Cowards saying "I don't see the point in putting info about yourself online". Well duh - we kind of figured you guys don't see the point.)
Cloning will offer a way for people who don't have the compatible equipment reproduce. That is not far off. My indignation comes mainly because of injustice in treatment. Marriage brings a whole host of benefits to a couple mainly in terms of how they can financially manage their mutual lives. Denying these benefits to people who love each other just as deeply may not benefit society but it sure as hell wrongs those individuals. Can't claim each others income together when applying for the mortage? I'll admit I'm inexperienced in the details of what gets denied but the fact remains: I was raised that we are all equals and I will rail against "traditions" that make some less equal than others. Society is defined by individuals not the other way around.
Shh.
Lesbian and gay are not genders. They might imply one, but they aren't genders themselves.
Twinstiq, game news
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They may differ in degree but the core of an ugly person is the same deep down when they enforce their prejudice on others. Might as well cut straight to that core: they have the freedom from religion too, it is for religious reasons that the debate is so heated. Christian morals are being enforced on those that obviously don't share them.
Shh.
more freely express their race, nationality, religion and sexual orientation
Race, nationality and sexual orientation are totally covered by the GNAA. So will they be allowed to express themselves freely on XBox live?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Whereas, the reasons I hear in opposition of same-sex marriage are simple: traditional marriage is intended to incentivize childbearing, which is how we perpetuate our species, a practice without which our society will inevitably terminate
If this is our intent, we could gather a lot of extra taxes from those people who are married but unable or unwilling to conceive. Why should they get the benefit when they have no intention or are unable to fulfill the requirements of the incentive?
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
Can't claim each others income together when applying for the mortage?
I was under the impression you could apply for a mortgage jointly, regardless of marital status. I base this solely on the fact that when I was applying for my mortgage, they knew of my girlfriend (and that we were not married) and asked if I was applying jointly or singly.
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How deep do you think the roots against gay marriage go into Christian values? I believe they do go quite far and therefore assert freedom from religion.
Shh.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What I see is that you have given sufficient thought to come up with a justification of why those people were assholes but you, holding very similar views, are actually a rather enlightened fellow. This doesn't change anything of the reality of the situation; they're both the same shit.
Historically ancient origins of marriage as being related to reproduction do not change the fact that it is currently, for many people, an important part of human interactions, and denying it to those people on the basis of how things used to be is a shitty thing to do (not the mention the various legal issues that can pop up with not being married). A lot of things currently differ in purpose from their original ones, deal with it.
They can call it a kumquat if they so please, but that won't make it one.
And they used to say the exact same thing about marriage with regard to race (which you somehow assert this is completely different from). The argument is utter bullshit either way. Much of humanity has realized that "you are free to marry anyone--as long as they're of the same race" is a retarded thing to say, and much of it is starting to realize that replacing "race" with "sex" makes it still a retarded thing to say.
I damn well can say that, because they are flimsy rationalizations for arbitrary hatred. Ever wonder why these people who claim gay marriage is BAD and WRONG because marriage is supposed to be about reproduction never make the same complaints about marriages where one or both of the partners incapable of reproduction? It's because they're a bunch of moralistic asshats who are just trying to hide their true motives, and failing.
No, they all boil down to the same thing arguments against gay marriage tend to boil down to: "If we let them be treated like us, the fabric of society will unravel!"
Really? All the ones I've heard are more along the lines of "These people are people and, as such, deserve the rights of people." Aren't strawmen so much easier to attack, though? You certainly seem to think so.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They do it there for different reasons. I'm talking about here. It is religious here, someones imaginary man in the sky is being foisted on gays.
Shh.
It's certainly the case in the UK (where civil unions are legal anyway, mind you). This discussion is about the USA but I would be pretty surprised if it wasn't the case there also. Banks care about your income. If you are half of a couple both earning, that's relevant regardless of the genders involved. Banks don't lend out of a social duty, they lend because they want to make money back off you. If something makes you a better bet, they'll be considering that.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Marriage is loaded with religion. As getting black people into white schools took the government to establish I believe getting gays equal treatment will also need government to initiate the break through bigotry. Since "marriage" is so contentious, what is wrong with civil unions? Gay people don't have to step into that horrid "church" to get their love recognized and get the benefits other groups of two people loving each other get. Do you support civil unions? If you don't can you argue from the other side and even if you don't believe it list reasons why civil unions should be?
