You don't seem to have the basic concept of constructing analogies here.
Assault is already a crime. If someone is punching you in the nose, you can call the police.
But I'll pretend you said something about flagrant fouls not involving clear assault. Even in that case, you still have no "right" to assert in order to get access to a particular basketball court unless local laws, or the rules of the owner of the property, permit it. In addition, you've also got to the inalienable right to build your own basketball court and invite your friends over to play (just like you have the right to start your own server and boot/ban anyone you even suspect is cheating).
Of course, the final nail in your analogy's coffin is this: Going to another server is not equivalent to walking/driving/cycling 30 miles to find the next-nearest basketball court. It's a point and a click away.
Wow. Just...Wow. I don't know if you've ever noticed, but Apple has charged ridiculously high prices compared to actual hardware cost and performance for years. Hell, they could be getting those 1.8GHz parts for less than a hundred bucks a pop (probably a bit higher).
Personally, I think these leaked specs are a crock. But trying to judge prices by comparing to Apple prices is like trying to judge prices on an upcoming Chrysler compared to a similar Mercedes.
First off, let me state that I don't use cheat programs in multiplayer games (in fact, over the past couple years, most of my multiplayer gaming has been on AFAICT cheat program-free Xbox Live). That being said, I say TS to people who get into a game with a cheater.
When I was playing PC multiplayer games on a regular basis, there were always games with cheaters in them. They (usually the cheater, otherwise the game) were easy to figure out. The solution? Switch to a different server. It ain't rocket science. The idea of suing someone for ruining an online game (specifically, a non-persistent online game with beaucoup other servers available) is ludicrous. The idea of a company suing people who make and distribute cheats - assuming they aren't breaking copyright law - is ludicrous.
There's an easy way to remain free of cheaters in online games. Make friends and then play with them. Not only will you be reasonably certain there's no cheating going on, but you'll probably enjoy the experience more regardless.
I mean, hell, if we're going to talk about lawsuits for ruining people's fun then why not go after spawn campers, consta-jumpers, loot whores, etc., too? How about suing people who are frustrated but remain in the game and on a team doing badly on purpose?
If you're taking online games that seriously, though, I would recommend first that you quit playing online games and stick with single-player - clearly, you don't have thick enough skin to deal with other humans. Either that, or start a service - or find a way to encourage companies to start a service - with pay servers. If people are so invested in these games it's worth tying up court time, then it should be worth $10 a month to have a bank of exclusive servers not open to the general public. I would guess you'd weed out 90% of the cheaters with that one stroke since they'd probably keep cheating on free systems.
PS- The next time you find a clause guaranteeing "freedom to be entertained" in a government's constitution, let me know so that I can snicker. Aren't there enough SERIOUS and IMPORTANT issues of freedom to deal with?
PPS- The type of person who would make your suggestions would be the type of person with whom I would want to play and punish with cheating - I'm just that kind of bastard.
Your description of the hardware situation for TV shows is close but a little deceptive. If a show captures in high-quality (think movie-theater film) analog, then they can create a very high-quality digital master which can then obviously be used as the basis for the eventual 1080i or 720p transmission. As another example, modern DVDs are not being taken directly from film to 480p but instead are going from film to high-definition digital master to 480p. Using high-resolution digital cameras only becomes a big issue when doing live work where you don't have the benefit of having time to develop film and then remaster it in digital.
In short, while there might be some programming that is being up-converted from old 480i/p (analog OR digital) to 720p/1080i, a good many shows can be in "true" HD resolution even if the original source material was analog.
It should be noted that 16x9 HDTV signals, like good DVDs, are ALSO in "anamorphic" widescreen (despite it becoming standard, I hate that terminology). That means it's possible it's a software/driver issue (any good PC DVD player should automatically compensate for the "anamorphic" signal when doing PC monitor display) and might not be the fault of the reviewer at all - though, admittedly, the reviewer should probably have been able to explain this and/or fix it.:)
"Nihilistic isn't getting the job done at all. We're bringing Ghost back in house to see if we can save the game before it goes the way of Warcraft Adventures. Nihilistic better have good lawyers because we're not paying a dime over the barest minimum for this dreck."
What I'm talking about is I'm an asshole who needs to look at names (somehow I assumed you were the grandparent) as well as content. I offer my most sincere apologies and retraction. The only excuse I can offer is that I was net-less for a week and so was too quick on the trigger.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Don't worry about it any longer. You are.
