Listen, I agree with your assessment of how it should be, but the fact of the matter is the discussion of marriage within the State. If we removed marriage as a facet of the State, we're on the same page. But while there exists laws of the State based on marriage, my view is that recognition of same-sex marriage grants me (and my husband) all of these rights that I wouldn't otherwise have.
Should it not be a government or religious definition? Yes. We agree. But I sure as fuck don't want some dipshit in the hospital denying me the ability to visit my husband, and recognition of same-sex marriage is an achievement for me to deal with the fucking laws that exist. I'll take recognition of same-sex marriage by the State as a temporary path to fixing the fucked up shit that exists about marriage and the State and the Church.
For your scenario to work, the State would have to be involved in every contract, and punishing people that enter/break lightly.
Although the State doesn't necessarily have to get into every contract, as I consider a contract, it's an agreement that the State will help enforce and it WILL get into every contract that is contested. Otherwise, it's just people talking. When we talk about contracts in this conversation as it pertains to marriage (and many other things), we're not talking about two kids making an agreement to give the other kid five dollars if he kisses this girl on the playground, we're talking about a contract that is recognized by the State that will help you enforce ramifications of breaking contracts.
Anyways, I understand the idea no negative consequences to breaking a contract, outside the contract, what I'm saying is that I believe that marriage contracts would (given enough time) become fair via consequences of breaking them, if their consequences are enforceable. Say, marriage contracts become a commodity for $10 from 1-800-lawyers.com.
No it's not. The "world" didn't like interracial marriage for a real long time (even beyond the U.S.). Just because it recently became acceptable doesn't mean the point isn't valid. And yes, marriages without "love" have been very common and completely valid throughout history.
Marriage has nothing to do with a man and woman, it has to do with two people in love, that's it.
Not true. I'm a gay man married to another man, so I'm totally on your side. However, I can safely say that marriage being a thing about two people in love is a pretty naive point of view, both in the historical, intellectual, and practical view of marriage.
Not really a valid argument; if you have 50 siblings, they all can't enter the ICU at once. Not really a "right" that's more of a logistic issue that the hospital says only X amount of people in here at a time.
Yes, you could and should be able to. However, with a contract, I would expect there to be negative consequences to divorce/breaking the contract, as there is now. If there are lots of benefits but no consequences to breaking the contract, then it's a pretty uneven contract. Imagine the free market: the benefits and consequences of enabling and breaking the contract would naturally come to an equilibrium that works well, preventing such abuses.
Why should 2 people get tax incentives simple because of "love"? How about we take the government out of all marriages as far as tax and property reasons are concerned so that single people have the same rights as those lucky enough to find love
As a gay married man, who has libertarian leanings, let me enumerate a few answers your question.
1. Property: Medical visitation rights, medical decision making 2. Tax, property: On death, inheritance rights 3. Tax: Dependents. Raising children who don't provide income or taxes.
I'm sure I could think of more. There are a whole lot of shitty laws out there and I'm not defending them all. I also think of marriage as a contract. But familial dependencies do require more out of tax and property laws/rights than singles do, and I don't think there is a significant problem with having them, as long as they are equally open to everyone without discrimination.
Being against so-called "spousal rape" was but one in a long line of attacks on Christian marriage (being that consent is given once and forever), and therefore, Western Civilization as a whole.
Very bad logic there bud. Being against Christian marriage is not being against Western Civilization as a whole.
Gay parents pushing their social agendas onto their (likely) straight adopted children are more likely to cause self esteem and relationship issues.
Straight parents also push their social agendas onto their (likely) straight children. The Duggar family comes to mind. Poor kids are so sexually and intellectually repressed.
"Family" law assumes and is built around government-approved marriages. To change marriage would change thousands of laws, with unknown and untested consequences.
Can you give an example of a negative outcome? There has already been many changes to marriage in recent history, such as the affirmation of women's rights, the ease of divorce, legalization of same-sex marriages, etc. I don't see any negative outcomes via "family" law; for example, the protection of children. (Note that I'm not saying there are not unintended consequences of such changes; I am speculating that you think there are negative consequences to laws such as family law due to same-sex marriage)
This is where the "if anyone knows of a reason they shouldn't be married line came from", if either spouse was in violation of church laws or the laws of the kingdom, the church wouldn't allow the marriage and the kingdom would sometimes allow or disallow it (but you needed to get special permission).
