So we pulled out our Smart Id WiFi detector, purchased at ThinkGeek and proceeded to walk the streets, laptops in backpacks, Wifi detector in hand.
Lo and behold, a few blocks from the hotel we found our first wifi hotspot, only to find it was secure. We walked on only to find another secure hotspot. After walking the French Quarter for the next 2 hours we had found several hotspots, but none that we could tap into. Now we realized that we really should have been partying.
Why can't someone build a WiFi detector that finds the hotspot, flashes if its open and blinks if it can be subscribed to?
From the article:
Out in the field, the HS10 works very well. If any networks are found, it stops scanning and then scrolls the SID / name, its strength, whether it is encrypted or open and the channel the network is on. Pressing the button again will continue scanning.
No other WiFi finder gives you this much information. Knowing whether there are any open networks in the area can save you from powering up / waking up your handtop/laptop, only to find out the network is encrypted. Detection is quick and range is above par, from 300-610 feet.
The only thing that seems to be missing is detection of whether the network is locked down by MAC address. Isn't the device described above approximately what you are looking for?
We have cost of living differences throughout the USA too, and the playing field within the US is considered equal already, right?
In the U.S., lower costs of living usually go hand-in-hand with lower levels of education. So, while HP could probably hire people cheaper in Alabama than in Silicone Valley, it's unlikely that they would find the people with the skills and education that they need.
Your example of Mumbai is actually a good one because, for equivalent standards of living, pricing is already approaching parity with major western cities. That $100/month apartment is going to be really ghetto in Mumbai, so ghetto that we probably have few equivalents in the USA. A decent western-standards apartment in Mumbai costs a whole lot more.
The "whole lot more" that I'm seeing is in the range of $250 per month, and we're talking about units with 2 bedrooms, lots of square footage, balconies, and advertised as being near tech businesses like Mindspace. That's $3,000/year. That might get you two months in a crappy studio apartment in a major tech center of the U.S.
ok, then it should be ok for you to be taxed multiple times depending on where you live and what nation you are actually a citizen of.
I am taxed by the federal government, the state government, and the county government.
In the end, all this will do is force the company to leave and make what the US operations a subsidary of the foreign parent company so all profits leave the US.
I could move to Alaska or Florida and avoid a lot of the taxes that I now pay, but I don't do it. Many companies would not move overseas either. The infrastructure in the U.S. is too good for business. And the cost of moving is too great.
As far as the regulations, what country's regulations take precedent?
They have to, by law, conform to the regulations of the country in which they are located. But if the U.S. has tighter standards, then the company would have to adhere to those standards. For instance, if Vietnam allowed the employment of 12 year olds and the U.S. had a minimum age of 16, then the U.S. firm would have to conform to the 16 year old age limit in its Vietnam factory.
That won't work, they will just add a western name to their official name and use that.
Some will, but I bet that many will not. Imagine the cost, headache, and hassle of changing your name and getting the change to trickle down through bank accounts, employer, government, etc.
This is the big one. All this talk of "leveling the playing field" from the outsourcing advocates seems to conveniently side-step this issue. Our worker protections are a major component in our costs - if we export the protections along with the jobs then the playing field really is levelled.
I wouldn't go that far, but it's closer to level. There is still the entire cost of living aspect. How does an American compete when an Indian worker in Mumbai can rent an apartment for under $100US per month? There is also the cost of office space and services in the U.S. In major metropolitan areas, you can be looking at lease costs of $20/sq.ft. and up. Figure that the average cubicle is about 80 sq.ft. Now add in the cost of common areas (conference rooms, lobby, hallways, restrooms, kitchen/vending and you're looking at around 200 sq.ft. per employee. That's probably a total cost that exceeds what you would pay for an Indian tech worker who already has a cubicle.
Unlike you, I'm not an anonymous coward and I do have solutions:
1. Eliminate tax incentives for companies that outsource. 1a. Tax American companies on their foreign subsidiaries' profits just like they are taxed on their domestic profits.
2. Collect larger unemployment insurance payments from profitable companies that layoff U.S. workers. The amount could be based on a formula that takes profit margin, number of workers laid off, and average pay of laid-off workers into account.
3. Collect a per-laid-off-worker retraining fee that would be put into a fund to provide government-assisted training to laid off workers.
