Yeah, but you see, it's not a 'story' it's 'HIstory'. It is the reality of human social development. Marriage is a civil process now because it was hijacked from individuals, families, and communities. The church did it first, then the state, that doesn't make it right. If the injustices regarding gay marriage are to be fixed, so should the whole system.
Oh ho ho. I wish I could mod you up. However, I'm sure that a bunch of PC police will come along and mod you down because they're afraid of the truth. (Look up the age of Muhammad's youngest wife.)
Disclaimer: I support gay marriage without reservation, and I am an atheist.
However, you're either trying to rewrite or ignore the bulk of history. Marriage in the ancient world was entirely an inter-family affair, and government involvement was rare. Religious involvement was also more incidental and less systemic than in the medieval world. That's because polytheism is naturally more pluralistic than monotheism. It wasn't until monotheism that one 'married into the church' per se. (Not that it was uncommon for wives to be expected to follow the religious practices of their husbands, given the patriarchal nature of most of the pre-modern world, but it was less common for them to be expected to give up their own practices, thanks to the aforementioned pluralism.) When monotheism started getting uncomfortably tangled with the apparatus of the government during the transition from the ancient to the medieval periods, not only did it destroy the pluralism, but it made the zones of control of marriage between church and state frequently overlap. As bureaucracy increased and governments succeeded in increasing their control over their populations, this overlap became unbalanced toward uncontested favor of the government. Thus emerged marriage licenses, giving governments primary decision-making authority in marriages.
So 'control' of marriage has evolved from inter-family/community > church > church+state > state.
Neither any church NOR any state should have legislative control over marriage, nor should it confer special privileges (which I say as a married man, since those privileges are then used as justification for government control of marriage). Marriage is ultimately between the people who are joined by the event, and nobody else. I should not be able to tell some other couple how their marriage should work, just as I would piss in the eye of anybody who thought they could tell me how my marriage should work.
Time to go Godwin. Let's say I'm a holocaust survivor. I find out that the wife of some SS officer who tortured and killed my family was coincidentally raped and murdered by men in the Russian army. Would you say, in that context, that it is IMMORAL for me to be indifferent to that act?
You said something somebody didn't have couldn't be taken away, no antecedent explicitly stated. In the context of natural rights, that's debatable, in the context of legal rihgts, it's a mistake or a lie.
And rather than address my points, you address my manner. Believe me, I know and consciously choose when to lower myself to an ad hominem level and accept all responsibility for it, but you ARE illogical, and I have yet to see any argument constructed by you in your defense. Believe me, I'm waiting for all the tired old bullshit about how gay marriage isn't a natural right but straight marriage is (and if they're both not, then only the legal remains, making the 'taken away' point moot and sealed).
I love the implied premise of social constructivist bigotry. Blacks and Latinos? How could they possibly be as uninformed and ignorant as the ol' standby scapegoat, white males? You know, never mind the gay Mexicans who have sought asylum in the US because they are afraid that in their home country they would be murdered in the street for their sexuality. And everybody knows how gay friendly the black community is, so this is totally about marriage and marriage alone for these saintly, flawless, and open-minded liberal minority demographics.
Lesbians as a group have a far, far lower risk for AIDs than straight couples. Look it up.
No doubt your 'concern' for the children is motivated by some half baked theory that sexual orientation is absorbed by some unexplained kind of osmosis, which of course fails to account not only for the simple fact that most gay people come from straight families, but the genetic science of that matter.
Inter-racial marriage wasn't considered a 'natural right' either until Loving V. Virginia, SCotUS 1967. You might do well to read that decision, and mentally replace the references to race with ones to orientation. See if it makes sense.
When a law is passed, as happened in WA, suddenly a state exists which previously did not. That, by the magical thing called 'time' becomes 'history' whereupon another effort to rescind that state would logically be considered 'taking it away'. Same thing in CA.
If that stupidity wasn't enough, the next guy to use the symantic asshattery of 'gay people can heterosexually marry anybody they want' gets punched right in the mean bean machine.
I know right? Just like 'geek' can only mean somebody who bites the heads off of chickens. Language never evolves, terms never change, and people who say they do are just IGNORANT.
I like how you dodge the infertility flaw in your argument by saying they serve as an example that people can get together. Wow. Gay people sure couldn't do that. Hey, this just in, infertile and/or gay people can ADOPT kids. You just want to find some pseudo social science excuse to be a bigot.
While I wouldn't endorse the behavior of the more extreme activists, at the same time I have a hard time getting upset about it either after all the gay people who have been assaulted and murdered over the years for who they are. If anything the current social climate has enabled the pendulum to swing. Two wrongs may not make a right, but I'm not crying any tears over here.
If you did it based on simple shapes (and not ByteTags, which would solve all these problems easily), you'd be up shit creek if anybody had dice that weren't a standard size as d4s, d8s, d10s, and d20s all have triangular faces.