Eh, no. Well you're a little correct, because sometimes there could be cases such as not getting married during lent... but think about what you're saying. The priest marrying them would already know if they were violating church laws.
The main reason they were asking was if they were related and didn't know it. People used to live in small villages and they didn't have email. They also married young and didn't have a long courtship; young people would typically be chosen to marry by their families. Weddings were the rare instances of people leaving their ~5-mile radius where they lived. So the line "if anyone knows of a reason they shouldn't be married" was not "does anyone here have beef with these people and want to make a politically motivated attack against one of these people", it was an authentic question of "do these people who don't know each other have a reason not to get married such as they are too closely related, or this guy who nobody on the girl's side of the family was a murderer in another village and the bride's family from this village doesn't know?"
It's not the state getting into your "business", it's your business getting into the state. Marriage predates nation-states by millennia. And as a practical matter, I'm glad I didn't have to get a lawyer and sign a 500-page contract in order to get married, and I'm glad that other people don't need their own lawyer to go over such a contract in order to recognize my marriage.
I understand your opinion, but the modern question of same-sex marriage is not about your business getting into the state. Modern marriage laws focus on mundane but important laws such as making medical decisions for your spouse, special protections (in the U.S. there is a constitutional provision that the government cannot coerce spouses to testify in court against each other), automatic inheritance of the estate, and lots and lots of tax implications. I'm sure there's more, but in any case I'm certain that there's no laws forcing procreation.
With these laws, it really is a contract that shouldn't be easily broken by one of the participants. I'm not saying you need a lawyer, but I do believe that with laws that have such significant on a person's life (and beyond), there should be government protection and a bit more than a handshake to establish these special protections.
When you say "special rights" I think of inequality and favoritism. In reality, gay marriage isn't that (or at least I don't expect it to be that). The main things I want from the law/government regarding my marriage is: medical decisions when the other cannot make them, inheritance decisions without me explicitly writing down that my husband co-owns my assets, the ability to make decisions for our children, and... well I think that's it. I don't consider these natural rights, I really just consider them a government recognition of companionship. This has nothing to do with fucking.
Re:Rust made a mistake in going C++-syntax
on
Rust 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
What I mean with that is that the language was designed with certain safety mechanisms involved. However, in order to do something as simple (maybe simple isn't the right word, but common) as the printf function, you have to break the standard safety mechanisms. Hence the printf function is a macro, and underneath the hood there is a whole lot of ugliness.
Now, taking a step back further, I think that it's good that ugliness is hidden behind the scenes. My point is that, if one has to get ugly to do the things that need to be done in a printf function, then I expect that it will actually become common and necessary to "do ugly things" in order to get stuff done in real-world applications.
And maybe I'm wrong, who knows?
Rust made a mistake in going C++-syntax
on
Rust 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
They could have made the same simple concepts without going C++ style. This is obviously just aesthetics, but I don't think the language looks nice compared to lots of newer languages (Swift, Ruby, Kotlin, and even D).
The:: scope operator is ugly and redundant.
This match syntax is just ugly and hard to type:
match header[0] {
1 => Ok(Version::Version1),
2 => Ok(Version::Version2),
_ => Err(ParseError::InvalidVersion)
}
The following is ugly and is not obvious: use std::sync::{Arc, Mutex}; use std::thread; use std::sync::mpsc;
fn main() {
let data = Arc::new(Mutex::new(0u32));
let (tx, rx) = mpsc::channel();
for _ in 0..10 {
let (data, tx) = (data.clone(), tx.clone());
thread::spawn(move || {
let mut data = data.lock().unwrap();
*data += 1;
tx.send(());
});
}
for _ in 0..10 {
rx.recv();
} }
A simple printf function has to be a macro, because the techniques it uses are unsafe which is a main feature of the language.