I've got a collection of about 60 PSOne disks, from "Resident Evil" through "Final Fantasy" looping into "Dance Dance Revolution" and plenty of others...
Did you take a hammer to your Playstation? They would still be quite playable on that box.
Yes, there will be "must have" games upon launch, but if comes down to space (already at a premium with 3 consoles), or cost...
It's pretty well established that people who buy consoles at launch and at original price don't care about anything but being first. The PS2 sold insanely well at launch not as a PS replacement (a Playstation could have been had for a third to half of the price), not as a DVD player (half the price and DVD playback blew), and barely to play the bad-ass launch games (they sucked). It sold because it was considered "cool" as a gamer to have one.
If Xbox has good launch games, it will sell because gamers want to play games and many want to be "first on the block."
People who are cheap can still get a PSOne for about $79-$100, and games for around $20-$30...
No, actually they can get a PSOne for $50 (before tax of course) at most. I recommendnot usingnumbers unless you've looked some up.
Even when the PS2 came out, there were still good upcoming PSOne games to look forward to.
Sure, because there was an insane number of consoles out there. There will still be some Xbox games (likely mostly ports/multi-platform) coming out when Xbox 2 hits. They'll still be perfectly playable on the Xbox.
In short, I consider backward compatibility one of those things that everyone talks about being important despite the fact that, outside the GBA and unsuccessful Atari consoles, it's only happened once. I consider the logic that backward compatibility sells consoles to be faulty since if one wants to play the old games the old console can be had on the cheap (as others have pointed out, the Xbox will almost certainly be $100 when Xbox 2 streets).
Of course, for Slashdot to pile on this subject it's even sillier considering that every other Xbox harangue contains somewhere words to the effect that "Halo is the only game to play and I can play that on PC." Why would backward compatibility be important for a console that supposedly only has PC ports and no good exclusives?
Attempting to predict the Xbox 2's success, or lack thereof, by pointing to the lack of backward compatibility is just dumb. There's only one example (PS2) on which to base analysis and that sample size clearly isn't big enough.
Fascinating. But every person who posts this observation (and at least one person does right off the top of every/. security discussion) forgets that, generally, people who get trashed (apart from network congestion which hits everyone) by this kind of thing barely understand the concept of a "fully patched OS" let alone NAT, firewall, or packets.
One day, in a galaxy...never mind...One day, internet connections won't even be possible with an exposed PC address. DSL/cable won't even be permitted to connect directly to a PC without DHCP/NAT interposed between. The sky will be clear of pollution. All people will clasp hands in a show that we are all from the same human family and we all have rights......
I'm getting loopy. It must be those packets I solicited from that guy downtown.
Wrongo. I just received an EB summer catalog listing the Dreamcast for $10 with the purchase of one or more $7 Dreamcast games. Methinks they're trying to get them out of their stores without selling their inventory at a steep discount to close-out specialists, but $10 is $10.:)
"On the surface"? Boy, nobody on Slashdot can just say "Damn, sorry, I was wrong." You quoted a WILDLY inaccurate price (twice the actual retail) for the Microsoft product and then bring up discounted third-party products for the Sony console (not even noting that early third-party PS2 memory cards were garbage that wouldn't work more than half the time). Just admit that you hate the Xbox (probably because it's from Microsoft) and prefer the PS2 and get it the hell over with.
PS- The stock PS2 DVD video quality was horrendous compared to that provided by the $20 Xbox kit, and if you wanted decent quality playback on the PS2 you had to shell out for THEIR remote (around $20) to get the firmware upgrade that would improve things.
Guess some folks don't know what's gone on with the Portland Police in the last few years. That being the case, maybe I'll educatethem at least a little bit - for those who don't want to bother reading those links, it comes down to two unarmed African-Americans killed by police officers during traffic stops in a period of less than a year. The officers involved, of course, make claims that the shootings were legit, but it looks too much like a pattern developing to me (a Caucasian from way back).
Civilians carrying concealed weapons is no big deal around here. Over the past few years, it's been the Portland Police committing the gun crimes...but since he's not an African-American, Linus wouldn't have to worry much about it.
I don't doubt the story is true. There are dickweeds and hicks everywhere (including such dynamic cultural centers as New York [elected and re-elected Rudy, Mr. Intolerance] and Los Angeles [famed for its problem police force]).