4. Give preferential consideration for government contracts to companies that minimize outsourcing.
5. Require that companies inform U.S. consumers when their phone calls are being transferred out of the country (e.g., "please hold while your call is transferred to our call center in Bangalore, India"). Also require that telephone representatives provide their actual names. If a person's name is "Ramanpreet," "Suryanarayanan," or "Priyamvada," then don't allow them to identify themselves to a caller as "Jim", "George", or "Sharon." These requirements would allow consumers to make informed choices on their purchases.
6. Require that companies comply with U.S. labor and environmental laws when they open plants overseas. If it's wrong for Nike to hire a 14 year old child in the U.S., then it's wrong for them to do it in Vietnam. If it's wrong for General Motors to expose a worker in the U.S. to asbestos, it's wrong for them to expose a worker in Malaysia to asbestos. If it's wrong for Mattel to pollute the air from their U.S. plant, then it's wrong for them to pollute the air from their Mexican plant.
There are many more things that can be done and, obviously, details to be worked out by legislative bodies before the suggestions that I made could be implemented. But I've made suggestions rooted in ethics that could help a lot.
Re:TV is actually worse than movies...
on
TV Piracy is Next
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You won't have a job if the corporation does not make a profit.
That's clearly untrue as National Geographic, a non-profit, employs hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Other companies that just break even employ countless thousands of people. Also, you ignore the fact that most firms are already profitable before they start outsourcing.
Company X has a CEO who makes $7million/year. They outsource software development to India to save $5million/year. They could have cut the CEO's salary to $2million per year and kept the U.S. development staff. What outsourcing does is make a tiny percentage of senior management rich while driving down wages for the bulk of the workers.
Other people developed new skills and started something called the industrial revolution.
So what will be this generation's "industrial revolution"? Where should the out-of-work software engineers be channelling their energy? Be specific. Many of these people are watching their bank accounts dwindle as they try to put food on the table, so they don't have time to spend going down dead-end roads.
You can cry about it and get left behind, or you can continue to develop skills that will allow you to feed your family.
What skills should a software engineer develop to compete with people who can live comfortably on $6K/year? What skills will allow him to maintain the standard of living that his family currently enjoys? Should he go back to school for four years to get a law degree or an MBA? While doing that, should his family live in van in the Walmart parking lot, maybe with the wife turning tricks to pay for food? What happens when the kid gets sick and there is no insurance during those four years with no real income?
I'm tired of the right-wing making vague comments about learning "new skills," "creating value," and other hollow, Limbaugh-esc crap. It's like the idiotic "work smarter" malarkey that managers spout when they set unrealistic deadlines. They don't have a real answer, so they try to blame the workers for the bad situation.
P.S. My job is not directly threatened by outsourcing in any way, so don't try to personalize it. And don't try to portray me as someone only concerned with my own self-interests -- I am not a Republican.
Re:TV is actually worse than movies...
on
TV Piracy is Next
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Spare me the anti-capitalist bullshit.
You may jerk-off to Forbes magazine, but don't knock those people who have more concern for their jobs than for corporate profits.
Indian programmers can now compete with US ones; good for them
Yes, it is good for them and it's bad for U.S. programmers. It's also bad for the U.S. economy because we will lose the competitive edge in tech. Right now, we have U.S. firms outsourcing to Indian programmers. How long do you think that it will be before tech firms open up in India and start competing with the likes of SMC and Cisco? It won't do you much good to be able to get a router for $10 less if you aren't employed, will it?
Corporations have a duty to their shareholders to make money. This is nothing new.
I remember when corporations felt an obligation to their employees and the community -- not just to their shareholders.
So, in your view of capitalist nirvana, just what would the average worker earn? Do you view a race to the bottom as being the ideal, with corporate CEOs getting seven figure salaries while outsourcing all work to workers who live in countries where apartments can be rented for $50/month?
These may be different, but that remains for them to prove.;-)
According to their web site, they produce LED lights by using their "Enlux proprietary Light Engine, using red, amber, green and blue LED array" rather than simply using the bluish-white LEDs to which you probably refer. That lets them tune the color spectrum and temperature.
But that's according to their web page, which also claims that the 300 lumen LED flood will save you money, even though it costs $80 and produces less light than the 11W Sylvania compact fluorescent floodlight you can get at many home centers.