Surface, as I've recently looking into, uses a proprietary dot-based matrix marking call ByteTags to recognize objects. These dot markings aren't that big, so while the dice might have to be a little larger than normal, fist-sized is probably more than necessary.
All you would need to do is give the value of the opposite face in some machine readable form. Doesn't surface recognize barcodes? Or is that just Android?
Instead of all the hundreds of posts on whinging on Slashdot, we should probably be writing Mr. Genachowski ourselves and let him know that he has our support.
There has been a specific instance in my life where I was the 'on call' support guy for my company over the weekend, and I actually had a call while I was in a movie theater. I had to take my laptop outside, VPN into a server somewhere and fix something immediately or fail to meet the SLA. So there.
(The movie was Indiana Jones getting raped by George Lucas so it's not like I missed much.)
If you always believe what a company says about itself, I have some bridges that are just coming on the market that might interest you as an excellent, ground-floor, turnkey investment opportunity.
Eeeh, if I say too much more, anybody with half a brain and a little effort could solve for x, and I don't want to presume to speak for the company. Dress code was only a small portion of the culture there, which was one of the best I was ever part of, and consequently even after leaving (which I only did because my wife was relocated by her company to the other coast) I am still fiercely loyal. I practically would have taken a bullet for my supervisor there.
The only further thing I feel I can say is that it operates in the retail/wholesale space.
Anyway, when it comes to dress code, Seattle really is very different on the whole. Only places like law firms and banks are still formal, any place that doesn't have policy dictated by a national chain is almost always business casual or less.
Apparently you've never been to Seattle or San Francisco. Shortly after I was hired at my last job before I left Seattle my supervisor mentioned that if people came to the interview in a suit and/or tie they were automatically disqualified. This was not a small company either, but one with its own six floor building, separate distribution center, and nation-wide presence with nearly 100 locations. There exist corporate cultures that actually consider suit/tie to be antithetical.
While I am sympathetic to Objectivism, I am not, in fact, an Objectivist. Your one-dimensional focus on profit motive as some kind of justification for everything in Objectivism also demonstrates you don't know anything about Objectivism, since if profit motive were able to justify anything, Ayn Rand would not have excoriated numerous artists and genres in The Romantic Manifesto regardless of how much money they made.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but you see, it's not a 'story' it's 'HIstory'. It is the reality of human social development. Marriage is a civil process now because it was hijacked from individuals, families, and communities. The church did it first, then the state, that doesn't make it right. If the injustices regarding gay marriage are to be fixed, so should the whole system.
Oh ho ho. I wish I could mod you up. However, I'm sure that a bunch of PC police will come along and mod you down because they're afraid of the truth. (Look up the age of Muhammad's youngest wife.)
Disclaimer: I support gay marriage without reservation, and I am an atheist.
However, you're either trying to rewrite or ignore the bulk of history. Marriage in the ancient world was entirely an inter-family affair, and government involvement was rare. Religious involvement was also more incidental and less systemic than in the medieval world. That's because polytheism is naturally more pluralistic than monotheism. It wasn't until monotheism that one 'married into the church' per se. (Not that it was uncommon for wives to be expected to follow the religious practices of their husbands, given the patriarchal nature of most of the pre-modern world, but it was less common for them to be expected to give up their own practices, thanks to the aforementioned pluralism.) When monotheism started getting uncomfortably tangled with the apparatus of the government during the transition from the ancient to the medieval periods, not only did it destroy the pluralism, but it made the zones of control of marriage between church and state frequently overlap. As bureaucracy increased and governments succeeded in increasing their control over their populations, this overlap became unbalanced toward uncontested favor of the government. Thus emerged marriage licenses, giving governments primary decision-making authority in marriages.
So 'control' of marriage has evolved from inter-family/community > church > church+state > state.
Neither any church NOR any state should have legislative control over marriage, nor should it confer special privileges (which I say as a married man, since those privileges are then used as justification for government control of marriage). Marriage is ultimately between the people who are joined by the event, and nobody else. I should not be able to tell some other couple how their marriage should work, just as I would piss in the eye of anybody who thought they could tell me how my marriage should work.
Time to go Godwin. Let's say I'm a holocaust survivor. I find out that the wife of some SS officer who tortured and killed my family was coincidentally raped and murdered by men in the Russian army. Would you say, in that context, that it is IMMORAL for me to be indifferent to that act?
You said something somebody didn't have couldn't be taken away, no antecedent explicitly stated. In the context of natural rights, that's debatable, in the context of legal rihgts, it's a mistake or a lie.
And rather than address my points, you address my manner. Believe me, I know and consciously choose when to lower myself to an ad hominem level and accept all responsibility for it, but you ARE illogical, and I have yet to see any argument constructed by you in your defense. Believe me, I'm waiting for all the tired old bullshit about how gay marriage isn't a natural right but straight marriage is (and if they're both not, then only the legal remains, making the 'taken away' point moot and sealed).