OK a lot of these gripes are trivial; I guess I'm getting at the fact that they went an academic route about how to deal with pointers and memory allocation safely, and then built everything around that. It was so academic and engineering-like and they didn't think or try very hard about the design and aesthetics.
Actually a lot of it is because more kids in underdeveloped economies equates to more wealth, and in developed economies, more kids generally does not lead to more wealth.
Linus, stop peddling the idea that everything should be 80 characters. 80-wide character terminals are a relic of 1960. Let the git commits fly, and let any browser since, I dunno, 1961, handle word wrapping.
My half brother is one of those doctors who quit because of being sued and didn't want/couldn't continue practicing. It hurts my family very much. But let me tell you, it's not because of "liberals" it's because of many factors. I suppose a completely conservative or completely liberal government could fix it (in a manner disagreeable to the other side), but just like our tax system, the problem won't be solved not because of liberalism or conservatism, it's because of our shitty democracy.
You're so fucking wrong. Your quick googling sounds like you just googled "climate change science is wrong". Taxis are not monitored by anyone, Ubers/Lfyts/Sidecars are.
I don't want to say this because anecdotal evidence is stupid, but I'm going to because I'm mad that I read your post. I've personally known two people to have been robbed by gunpoint by taxi drivers, and there's no way to track them. There's NOBODY who's ever been assaulted by Uber/Lfyts/Sidecars who haven't been able to have been tracked.
Of course, good code is 99% due to the person producing it and only 1% (if that) due to the language used
I agree that it's at least a majority of the person producing it, but I wouldn't say 99%. Good language design, in the right and appropriate circumstances, do indeed help. For example, Java (which you mention as bad) actually makes it MUCH harder for software to crash. For example, I lead a mobile team with Objective C (iOS) and Java (Android). The number of users experiencing crashes on the iOS app is around 2.5%, while the Android app is a perfect 0%. I don't think the Android devs are any better than the iOS devs - I am certain it's the language.
For the record, I have nothing good to say about C++:)
Slashdot Mirror
Listen, I agree with your assessment of how it should be, but the fact of the matter is the discussion of marriage within the State. If we removed marriage as a facet of the State, we're on the same page. But while there exists laws of the State based on marriage, my view is that recognition of same-sex marriage grants me (and my husband) all of these rights that I wouldn't otherwise have.
Should it not be a government or religious definition? Yes. We agree. But I sure as fuck don't want some dipshit in the hospital denying me the ability to visit my husband, and recognition of same-sex marriage is an achievement for me to deal with the fucking laws that exist. I'll take recognition of same-sex marriage by the State as a temporary path to fixing the fucked up shit that exists about marriage and the State and the Church.
In any case, I want what you want as well.
Why? Evidence? Love marriages are considered a modern Western invention.
For your scenario to work, the State would have to be involved in every contract, and punishing people that enter/break lightly.
Although the State doesn't necessarily have to get into every contract, as I consider a contract, it's an agreement that the State will help enforce and it WILL get into every contract that is contested. Otherwise, it's just people talking. When we talk about contracts in this conversation as it pertains to marriage (and many other things), we're not talking about two kids making an agreement to give the other kid five dollars if he kisses this girl on the playground, we're talking about a contract that is recognized by the State that will help you enforce ramifications of breaking contracts.
Anyways, I understand the idea no negative consequences to breaking a contract, outside the contract, what I'm saying is that I believe that marriage contracts would (given enough time) become fair via consequences of breaking them, if their consequences are enforceable. Say, marriage contracts become a commodity for $10 from 1-800-lawyers.com.
No it's not. The "world" didn't like interracial marriage for a real long time (even beyond the U.S.). Just because it recently became acceptable doesn't mean the point isn't valid. And yes, marriages without "love" have been very common and completely valid throughout history.
Marriage has nothing to do with a man and woman, it has to do with two people in love, that's it.
Not true. I'm a gay man married to another man, so I'm totally on your side. However, I can safely say that marriage being a thing about two people in love is a pretty naive point of view, both in the historical, intellectual, and practical view of marriage.
Because if you let them set the rules, they could fuck you over. For example, they could let straight people in but not gay people.