I've met my fair share of jerks in Portland (where I've lived nearly my entire life thus far), but the good far outweighs the bad...unless you want a rousing nightlife, especially after 2:30 a.m. when the bars close. Portland is definitely a city that gets a good night's sleep.:)
That's certainly understandable (and as you point out, not really a compelling need for Bluetooth there). I'd imagine that audiologists wouldn't want their patients to have access to the tuning of their hearing aids (through Bluetooth or otherwise) since there's every possibility their hearing could be damaged further if something was done incorrectly.
On a slightly amusing note, imagine if pacemakers were Bluetooth compatible. "Hmmmm. I'd better check my Palm. I think my heart rate is dipping a little too low" - heart rate gets shocked up to 200 beats/minute - "Whoops" - {clunk}.
Two reasons, off the top of my head, why they don't exist: 1) Current technology is quite capable at addressing correctable hearing problems (sound amplification isn't complicated or new), 2) Bluetooth doesn't have the capability (until the newer, higher bandwidth devices come out) to transmit uncompressed high-quality sound (why subject people to hearing the world at telephone quality if you don't have to).
I would finally ask what you mean by "interfacing" between hearing aids and PCs? If you mean listen to them, you don't need a special Bluetooth device for that - a standard hearing aid for the hearing impaired is sufficient.
Except that you missed the parent's point: That's exactly how it works now. If you believe in a company's products, and believe that they'll continue to make good products in the future, you can go buy their stock - not a damn thing (except perhaps lack of money) is stopping you.
I would also note that people who buy products ARE part of the process to make more of those products. If company A makes game B which sucks and doesn't sell units then they're far less likely to make game B-2 and will instead move on to game C. In fact, that power is far more influential in terms of content than buying stock (unless you own a large percentage of the total issue) because while the former is based on the product itself, the latter is often based on speculation. Thus, buying a share of stock in Take Two doesn't tell that company that you liked Vice City; it more likely tells Take Two that you think they're going to sell many copies of San Andreas.
Of course, the idea of giving away stock in a company with [presumably good] video games (as has already been pointed out) is silly on its face, but for another, unstated reason: Why give ANY free gift away with a game that is already going to be sold?
This furor over TFLO's cancellation (which seems to be what spurred Dvorak into writing his piece) is one of the silliest things ever. I'm sure it cost Microsoft a lot of money to cancel, but MS knows (better than most) the even greater costs of releasing an MMORPG that fails to live up to expectations (I'm looking at you, Asheron's Call 2). From a customer relations standpoint, a failed but released MMORPG means that you're looking at a year or more of support at least - patching, upgrading, balancing, etc. If the subscriptions aren't there to support it, that's a lot of money spent on employee time getting flushed down the toilet. On the other hand, killing an MMORPG while in the development stage is only marginally more costly than killing any other big game.
As for Microsoft's lack of originality (the charge that they were trying to copy FFXI), I would point out that Square Enix's MMORPG gameplay can be traced right back to EQ and MUDs before that. There are differences (like the job system and the environment - just like there were differences between EQ and Asheron's Call, Dark Age of Camelot, etc.) but the fundamentals (leveling, grouping, downtime for healing, etc.) are unquestionably derivative. As for the name similarities, that's just silly. While another name might have been better, using the word "Fantasy" doesn't automatically make an RPG a "Final Fantasy" knockoff, and nobody was ever going to buy TFLO thinking they were getting a Square Enix product.
If Microsoft had taken the time to develop a cheaper system, they WOULD be making money right now. As it is, they decided to go the quick and dirty (and powerful, it seems germaine to note) route so that they could make a dent in the current generation and develop a fan base - which they've done. All that remains to be seen now is if the development time they've invested in the Xbox 2, as well the experience they've gotten in terms of developing console games and getting third-party developers on board, will pay off in the next generation. There are many reasons Microsoft's next machine could end up a failure, but there are just as many reasons to project an even better showing - anyone claiming to be able to read the future in this area is either way too cocky, a big-time fan/hater, or both.
How does it make it worse? If a percentage of Windows installs are upgraded (and presumably stop being "zombies") then wouldn't there be fewer problem computers?
Ah, never mind. It's just a way to complain about absolutely anything Microsoft does. If Microsoft discovered a cure for cancer and gave it away free, some/. reader would complain because all the pill bottles have the MS name on them, giving them a cure-for-cancer monopoly.
It's called the stock market. You can buy shares of a lot of companies there, including EA). Considering that EA stock is currently going for $52.66 a share as of close yesterday, I think including a share per game would be more than a little counter-productive.
PS- I don't want games designed by the voting of gamers. That way lies disaster more foul than the corporations we have now. As one example, the beautiful graphics of Wind Waker would have died aborning.