According to the GE web site, their regular old 90W floodlight produces 1,100 lumens. Move up to a halogen 100W from Sylvania, and you're at 1,500 watts. From what I saw on the Enluxed web site, their 22w (nominal) LED floodlights produce 300 lumens.
I'm a big fan of LED lighting (having bought three LED flashlights last night as presents), but this is just absurd -- unless there is some kind of misprint or my reading comprehension is not up to par today.
Though I have personal opinions that may not like some aspects of the gay scene (as portrayed by the parades and the lot), and I have my reservations on a lot of things, there is a difference between my personal (dis)likings, and what is actually right based on logic and a measure of being able to view the point from the perspective of others.
True. But keep in mind that, for every gay guy parading down the street in leather chaps and nipple clamps, there are probably hundreds who are quietly spending the evening at home, at the movies, or going out to dinner -- like any of us.
It are those two aspects that many Xians, and active religious people in general, fail at, IMHO. They can't seem to make the difference between personal feelings (which, in this case, they try to justify with quotes from the bible or other religious dogma's), and a rationale based on common (non religious) principles.
I don't know if it's that of if they think that their religious beliefs should be codified into law. Many probably believe that their "God" wants them to force his/her will on all of society through whatever means is available.
They call it 'moral relevationism' and refute it, but the truth is, morality and ethical questions ARE relative. Without that part of the philosophy of Kant (or similar concepts) and the use of logic, you can't really determine anything that would constitute something 'better', morality wise, then anything else - it would just depend on subjective opinion (and often to hypocrisy).
Sadly, many people use religion as a means of avoiding thinking about morality and ethics. As Albert Einstein said, "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." I believe that far too many religious people would find themselves raping, pillaging, and burning were it not for a belief in God, Satan, and an afterlife.
Yet, I've imagined an absolute libertarian concept, something in the lines of 'the state of the free will', and I must confess I have trouble actually making it coherent, even only pondering it hypothetically. For instance, in principle, you could say anyone is free to do anything he likes, even in public places, as long as he doesn't infringe on the freedoms of others. Yet, I could imagine that I won't feel all to happy, say, waiting on a bus, and next to me is a guy, nude, who's jerking off, for instance. I mean, on itself, I would have to conclude he doesn't restrict my freedom, and he doesn't force me to do it too, nor forbids it to me, so basically...well, it follows the points I made.
I think that it's more than a restriction on freedom. I think that there is the issue of causing excessive anxiety in a reasonable person. And that's where we get into relativistism. Who determines what is "reasonable"? How do we decide, as a society, how much anxiety should be considered "excessive"? Should it be illegal for me to wear leather because it upsets people from PETA? I'd say no. Should it be illegal for me to expose my genitals in public? Probably. Should it be illegal for a guy to go out in public in pumps, fishnets, and a tutu? I'd say no. Should it be illegal for two men to kiss in public? Again, I'd say no.
Without such consideration, we would have to get rid of laws against assault (not battery), since threatening to harm or kill someone doesn't actually restrict their freedom. I don't think that any sane (my definition, thank you) person would go down that route.
Thanks for an enlightening and thought-provoking discussion.
Honestly now, can we quite fucking the Kyoto Treaty as if it's some sacared cow and the environmental apocolypse will rain down upon us if everybody doesn't climb aboard and give it a blow job? I didn't list that stuff to prove you wrong. I listed it to illustrate the point that there are other factors that probably have far more influence than man ever could short of nuclear wepondry. You know, like nature itself?
You ignore the fact that there are far more reputable, peer-reviewed studies attributing global warming to man-made greenhouse gases.
But let's hypothesize that you are right. What happens if we enter into the Kyoto Treaty and it doesn't solve the problem? Well, we'll have reduced air pollution. Fewer people will have asthma and other respiratory problems. Many of the dirty fossil fuel powerplants will probably have been replaced by nuclear, cutting demand for fossil fuels. That hardly sounds like a bad thing.