Shh.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The love for each other should be given preference. The man in the sky is much more difficult for me to experience but I have experienced love. Why is it only justice for some? Why is there justice, it is all just chemicals spreading semi-randomly. Let's get rid of all these chemically inspired soups and start with dumping the constitution. The only opinion that matters is the presidents and how well he does with keeping the GDP up. After all, those things can be measured.
Shh.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And Schroedinger's cat did and did not hop out!
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Having sex with an unconsenting rock.
Two consenting adults is very different.
PS: same goes for marriage.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Agreed. Abolish marriage as a legal contract. Allow civil unions to define legal pairings, and let individual churches choose whether or not to recognize certain "marriages". Everybody wins... ...that is, everybody except those that want to force their hangups on everyone else. I say 'fuck 'em'
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
It's always a little disturbing when someone defends the pointless large-scale infringement of the rights of others and tries to pass it off as "rational discourse".
Yes, you plainly state it, a bit, in your post which largely consists of defending the stances of people who are quite vehemently opposed to gay marriage.
None of the arguments you raised are valid, and the question is as simple and obvious as the question of miscegenation laws.
You know, there's this concept in reading called "context", with which the meanings of things change in relation to their surroundings. You seem to not be particularly familiar with it. See, what you do is you look at the particular part of the post I am replying to, in this case being this:
Now, you see how this bit makes no mention of having children? In fact, if you apply more of this "context" magic and go back to the original post and view this quote in its original "context", you find that furthermore, this, in that "context", is provided as a separate, distinct point of view from the "gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because marriage exists to promote couples having children" stance. So, bringing up the subject of capability for having children is what's known as a "non sequitur" (another scary new concept, oh my!), which is Latin for "if your response isn't relevant to what you're responding to you look really, really stupid", and makes you, you guessed it, retarded.
"You so sillay!" isn't a proper rebuttal.
You are conflating affirmative action with anti-discrimination laws. The latter isn't "beneficent racism", or even "racism" of any kind. Furthermore, constitutions are bodies of laws themselves, so saying "we don't need laws against this, we have a constitution" doesn't make any sense.
Your posts have had you claiming that social institutions can't change, that because people arguing against gay marriage have presented poor arguments as post-hoc rationalizations of their stances, they're not really arbitrary and unfounded, gross mischaracterization of the arguments of people arguing for rights for gays as merely being "we like them", gross mischaracterization of the people arguing against them as being a bunch of perfectly rational folks with perfectly rational stances not at all derived from morality, comparing gay rights advocates to racists (seriously?), reduction of the entirety of the gay rights movement to marriage, multiple logical fallacies in your reply here alone, and more. And I am not up to the standards of this fine debate because I said "shit".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There are advantages to being married: government supplied ones. Equality under government is something to be desired. So if the gays can't get the advantages, take them away from straights? Poetic justice but would probably lead to more than a few deaths.
Shh.
Finally, I can blast the shit out of a Rush Limbaugh avatar.
Table-ized A.I.
Saying: "you might re-apply for admittance into the world of adult conversation." doesn't help your own membership in said mythical organization. You are trying to pick these issues apart with intellect. This is doomed to fail, the issues are emotional in nature. This topic gets more results out of an emotional quotient than an intellectual one. Still messy as hell.
Shh.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No, that's not what he's getting at at all, though he probably thinks it is. If it really didn't matter, then it's a meaningless attribute; therefore, he should have no preference one way or the other. Clearly he does (certain handles he doesn't want to hear). Given that you have to have a screen name in order to make services like this work, then why shouldn't people be able to name themselves something meaningful to them? They already have to choose a name, and choose well enough that it's unique.
It's not as if people are actively in a multiplayer match, then randomly decide -- while taking fire -- to stop playing, and redesign their handle. No, that happens before the battle is even joined; by the time you're in a match with someone, their handle is already immutable. "Shut up and play" sounds good, but is meaningless in this context. He gives the lie to his own statement: If all he cares about is playing the game, why should it matter whether the guy kicking his ass is named "GayInDallas" as opposed to "StormPanzer"?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have responded by pointing out that your main argument, that "gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because marriage exists to promote reproduction" hinges on the notion that marriage cannot and has not changed over the many millennia of human society, which is quite demonstrably false, by for example the growing support for it in many countries, and even the legalization of it in some. You can claim that I'm just saying you're "obviously wrong" all you want, but it still doesn't make it true. You, on the other hand, have outright ignored many of my points, passing them off as just "irrational anger".