PPS- I would note the good and/or interesting games EA puts out (Battlefield 1942, The Sims, Medal of Honor, SimGolf, Black&White, SSX, etc.) but that might get a little too real.
Oh, and in case you want to anti-bible-thump again
Again? I wasn't aware that I said a single word about religion, but then again people are reading a lot more into my short post than is actually there.
As for the reasoning behind the government recognition of marriage, there are other benefits of marriage that have nothing to do with children. One would be shared health care costs - while many companies have opened up their health insurance benefits to unmarried couples, it's by no means universal. Another is in the case of life/death decisions if a partner is incapacitated, perhaps brain dead and on life support. In the absence of a living will, a partner - even if the cohabitation had been going on for 20 years or more - doesn't have the same legal status as a wife/husband. Ditto if a person dies without a will, or if a will is contested. Next of kin status is only afforded to married partners and blood relations.
Not to mention that all of your "raising children" arguments break down if homosexuals are permitted to adopt children (and they are).
In short, as long as the government is affording specific legal rights to married partners which are not extended to homosexual partners, the law is discriminatory...and a constitutional amendement, in my possibly ultra-liberal, apparently anti-religious opinion, would be blasphemy.
Damn. I meant to check the "no karma bonus" box, so I wholeheartedly support the rights of any moderator to knock my post down a peg (or three).
I will note, since I'm posting again anyway, that marriage licenses are being given to homosexuals in my own city and, despite my heterosexuality, this has so far had no negative effect on my life.
Slashdot Mirror
Assault is already a crime. If someone is punching you in the nose, you can call the police.
But I'll pretend you said something about flagrant fouls not involving clear assault. Even in that case, you still have no "right" to assert in order to get access to a particular basketball court unless local laws, or the rules of the owner of the property, permit it. In addition, you've also got to the inalienable right to build your own basketball court and invite your friends over to play (just like you have the right to start your own server and boot/ban anyone you even suspect is cheating).
Of course, the final nail in your analogy's coffin is this: Going to another server is not equivalent to walking/driving/cycling 30 miles to find the next-nearest basketball court. It's a point and a click away.
Again, the bottom line is TS.
Personally, I think these leaked specs are a crock. But trying to judge prices by comparing to Apple prices is like trying to judge prices on an upcoming Chrysler compared to a similar Mercedes.
When I was playing PC multiplayer games on a regular basis, there were always games with cheaters in them. They (usually the cheater, otherwise the game) were easy to figure out. The solution? Switch to a different server. It ain't rocket science. The idea of suing someone for ruining an online game (specifically, a non-persistent online game with beaucoup other servers available) is ludicrous. The idea of a company suing people who make and distribute cheats - assuming they aren't breaking copyright law - is ludicrous.
There's an easy way to remain free of cheaters in online games. Make friends and then play with them. Not only will you be reasonably certain there's no cheating going on, but you'll probably enjoy the experience more regardless.
I mean, hell, if we're going to talk about lawsuits for ruining people's fun then why not go after spawn campers, consta-jumpers, loot whores, etc., too? How about suing people who are frustrated but remain in the game and on a team doing badly on purpose?
If you're taking online games that seriously, though, I would recommend first that you quit playing online games and stick with single-player - clearly, you don't have thick enough skin to deal with other humans. Either that, or start a service - or find a way to encourage companies to start a service - with pay servers. If people are so invested in these games it's worth tying up court time, then it should be worth $10 a month to have a bank of exclusive servers not open to the general public. I would guess you'd weed out 90% of the cheaters with that one stroke since they'd probably keep cheating on free systems.
PS- The next time you find a clause guaranteeing "freedom to be entertained" in a government's constitution, let me know so that I can snicker. Aren't there enough SERIOUS and IMPORTANT issues of freedom to deal with?
PPS- The type of person who would make your suggestions would be the type of person with whom I would want to play and punish with cheating - I'm just that kind of bastard.
In short, while there might be some programming that is being up-converted from old 480i/p (analog OR digital) to 720p/1080i, a good many shows can be in "true" HD resolution even if the original source material was analog.
It should be noted that 16x9 HDTV signals, like good DVDs, are ALSO in "anamorphic" widescreen (despite it becoming standard, I hate that terminology). That means it's possible it's a software/driver issue (any good PC DVD player should automatically compensate for the "anamorphic" signal when doing PC monitor display) and might not be the fault of the reviewer at all - though, admittedly, the reviewer should probably have been able to explain this and/or fix it. :)
But maybe I'm too cynical. :)
What I'm talking about is I'm an asshole who needs to look at names (somehow I assumed you were the grandparent) as well as content. I offer my most sincere apologies and retraction. The only excuse I can offer is that I was net-less for a week and so was too quick on the trigger.