Not really a valid argument; if you have 50 siblings, they all can't enter the ICU at once. Not really a "right" that's more of a logistic issue that the hospital says only X amount of people in here at a time.
Agreed! A contract should be a contract divided evenly among the participants.
Yes, you could and should be able to. However, with a contract, I would expect there to be negative consequences to divorce/breaking the contract, as there is now. If there are lots of benefits but no consequences to breaking the contract, then it's a pretty uneven contract. Imagine the free market: the benefits and consequences of enabling and breaking the contract would naturally come to an equilibrium that works well, preventing such abuses.
Why should 2 people get tax incentives simple because of "love"? How about we take the government out of all marriages as far as tax and property reasons are concerned so that single people have the same rights as those lucky enough to find love
As a gay married man, who has libertarian leanings, let me enumerate a few answers your question.
1. Property: Medical visitation rights, medical decision making
2. Tax, property: On death, inheritance rights
3. Tax: Dependents. Raising children who don't provide income or taxes.
I'm sure I could think of more. There are a whole lot of shitty laws out there and I'm not defending them all. I also think of marriage as a contract. But familial dependencies do require more out of tax and property laws/rights than singles do, and I don't think there is a significant problem with having them, as long as they are equally open to everyone without discrimination.
Being against so-called "spousal rape" was but one in a long line of attacks on Christian marriage (being that consent is given once and forever), and therefore, Western Civilization as a whole.
Very bad logic there bud. Being against Christian marriage is not being against Western Civilization as a whole.
Gay parents pushing their social agendas onto their (likely) straight adopted children are more likely to cause self esteem and relationship issues.
Straight parents also push their social agendas onto their (likely) straight children. The Duggar family comes to mind. Poor kids are so sexually and intellectually repressed.
"Family" law assumes and is built around government-approved marriages. To change marriage would change thousands of laws, with unknown and untested consequences.
Can you give an example of a negative outcome? There has already been many changes to marriage in recent history, such as the affirmation of women's rights, the ease of divorce, legalization of same-sex marriages, etc. I don't see any negative outcomes via "family" law; for example, the protection of children. (Note that I'm not saying there are not unintended consequences of such changes; I am speculating that you think there are negative consequences to laws such as family law due to same-sex marriage)
This is where the "if anyone knows of a reason they shouldn't be married line came from", if either spouse was in violation of church laws or the laws of the kingdom, the church wouldn't allow the marriage and the kingdom would sometimes allow or disallow it (but you needed to get special permission) .
Eh, no. Well you're a little correct, because sometimes there could be cases such as not getting married during lent... but think about what you're saying. The priest marrying them would already know if they were violating church laws.
The main reason they were asking was if they were related and didn't know it. People used to live in small villages and they didn't have email. They also married young and didn't have a long courtship; young people would typically be chosen to marry by their families. Weddings were the rare instances of people leaving their ~5-mile radius where they lived. So the line "if anyone knows of a reason they shouldn't be married" was not "does anyone here have beef with these people and want to make a politically motivated attack against one of these people", it was an authentic question of "do these people who don't know each other have a reason not to get married such as they are too closely related, or this guy who nobody on the girl's side of the family was a murderer in another village and the bride's family from this village doesn't know?"
It's not the state getting into your "business", it's your business getting into the state. Marriage predates nation-states by millennia. And as a practical matter, I'm glad I didn't have to get a lawyer and sign a 500-page contract in order to get married, and I'm glad that other people don't need their own lawyer to go over such a contract in order to recognize my marriage.
I understand your opinion, but the modern question of same-sex marriage is not about your business getting into the state. Modern marriage laws focus on mundane but important laws such as making medical decisions for your spouse, special protections (in the U.S. there is a constitutional provision that the government cannot coerce spouses to testify in court against each other), automatic inheritance of the estate, and lots and lots of tax implications. I'm sure there's more, but in any case I'm certain that there's no laws forcing procreation.
With these laws, it really is a contract that shouldn't be easily broken by one of the participants. I'm not saying you need a lawyer, but I do believe that with laws that have such significant on a person's life (and beyond), there should be government protection and a bit more than a handshake to establish these special protections.