Again, claiming that I haven't doesn't change the fact that I have.
*sigh* Yes, it is relevant to a central point of the debate. However, the reply was not directed at that, and the point quoted was made clear to be a distinct and different stance. Taking something that replies to some point of an argument and treating it as thought it were in response to a different point of the argument, even if the latter point is the main point, is still taking it out of context, and thus your reply still is a complete non sequitur.
Right, "you're full of shit" isn't a proper rebuttal, which is why it was not used as one. The rest of that paragraph providing counter examples to the claims of the quoted text, however, is a proper rebuttal. The "you're full of shit" is just a non-functional flourish used to convey my contempt for your defense of the restriction of rights of others because of the insane morals of some, and most especially, for how thoroughly shoddy said defense is.
Your personal views are a couple of sentences sandwiched between the four paragraphs of defending the position of lunatics, and your conclusion about how "gay rights" isn't equivalent to other civil rights movements by stating things false about those other civil rights movements and reducing all of the gay rights movement to gay marriage. Gee, I wonder why I'd think your post is about how "gay rights" is nonsense and the people who oppose it are a bunch of fine, intelligent folks, when it so obviously isn't?
You are not a retard because you disagree with me, you are a retard because your arguments are full of holes, and when these wholes are pointed out, your respond with logical fallacies, taking things out of context, ignoring my points, and whining about how I used bad words. "Adult conversation" doesn't mean you just use big words, you have to actually have a solid argument underlying those big words.
Agreed. Abolish marriage as a legal contract. Allow civil unions to define legal pairings, and let individual churches choose whether or not to recognize certain "marriages". Everybody wins... ...that is, everybody except those that want to force their hangups on everyone else. I say 'fuck 'em'
Mod parent up!
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
You may not see the need but I'm beginning to side more with Virak than yourself.
Shh.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think the change probably has more to do with the integration into the windows 7 phone enviroment and all the various social networking aspects of it.
So you would be against a man marrying, say, a woman who'd had ovarian cancer at some point in her life and is no longer able to have children? Would you be for dissolving the marriages of men who have had vasectomies? Surely those relationships are every bit as useless as a marriage between two dudes!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
And you base this on what? Microsoft's historical poor treatment of the GLBT community? Oh, right, they're on the Human Rights Campaign's Best Places to Work list.
Just because Microsoft does some legally, socially, and ethically questionable things doesn't mean that everything they do is questionable. Given that MS has been a leader in supporting GLBT rights within their own workplace, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they just screwed this one up, and want to make it right.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Again, you ignore my points and pass them off as "demagoguery", you act as though I have ignored the focus of your post, which was obviously about the tangentially related little comment at the end and not the paragraphs and paragraphs before it, and you play up how so very mature and rational you are (in between the jabs, of course). Your replies to me have mostly consisted of picking apart the form of my posts, instead of the content, and not once have you responded to an actual point of mine with a valid rebuttal. All I have gotten is logical fallacies, complaints about how you don't feel I'm sufficiently polite and "adult" to converse with you, derailment of the topic, and so on. The best I've gotten is you displaying a very faulty knowledge of various laws, though at least it was an attempt at a reply.
And yet you feel entitled to take a holier-than-thou position, acting as though you have been kindly putting up with the foolishness of a pitiable child who is lashing out in anger at his obvious superiors. My original reply may have been abrasive, but at least it made points and backed them up; your replies since have been eloquent but devoid of anything substantive. You are good at speaking but not so much at the thinking, evidently.
So perhaps we should start again. Are you capable of actually responding to the meat of my posts, instead of the skin? Are you capable of responding to arguments with something more than logical fallacies? Are you capable of not being such a smug prick? I'm guessing the answer to all of these is "no", so I shall bow out of this 'debate', and return to my far more fruitful conversation with this lovely brick wall over here.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not only US states, but have a guess how well banning gay people from being open would fare in Europe. Heck if I'm not mistaken there's EU directives that require states to implement legal protections from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just saying.
Of course, I haven't bothered to read any of the linked to pages. :P
I'm a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar...