Don't worry about it any longer. You are.
I've got a collection of about 60 PSOne disks, from "Resident Evil" through "Final Fantasy" looping into "Dance Dance Revolution" and plenty of others...
Did you take a hammer to your Playstation? They would still be quite playable on that box.
Yes, there will be "must have" games upon launch, but if comes down to space (already at a premium with 3 consoles), or cost...
It's pretty well established that people who buy consoles at launch and at original price don't care about anything but being first. The PS2 sold insanely well at launch not as a PS replacement (a Playstation could have been had for a third to half of the price), not as a DVD player (half the price and DVD playback blew), and barely to play the bad-ass launch games (they sucked). It sold because it was considered "cool" as a gamer to have one.
If Xbox has good launch games, it will sell because gamers want to play games and many want to be "first on the block."
People who are cheap can still get a PSOne for about $79-$100, and games for around $20-$30...
No, actually they can get a PSOne for $50 (before tax of course) at most. I recommend not using numbers unless you've looked some up.
Even when the PS2 came out, there were still good upcoming PSOne games to look forward to.
Sure, because there was an insane number of consoles out there. There will still be some Xbox games (likely mostly ports/multi-platform) coming out when Xbox 2 hits. They'll still be perfectly playable on the Xbox.
In short, I consider backward compatibility one of those things that everyone talks about being important despite the fact that, outside the GBA and unsuccessful Atari consoles, it's only happened once. I consider the logic that backward compatibility sells consoles to be faulty since if one wants to play the old games the old console can be had on the cheap (as others have pointed out, the Xbox will almost certainly be $100 when Xbox 2 streets).
Of course, for Slashdot to pile on this subject it's even sillier considering that every other Xbox harangue contains somewhere words to the effect that "Halo is the only game to play and I can play that on PC." Why would backward compatibility be important for a console that supposedly only has PC ports and no good exclusives?
Attempting to predict the Xbox 2's success, or lack thereof, by pointing to the lack of backward compatibility is just dumb. There's only one example (PS2) on which to base analysis and that sample size clearly isn't big enough.
One day, in a galaxy...never mind...One day, internet connections won't even be possible with an exposed PC address. DSL/cable won't even be permitted to connect directly to a PC without DHCP/NAT interposed between. The sky will be clear of pollution. All people will clasp hands in a show that we are all from the same human family and we all have rights......
I'm getting loopy. It must be those packets I solicited from that guy downtown.
Wrongo. I just received an EB summer catalog listing the Dreamcast for $10 with the purchase of one or more $7 Dreamcast games. Methinks they're trying to get them out of their stores without selling their inventory at a steep discount to close-out specialists, but $10 is $10. :)
PS- The stock PS2 DVD video quality was horrendous compared to that provided by the $20 Xbox kit, and if you wanted decent quality playback on the PS2 you had to shell out for THEIR remote (around $20) to get the firmware upgrade that would improve things.
Guess some folks don't know what's gone on with the Portland Police in the last few years. That being the case, maybe I'll educate them at least a little bit - for those who don't want to bother reading those links, it comes down to two unarmed African-Americans killed by police officers during traffic stops in a period of less than a year. The officers involved, of course, make claims that the shootings were legit, but it looks too much like a pattern developing to me (a Caucasian from way back).
Civilians carrying concealed weapons is no big deal around here. Over the past few years, it's been the Portland Police committing the gun crimes...but since he's not an African-American, Linus wouldn't have to worry much about it.
I'm more interested in what your sister...I mean, WIFE...thinks about that post.
I've met my fair share of jerks in Portland (where I've lived nearly my entire life thus far), but the good far outweighs the bad...unless you want a rousing nightlife, especially after 2:30 a.m. when the bars close. Portland is definitely a city that gets a good night's sleep. :)
On a slightly amusing note, imagine if pacemakers were Bluetooth compatible. "Hmmmm. I'd better check my Palm. I think my heart rate is dipping a little too low" - heart rate gets shocked up to 200 beats/minute - "Whoops" - {clunk}.
I would finally ask what you mean by "interfacing" between hearing aids and PCs? If you mean listen to them, you don't need a special Bluetooth device for that - a standard hearing aid for the hearing impaired is sufficient.