Disclaimer: I'm a gay man married to another man.
When you say "special rights" I think of inequality and favoritism. In reality, gay marriage isn't that (or at least I don't expect it to be that). The main things I want from the law/government regarding my marriage is: medical decisions when the other cannot make them, inheritance decisions without me explicitly writing down that my husband co-owns my assets, the ability to make decisions for our children, and... well I think that's it. I don't consider these natural rights, I really just consider them a government recognition of companionship. This has nothing to do with fucking.
To name it correctly.
What I mean with that is that the language was designed with certain safety mechanisms involved. However, in order to do something as simple (maybe simple isn't the right word, but common) as the printf function, you have to break the standard safety mechanisms. Hence the printf function is a macro, and underneath the hood there is a whole lot of ugliness.
Now, taking a step back further, I think that it's good that ugliness is hidden behind the scenes. My point is that, if one has to get ugly to do the things that need to be done in a printf function, then I expect that it will actually become common and necessary to "do ugly things" in order to get stuff done in real-world applications.
And maybe I'm wrong, who knows?
They could have made the same simple concepts without going C++ style. This is obviously just aesthetics, but I don't think the language looks nice compared to lots of newer languages (Swift, Ruby, Kotlin, and even D).
The :: scope operator is ugly and redundant.
This match syntax is just ugly and hard to type:
match header[0] {
1 => Ok(Version::Version1),
2 => Ok(Version::Version2),
_ => Err(ParseError::InvalidVersion)
}
The following is ugly and is not obvious:
use std::sync::{Arc, Mutex};
use std::thread;
use std::sync::mpsc;
fn main() {
let data = Arc::new(Mutex::new(0u32));
let (tx, rx) = mpsc::channel();
for _ in 0..10 {
let (data, tx) = (data.clone(), tx.clone());
thread::spawn(move || {
let mut data = data.lock().unwrap();
*data += 1;
tx.send(());
});
}
for _ in 0..10 {
rx.recv();
}
}
A simple printf function has to be a macro, because the techniques it uses are unsafe which is a main feature of the language.
OK a lot of these gripes are trivial; I guess I'm getting at the fact that they went an academic route about how to deal with pointers and memory allocation safely, and then built everything around that. It was so academic and engineering-like and they didn't think or try very hard about the design and aesthetics.
Actually a lot of it is because more kids in underdeveloped economies equates to more wealth, and in developed economies, more kids generally does not lead to more wealth.
LOL!
Linus, stop peddling the idea that everything should be 80 characters. 80-wide character terminals are a relic of 1960. Let the git commits fly, and let any browser since, I dunno, 1961, handle word wrapping.
My half brother is one of those doctors who quit because of being sued and didn't want/couldn't continue practicing. It hurts my family very much. But let me tell you, it's not because of "liberals" it's because of many factors. I suppose a completely conservative or completely liberal government could fix it (in a manner disagreeable to the other side), but just like our tax system, the problem won't be solved not because of liberalism or conservatism, it's because of our shitty democracy.
You're so fucking wrong. Your quick googling sounds like you just googled "climate change science is wrong". Taxis are not monitored by anyone, Ubers/Lfyts/Sidecars are.
I don't want to say this because anecdotal evidence is stupid, but I'm going to because I'm mad that I read your post. I've personally known two people to have been robbed by gunpoint by taxi drivers, and there's no way to track them. There's NOBODY who's ever been assaulted by Uber/Lfyts/Sidecars who haven't been able to have been tracked.
Of course, good code is 99% due to the person producing it and only 1% (if that) due to the language used
I agree that it's at least a majority of the person producing it, but I wouldn't say 99%. Good language design, in the right and appropriate circumstances, do indeed help. For example, Java (which you mention as bad) actually makes it MUCH harder for software to crash. For example, I lead a mobile team with Objective C (iOS) and Java (Android). The number of users experiencing crashes on the iOS app is around 2.5%, while the Android app is a perfect 0%. I don't think the Android devs are any better than the iOS devs - I am certain it's the language.
For the record, I have nothing good to say about C++ :)