Now I know that the big businesses that bought Bush scream that reducing air pollution will put thousands of people out of work. They said the same thing when tighter pollution regulations were put on cars in the early '70s. They claimed that there would never again be high performance cars. They said that no one would be able to afford cars. They said that fuel economy would suffer horribly. But look at the situation today. You can get a Corvette with 400hp (at the rear wheels) that gets over 22mpg. Or you can get a 300hp Subaru WRX that also gets 22mpg. There's less air pollution in urban areas (e.g., Los Angeles). And there are far more cars on the road today than there were in 1970.
Now let's turn it around and suppose that we do nothing and that global warming does turn out to be caused by greenhouse gases. In that case, we may see temperatures spiral out of control, species be killed in mass extinctions, and devastating severe weather that kills thousands and leaves even more homeless. In the worst-case scenario, much of humanity could be killed off.
I'd rather err on the side of caution, reduce pollution, improve the environment, and hope that it solves, or reduces, global warming.
Apart from that, say they truelly made their decision freely in any sense even you could conceive of; then marriages between brothers, for instance, should be allowed. Staying within the reasoning, no other conclusion can be logically made. Agreed?
Yes, but the religious and social taboos against incest are so strong, that I expect that there would be a backlash that very strictly defined marriage -- based on religious dogma rather than logic. I fear that the same argument you have just provided would be used to try to force legislation against gay marriage (i.e., 'if we allow gay marriage, then, logically, we have to allow incestuous marriage, so therefore we *can't* allow gay marriage').
Frankly, I don't have any kind of big hang-up about any marriage of two consenting adults acting on their own free will. In general, I don't believe that it's the government's place to legislate against actions which have no victims. Now, if something is so revolting that the mere sight of it causes most people disgust, then it should be illegal in public places -- like this.
Genetic defects are not caused by incest, but by repeated procreation by incest.
It's does not have to be repeated. From Wikipedia: Inbreeding leads to an increase in homozygocity, that is, the same allele at the same locus on both members of a chromosome pair. This occurs because close relatives are more likely to share more alleles than nonrelated individuals. If an individual has an allele linked to a congenital birth-defect, it is likely that close relatives also have this allele; a homozygote would express the congenital birth defect...Recent research on the mechanisms of human adaptive immunity suggests that there is a strong evolutionary pressure to maintain as diverse an array of antibody genes as possible.
That's a good medical argument against incestuous procreation.
People could use condoms or other means not to make children with genetic defects; after all, current relationships (and marriage) hasn't got the obligation to create children, let alone healthy genetic-defect-free children, as far as I am aware. So what if they make sure they can't get children? Then your objection, even if it was a valid one, dissapears.
Birth control is rarely so effective.
And what if they simply can't? Let's say two adult brothers do it with eachother...no way of genetic defects. And you are all for gays to have the same rights. And you claim that it should be allowed, as long as it doesn't affect your marriage, your rights, or your church. Well, it doesn't.
So, logic dictates you would/should accept incest, and even the union of siblings, following your own reasoning. Do you?
*Perhaps* it should be accepted if it is permanently medically impossible for the couple to breed.
But I still have concerns about whether the relationships are truly of free will. If a daughter chooses to marry her father. Is it because she was bred for that purpose? Was she raised to expect to marry her father when she turned 18? Was she told from age three that good little girls grow up to marry their daddies? If a brother and sister marry, was it because the parents kept them apart for years to avoid the Westermarck effect while telling them that they would be able to meet, and marry, their sibling later in life? In both of those circumstances, we have victims rather than consenting adults.
I'll take your word for it. I never turned one over.;-)
Male bees a drones, and basically only serve to do it with the queen once in their lifetime (if they get lucky;-)
They also may play a part in regulating the temperature of the hive.
That pretty much covers bees. Should we talk about birds now?
A law that is 'for everybody' doesn't make it a just law, nor does it diminuish the ethical rights homosexuals or other people have, I'm sure we can all agree to that.
I agree with that completely.
PS.I would appreciate a response to my 'incest-question' post:-)
The greeks allowed homosexual relationships, but they never (AFAIK) allowed for homosexual marriages.
I did a bit of research. A 1994 book by the late Yale Historian John Boswell ("Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe", Villard, New York, NY,) demonstrates that Greece and many Christian churches both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex, until modern times. That book lists the original texts and English translations of a number of religious ceremonies:
Office of Same-sex Union, (and similar names), 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th & 16th century translations, Greece.
Office of Same-sex Union, 11th century Christian church in Greece.