I love the implied premise of social constructivist bigotry. Blacks and Latinos? How could they possibly be as uninformed and ignorant as the ol' standby scapegoat, white males? You know, never mind the gay Mexicans who have sought asylum in the US because they are afraid that in their home country they would be murdered in the street for their sexuality. And everybody knows how gay friendly the black community is, so this is totally about marriage and marriage alone for these saintly, flawless, and open-minded liberal minority demographics.
Lesbians as a group have a far, far lower risk for AIDs than straight couples. Look it up.
No doubt your 'concern' for the children is motivated by some half baked theory that sexual orientation is absorbed by some unexplained kind of osmosis, which of course fails to account not only for the simple fact that most gay people come from straight families, but the genetic science of that matter.
Inter-racial marriage wasn't considered a 'natural right' either until Loving V. Virginia, SCotUS 1967. You might do well to read that decision, and mentally replace the references to race with ones to orientation. See if it makes sense.
You're ignoring what I said. 'OK' would be an endorsement. I said I have a hard time being upset about it. These are different states of mind.
When a law is passed, as happened in WA, suddenly a state exists which previously did not. That, by the magical thing called 'time' becomes 'history' whereupon another effort to rescind that state would logically be considered 'taking it away'. Same thing in CA.
If that stupidity wasn't enough, the next guy to use the symantic asshattery of 'gay people can heterosexually marry anybody they want' gets punched right in the mean bean machine.
I know right? Just like 'geek' can only mean somebody who bites the heads off of chickens. Language never evolves, terms never change, and people who say they do are just IGNORANT.
I like how you dodge the infertility flaw in your argument by saying they serve as an example that people can get together. Wow. Gay people sure couldn't do that. Hey, this just in, infertile and/or gay people can ADOPT kids. You just want to find some pseudo social science excuse to be a bigot.
While I wouldn't endorse the behavior of the more extreme activists, at the same time I have a hard time getting upset about it either after all the gay people who have been assaulted and murdered over the years for who they are. If anything the current social climate has enabled the pendulum to swing. Two wrongs may not make a right, but I'm not crying any tears over here.
If you did it based on simple shapes (and not ByteTags, which would solve all these problems easily), you'd be up shit creek if anybody had dice that weren't a standard size as d4s, d8s, d10s, and d20s all have triangular faces.
Surface, as I've recently looking into, uses a proprietary dot-based matrix marking call ByteTags to recognize objects. These dot markings aren't that big, so while the dice might have to be a little larger than normal, fist-sized is probably more than necessary.
All you would need to do is give the value of the opposite face in some machine readable form. Doesn't surface recognize barcodes? Or is that just Android?
I like how just because the Spanish conquered the natives first, it's suddenly 'their land'.
Instead of all the hundreds of posts on whinging on Slashdot, we should probably be writing Mr. Genachowski ourselves and let him know that he has our support.
Which in this context undermines the argument, because like most genocides, the perpetrators abused the power of government.
There has been a specific instance in my life where I was the 'on call' support guy for my company over the weekend, and I actually had a call while I was in a movie theater. I had to take my laptop outside, VPN into a server somewhere and fix something immediately or fail to meet the SLA. So there. (The movie was Indiana Jones getting raped by George Lucas so it's not like I missed much.)
Both examples are rhetorical extremes, but I'm not the one swallowing the corporate BS.
If you always believe what a company says about itself, I have some bridges that are just coming on the market that might interest you as an excellent, ground-floor, turnkey investment opportunity.
Eeeh, if I say too much more, anybody with half a brain and a little effort could solve for x, and I don't want to presume to speak for the company. Dress code was only a small portion of the culture there, which was one of the best I was ever part of, and consequently even after leaving (which I only did because my wife was relocated by her company to the other coast) I am still fiercely loyal. I practically would have taken a bullet for my supervisor there. The only further thing I feel I can say is that it operates in the retail/wholesale space.
Anyway, when it comes to dress code, Seattle really is very different on the whole. Only places like law firms and banks are still formal, any place that doesn't have policy dictated by a national chain is almost always business casual or less.
Apparently you've never been to Seattle or San Francisco. Shortly after I was hired at my last job before I left Seattle my supervisor mentioned that if people came to the interview in a suit and/or tie they were automatically disqualified. This was not a small company either, but one with its own six floor building, separate distribution center, and nation-wide presence with nearly 100 locations. There exist corporate cultures that actually consider suit/tie to be antithetical.
While I am sympathetic to Objectivism, I am not, in fact, an Objectivist. Your one-dimensional focus on profit motive as some kind of justification for everything in Objectivism also demonstrates you don't know anything about Objectivism, since if profit motive were able to justify anything, Ayn Rand would not have excoriated numerous artists and genres in The Romantic Manifesto regardless of how much money they made.