-Lucy-
You see, you think you won. But you have to live in your own mind :D That is the greatest revenge for him!
Shh.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Virak: Give up! You're being trolled!
"This is why you have no credibility. This is why you sound more like (your ideological opponents) the fire-and-brimstone preachers than like a rational human being. This is bigotry in its purest form: the demonization of your opponents as fundamentally, irredeemably defective."
Yeah! Ad hominem SUCKS! In fact...
"This would be getting tiresome if you weren't so obviously coming unglued at the notion that someone could possibly disagree with you. It's almost endearing--like Gizmo wearing a Rambo bandanna."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
http://www.edge-online.com/blogs/next-gender-gaming
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Gay couples frequently have children. They adopt, use sperm donors, use egg donors and surrogates. Not unlike many straight couples.
Straight couples frequently decide not to have children. They often still chose to get married. Many (most?) of the rights that a marriage conveys have nothing to do with children.
I agree that marriage is about building a family. I love my partner, and we've reached the point where the term "boyfriend" doesn't describe what we are to each other. We've become family, even if the family is only two people. I want to formalize that transition the same way my parents did, the same way my brother did.
If it makes you feel any better we both work full time jobs and would probably end up paying increased taxes if we do succeed in getting married.
# (/.);;
- : float -> float -> float =
Why are homosexuals so intent on changing language to fit their needs rather than being willing to call these civil unions and get the same benefits?
Not sure, probably has something in relation to those people who are so intent on defining marriage as a man-and-woman thing.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Find your own word for that kind of abomination; this word is taken.
The use of this kind of term clearly shows where you are coming from, and makes you the *real* hate-filled abomination.
So you apparently think you can define the word 'marriage' for everyone else do you? The sheer arrogance of 'this word is taken' is mind-boggling. And you then dare to say "The reason is the same reason people worked to control language in 1984: to try to control people's thoughts." when it's *you* who are saying that *other people* have no right to use a word in a particular way.
Well, here's the news: marriage has meant, does mean and always will mean more than your exclusive definition, and in your case the more that offends you the better.
Really. Try looking in any dictionary made anytime between the invention of dictionaries and 1990; they all mention the fact that it's between a man and a woman (four different historical editions of Webster's and one of Funk and Wagnall's checked here; OED made a draft revision to mention homosexual "marriages" in 2009; the only exceptions I can find are abridged dictionaries which have directly circular definitions, simply taking for granted that the reader knows what's being talked about i.e. "marriage, n. state of being married. marry, v. to join in marriage"). Looking up the translated word in other languages has the same effect. Not that you have to trust the makers of dictionaries; if you want to dig through all of historical usage to find what all but a very recent minority have meant by the word, you'll be forced to the same conclusion. Even among advocates of homosexual behavior, the first references to trying to call a homosexual union a marriage come during or after the 1960s (OED gives as its first historical use for justifying the draft revision a 1975 quote). I'm not dictating what the word means; it has always meant the union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
I'm not saying language should or can be a static entity. But any honest appraisal of the situation will have to come to the conclusion that the intent has been to force the majority to change their linguistic usage by government action esp. judicial fiat. If you want to call a homosexual union "marriage" or "qweoriulsaf" that's your prerogative, though in either case it's unlikely to lead to mutual understanding with those who use the language normally. But when you attempt to force others to use the word this way there's a problem.
I don't bear any hatred towards those who feel homosexual attractions; I similarly don't hate kleptomaniacs and other groups of people who face (often largely due to genetic influences and factors in their upbringing, though one's past choices are never without any effect) abnormally strong urges to do other kinds of wrong actions. Those who successfully resist such urges deserve commendation; sometimes, if the urges aren't fed by acting upon them, they will subside in time, but not always. Those who succumb to the urges don't deserve hatred either (we should move beyond hating other human beings and only hate wrong actions and wrong ideals; the way people are treated in society today shows a horrible tendency to hate the sinner and love the sin). But society should move to protect itself from the effects of such wrong actions regardless of what urges tend to motivate them.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just because injustice is written in a book it must be perpetuated forever? Even when it is obviously evil? Evil is hurt which the opponents of gay-marriage seem all to willing to do to others over something that won't affect their day-to-day lives, just their sensibilities. But I suppose its ok to trod on another just so you can feel smug, hmm?