The Order for Uniting Two Men, 11-12 century, Old Church Slavonic.
Office of Same-Gender Union, 12th century Italio-Greek.
An Order for the Uniting of Two Men [or Two Women], 14th century Serbian Slavonic.
Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men, prior to 18th century, Serbian Slavonic.
So what *is* marriage? Well, I guess it's just a state and socially recognized union of two people in love. *Who* those two people are, and whether it's exclusive to those two people) is up to the society and state. I would wager more the former myself. Though due to some finangling, "married" has also developed legal and tax status.
And that's where we get into a legal quagmire. If a gay couple cannot marry, they cannot enjoy the same legal benefits that a straight couple can. Don't underestimate how intertwined marriage is with the law and even with such things as benefits at someone's place of work. If I am a straight parent with a wife, she is covered by my employer-provided health insurance. If I am a gay parent with a partner at home, he would not be covered. If my wife were in the ICU, I could visit her. If my gay partner were in the same ICU, I would not be allowed to visit. (I am straight, so feel no need to be delicate in any reply you may post).
That's true. But we do it all the time. It's illegal to walk around in public nude, to wear offensive clothing in public, and many other public displays.
But I submit that there is an important distinction. A marriage is not a public display. A child seeing two women in a car has no way to know whether they are married, for example.
That's true. We see it in humans too. But it serves no purpose IMHO. It's an oddity of nature.
But you wrote: I don't consider homosexuality to be as nature intended (nevermind God). Apparently nature did intend it.
To tell you the truth, this is a subject I'm still not totally sure on. I've gone back and forth a few times on it. At the moment I'm having a hard time justifying same-sex marriage though. It *is* a change (not just since the 1990's though - when were any homosexuals allowed to marry before that? I can only accept it as having been "okay" if anybody succeeded). I've known gays, had some as friends and coworkers. But I still don't think it's something society should accept. As you say, polygamy, and other "oddities" are right down the same path.
I can only comment on my philosophy. Human sexuality is a complex thing. One person might be into BDSM while another might only be sexually aroused while wearing diapers. Still others need to be ridden around like ponies with bits in their mouths and saddles on their backs. If we start legislating and deciding, as a society, what is "right" from a sexuality standpoint, most of us will find ourselves in some minority of which the others disapprove. If we allow a male-female couple to marry even though their idea of sex involves rubber pants, nipple clamps, and urine (sorry for any offense if that was too graphic), then who are we to tell a same sex couple that they cannot marry and are, thus, denied the benefits that go along with marriage?
I believe that the government should be looking for ways to maximize freedoms, not curtail them. If two
Well, then we're disagreeing on semantics here. You think "foo" is a right, and nothing else defines it as such
Marriage is a right. It's recognized by state and federal laws.
I'm saying "foo" is a right, so long as it's legal. I'm NOT, however, saying that the law is always correct, so don't make this mistake.
So then we can agree that gay marriage was a right throughout most of the U.S. until the 1990s, when it was made illegal. Prior to that, there was no law against it in most states.
In your analogy it's a right denied to *everyone*.
The right to marry someone of the same sex is being denied to *everyone*.
This I will answer, if you answer the bit about polygamy, beastiality, incest, etc. (what makes same sex marriage "okay" but not those?).
Fair enough. I don't have a problem with polygamy between consenting adults. Beastiality victimizes animals that can't give consent. Incest is likely to lead to genetic deformities.
This may surprise you, but I'm not forcing my religion on anybody. I have no religion (I'm not even baptised, consider myself agnostic).
I admit to being surprised. I am an atheist.
Marriage is historic and *natural*. I don't consider homosexuality to be as nature intended (nevermind God).
Homosexuality is common in nature as you can see in this article. It occurs throughout the animal kingdom, from swans to apes to penguins.
The very fact that we populate through heterosexual relations is proof enough of this.
It's only proof that reproduction is a heterosexual act, not that every single animal is intended to be part of the reproductive cycle. Look at bees: The only fertile female in the nest is the queen bee and male worker bees do not fertilize any eggs.