Of course, the first reason is reason enough. :)
Installing high-speed Internet access isn't what puts stress on the overall system. It's the use of that access which can potentially cause troubles.
I would also note that people who buy products ARE part of the process to make more of those products. If company A makes game B which sucks and doesn't sell units then they're far less likely to make game B-2 and will instead move on to game C. In fact, that power is far more influential in terms of content than buying stock (unless you own a large percentage of the total issue) because while the former is based on the product itself, the latter is often based on speculation. Thus, buying a share of stock in Take Two doesn't tell that company that you liked Vice City; it more likely tells Take Two that you think they're going to sell many copies of San Andreas.
Of course, the idea of giving away stock in a company with [presumably good] video games (as has already been pointed out) is silly on its face, but for another, unstated reason: Why give ANY free gift away with a game that is already going to be sold?
This furor over TFLO's cancellation (which seems to be what spurred Dvorak into writing his piece) is one of the silliest things ever. I'm sure it cost Microsoft a lot of money to cancel, but MS knows (better than most) the even greater costs of releasing an MMORPG that fails to live up to expectations (I'm looking at you, Asheron's Call 2). From a customer relations standpoint, a failed but released MMORPG means that you're looking at a year or more of support at least - patching, upgrading, balancing, etc. If the subscriptions aren't there to support it, that's a lot of money spent on employee time getting flushed down the toilet. On the other hand, killing an MMORPG while in the development stage is only marginally more costly than killing any other big game.
As for Microsoft's lack of originality (the charge that they were trying to copy FFXI), I would point out that Square Enix's MMORPG gameplay can be traced right back to EQ and MUDs before that. There are differences (like the job system and the environment - just like there were differences between EQ and Asheron's Call, Dark Age of Camelot, etc.) but the fundamentals (leveling, grouping, downtime for healing, etc.) are unquestionably derivative. As for the name similarities, that's just silly. While another name might have been better, using the word "Fantasy" doesn't automatically make an RPG a "Final Fantasy" knockoff, and nobody was ever going to buy TFLO thinking they were getting a Square Enix product.
If Microsoft had taken the time to develop a cheaper system, they WOULD be making money right now. As it is, they decided to go the quick and dirty (and powerful, it seems germaine to note) route so that they could make a dent in the current generation and develop a fan base - which they've done. All that remains to be seen now is if the development time they've invested in the Xbox 2, as well the experience they've gotten in terms of developing console games and getting third-party developers on board, will pay off in the next generation. There are many reasons Microsoft's next machine could end up a failure, but there are just as many reasons to project an even better showing - anyone claiming to be able to read the future in this area is either way too cocky, a big-time fan/hater, or both.
I guess the way I read the initial post was through my anti-kneejerk glasses, causing me to give a kneejerk response. :)
Ah, never mind. It's just a way to complain about absolutely anything Microsoft does. If Microsoft discovered a cure for cancer and gave it away free, some /. reader would complain because all the pill bottles have the MS name on them, giving them a cure-for-cancer monopoly.
PS- I don't want games designed by the voting of gamers. That way lies disaster more foul than the corporations we have now. As one example, the beautiful graphics of Wind Waker would have died aborning.
PPS- I would note the good and/or interesting games EA puts out (Battlefield 1942, The Sims, Medal of Honor, SimGolf, Black&White, SSX, etc.) but that might get a little too real.
Again? I wasn't aware that I said a single word about religion, but then again people are reading a lot more into my short post than is actually there.
As for the reasoning behind the government recognition of marriage, there are other benefits of marriage that have nothing to do with children. One would be shared health care costs - while many companies have opened up their health insurance benefits to unmarried couples, it's by no means universal. Another is in the case of life/death decisions if a partner is incapacitated, perhaps brain dead and on life support. In the absence of a living will, a partner - even if the cohabitation had been going on for 20 years or more - doesn't have the same legal status as a wife/husband. Ditto if a person dies without a will, or if a will is contested. Next of kin status is only afforded to married partners and blood relations.
Not to mention that all of your "raising children" arguments break down if homosexuals are permitted to adopt children (and they are).
In short, as long as the government is affording specific legal rights to married partners which are not extended to homosexual partners, the law is discriminatory...and a constitutional amendement, in my possibly ultra-liberal, apparently anti-religious opinion, would be blasphemy.
I will note, since I'm posting again anyway, that marriage licenses are being given to homosexuals in my own city and, despite my heterosexuality, this has so far had no negative effect on my life.