Shh.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So my use (and the usage of English since its inception, as well as basically every other language known to man) of two different terms for homosexual unions and marriages is "obviously evil"? This is no injustice, it's calling a spade a spade.
The breakdown of the nuclear family and the government legitimization and subsidization of perversion aren't things that won't affect my day-to-day life. They would make society a living hell for everyone who lives in it. And in such a society I, like Åke Green, would be imprisoned for daring to speak up against it.
All you have done is solidify your evil in my mind. Too afraid gays will get what bigots enjoy, always dancing about with words? Your heart is dead if you can't see the issue. Have fun leading your soulless life.
Shh.
There are several aspects of marriage to consider. The first is to promote structures which are deemed good for raising children. Since many heterosexual families don't have children either, it would make sense to limit whatever benefits are used for this to only those with children.
Then there is the urban planning and environmental aspect, which is that single people living alone still usually like to have a reasonable sized lounge, kitchen, dining room and so on, for entertaining, and their house will still need at least one bathroom and utility room, a single garage, and so on. All this takes up space, and so contributes to urban sprawl and in-fill, both of which are detrimental to society as a whole (ISTR that in the 1990s, the number of houses in my city grew much faster than the number of adults living there did, because people were marrying later and divorcing more often, so the number of people in each household got smaller (on average).) It would obviously make sense to encourage people to live together, but who the people are and why they want to be together is irrelevant.
Finally we have the question of things like ones default heir, their next of kin for emergency medical decisions and so on. The obvious solution to that problem would be to make the parent of the same sex as the person the default, then allow people to assign the position of next of kin to any adult once they come of age. For things like hospital visitation, the obvious solution is to put a list of people in each person's shared medical file with their drug intolerances and other information.
Finally, we have things like insurance policies. Since it doesn't make any difference to the insurance company if the beneficiary of your life insurance is your wife, lover, child, or some random person, or even how many people you want paid, or anything but the the likelihood of you dying (as you're basically placing a recurring bet that you will die this year), in a sane world marriage should be irrelevant to getting life insurance.
Medical insurance is just as simple, unless it is employer provided, but the general messiness of that entire system means that his is just a small part of the reasons against such a system.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Whilst I am in favour of less government involvement in marriage in general, I do think it is worth preserving the WORD "marriage" with its existing meaning, purely on the basis that having more words with different shades of meaning is an inherently good thing. IMNSHO, I'd like to see "marriage" used for the religious and social concept, with something like "long-term domestic partnership" used to mean the legal contract, since the two meanings are largely orthogonal.
I would like to make it clear that I don't support the rest of the GP's arguments.
Possible legal entanglements aside, I think Microsoft has handled this admirably. They started out on the conservative side of the equation and let their customers dictate their future decisions. After re-evaluating the circumstances they have allowed certain things into their online profiles while maintaining a serious no tolerance attitude towards misuse of certain terms. This is as balanced an approach as I've seen, and even if the legality of the issues was a prominent factor in the decision, I like that large corporations such as Microsoft are not waiting for litigation before changing internal policy. This indicates a major shift in how a business handles things internally. A large corporation like Microsoft leads just because of its market dominance and size. Where they go, others follow. This is ultimately good news. Let's not spoil the good things a company with past transgressions does. Instead let's be vocal about our appreciation of their decision.
Pompous sophistry is "cordial and coherent"? Hmm, no, I think the mods are right. The harder you try to sound unemotional and rational, the more ignorant you sound.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Funny you should mention that. I'm not an atheist and I feel like you do. I don't like mentioning it whether I'm here on Slashdot or even in public. (I'm not living in the 'heartland' so I can imagine there's a big difference.) I think Intelligent Design, for example, is a very weak and unsubstantiated theory and pinch the bridge of my nose whenever attempts are made to enforce it in school. But if I say I'm not atheist here on Slashdot, it's assumed I go along with that idea and would want to convince the whole planet that it's true. Mainly because there are some loud-mouthed people trying to get laws made and it's easy to generalize. You'd think Star Trek would have taught us about labeling people.. but... yeah, that's the world we live in. I don't think it'll be too long before it's fashionable to not be affiliated with religion. It's already happening at the coasts.
If it helps, you'll be happy to know I'm not the slightest bit interested in changing your mind. Try to keep in mind the shades-of-gray.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)