I'm not saying that homosexuality is *wrong* per se, but that society shouldn't endorse it. IOW homosexuality is a sexual deviance (like BDSM, etc.). This is a little difficult to explain in a short time through text. But try not to take this as much more "mean spirited" than I mean it. It should be "accepted" as okay, but not codified as a right ("You have the right to free speech, to bear arms, and to have same-gender sex")
There is mounting (no pun intended) evidence that homosexuality is influenced by nature more than nurture. There are genetic traits associated with homosexuality. So, unlike BDSM, it's not simply a lifestyle choice.
I am a liberal (no surprise there). I believe that the government should not be limiting people's rights unless it is to protect others. Preventing two consenting adults from getting married in the legal sense of the term "married" isn't protecting anyone. It's curtailing the rights of those people in order to codify the moral beliefs of third parties into U.S. law. This isn't about making something legal. It's about making it illegal. That's an important distinction.
Like everyone who opposes same-sex marriage is a homophobe? Because of this little slip I refuse to answer you too much, you're obviously not serious.
It wasn't a "little slip." It was a carefully considered word that accurately describes people who try to oppress gays -- as you are advocating. I'm deadly serious and if you won't answer me, it's because your arguments don't hold water.
No, I don't (can't say "didn't" because I was born after this was an issue). But that was still a *new* right. It was a right I agree with though.
No, it was not a new right. The existing right to marry was simply denied to mixed race couples just as it is now being denied to gay couples.
The law states a man and woman can marry.
It was not until the "Defense Of Marriage Act" of the 1990s that most states had any prohibition against same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, and Rhode Island still have not adopted DOMA and have no prohibitions against gay marriage. So for over 200 years, there was no prohibition against same-sex marriages in the vast majority of the country and laws denying the right to marry to same-sex couples were only crafted recently.
I never said anything about degrading marriage, or the sanctity of marriage BTW.
Then just why do you want to prevent same sex couples from marrying? Do you feel threatened by such marriages? Do you feel that your religious beliefs should be made the law of the land? What is your motivation.
Just that Gays do *NOT* have less rights than straights. We are all limited by the same law the same way.
So we can make insulin injections illegal and then claim that it's not denying a right to medical care to diabetics because insulin is illegal for everyone. A damned good analogy to what you're claiming.
If I claimed my religion required me to marry my sister, would it be religious prosecution to not allow me to exercise my right?
First off, it's not a "right." It a tenet of your religion. Secondly, it would not be religious persecution because laws against incest were not passed specifically to limit the rights of people of your faith. Laws against gay marriage were intended to limit the rights of people because of their sexual orientation.
I think the problem people on right have, is the government's percieved endorsement of gay mariage as good and right. I personally feel the solution to this problem (since I believe it is not right, but don't want the government enforcing my views on others) is to get government out of the equation all together. Let the government issue cival unions for any couple, gays, traditional marriages, or two elderly siblings supporting each other. The issue of marriage is to be decided by the church. I will choose not to attend a church that sanctions gay marriage, or to recognize such marriages.
That is an extremely enlightened and reasonable approach. Though I think that "married" is on way too many forms, in too many laws, etc. to be replaced with another term. People should just recognize that a legal marriage and a church marriage are two separate things.
This is a biggoted statement.
Untrue. It's based on studies and population distributions.
You'll find that evangelicals as a group have an average distribution of education and intelligence. I've not done any studies, but you shouldn't assume otherwise until you've done some studies.
I have seen reputable studies and they show that evangelicals are less likely to have a college degree than the rest of the population. Just look at where evangelical Christians make up the largest percentage of the population. It's states like Missisipi, Alabama, Arkansas, etc. It's sure not college towns like Boston or Princeton.
Straights and gays are all allowed to get married! It just has to be to the opposite gender. But to say they are not afforded the same rights I am is false!
What right-wing bullshit. Gays don't have the same rights if they can't marry the person with whom they are in love. You have that right. They do not. Don't play ignorant word games with me, homophobe.
Same-sex marriage is a *new* right. Not the same right.
In the same sense that mixed-race marriage was a "new" right when it became legal. But you probably opposed that right, too, didn't you?
And it's debatable as to whether it's "right" or not. Is incest "right?" How about beastiality? They don't effect you, right?
Not even close to an analogy since incest causes genetic defects and beastiality victimizes animals.
You still didn't address the crux of the argument:
If two women marry one another, it doesn't affect your marriage, your rights, or your church. It doesn't diminish your love for your spouse. It doesn't take away your rights to inheritance, family visitation rights in hospitals, family medical insurance, ability to qualify for a loan, lower auto insurance premiums, or any of the other things you could enjoy as a married person. This isn't an issue like rape, murder, mugging, child molestation, or robbery where there is a victim. We're talking about adults who want to make a legal, emotional, and, perhaps, spiritual commitment to their relationship.
As to "moral values," who are you to tell a gay couple that their relationship is immoral? Why should the teachings of your church be codified into law? Other churches have no problem with gay marriage so what moral right do you have to tell them that the marriages they want to perform won't be legally recognized? If you don't want to be in a church that performs same-sex weddings, that's your right.
This also isn't about protecting the sanctity of marriage. If it was, these same evangelical voters would be demanding that marriage licenses be denied to adulterers (like televangelists Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggert), wife beaters, people who have had multiple divorces, drunks, drug addicts, or any of the other "fine couples" one can see on any episode of Cops.
A democracy is not supposed to be three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. As an American, I'm ashamed of the voters who chose to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples. I can only take comfort in the fact that, as a group, evangelicals are some of the least educated among us and that, through better education, we can fight this form of bigotry just as we fought against bigotry that oppressed blacks, mixed race couples, Jews, Japanese, Chinese, Mormons, and many others.
It's an uninformed perception designed to induce hatred and fear of anyone who happens to believe that moral values that have served civilization for thousands of years are to be trusted over more recent notions regardless of their popularity.
The "fear and hatred" was directed at same-sex couples who wished to have the same rights as straight couples. If two women marry one another, it doesn't affect your marriage, your rights, or your church. It doesn't diminish your love for your spouse. It doesn't take away your rights to inheritance, family visitation rights in hospitals, family medical insurance, ability to qualify for a loan, lower auto insurance premiums, or any of the other things you could enjoy as a married person. This isn't an issue like rape, murder, mugging, child molestation, or robbery where there is a victim. We're talking about adults who want to make a legal, emotional, and, perhaps, spiritual commitment to their relationship.
As to "moral values," who are you to tell a gay couple that their relationship is immoral? Why should the teachings of your church be codified into law? Other churches have no problem with gay marriage so what moral right do you have to tell them that the marriages they want to perform won't be legally recognized? If you don't want to be in a church that performs same-sex weddings, that's your right.
This also isn't about protecting the sanctity of marriage. If it was, these same evangelical voters would be demanding that marriage licenses be denied to adulterers (like televangelists Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggert), wife beaters, people who have had multiple divorces, drunks, drug addicts, or any of the other "fine couples" one can see on any episode of Cops.
A democracy is not supposed to be three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. As an American, I'm ashamed of the voters who chose to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples. I can only take comfort in the fact that, as a group, evangelicals are some of the least educated among us and that, through better education, we can fight this form of bigotry just as we fought against bigotry that oppressed blacks, mixed race couples, Jews, Japanese, Chinese, Mormons, and many others.
I'd be genuinely grateful to have someone who spoke intelligently and honestly to students about any country -- including the U.S. The purpose of a teacher is not to instill reverence in countries. Teachers are supposed to educate students, teaching them both facts and critical thinking skills. The post to which you replied seemed to hit the mark.
9 years for spam in VIRGINIA the birthplace of the Tax FREE Televangelical Money Church? The home of the 700 Club and Jerry Falwell? The prosecutor should rot in fucking hell forever.
The prosecutor should get sainthood. That fuckwad spammer was wasting the time, bandwidth and storage of millions of people, companies, and ISPs. He sent out 10 million spams per month. That's 120 million spams per year. Assuming that it takes the average person 3 seconds to download, recognize, and delete a piece of spam, that' 360 million seconds per year he's stolen from people's lives. That's over 11.4 years! That doesn't even take into account the cost that others paid for bandwidth and storage for his unwanted e-mail ads. Hell, 9 years isn't even close to enough time given the magnitude of what he was doing.
As to the televangelists and the idiots they dupe out of money, blame the religious right and the Republicans who they vote into office, not the prosecutor who tried to keep some ass-lick from filling our e-mail inboxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Lo and behold, a few blocks from the hotel we found our first wifi hotspot, only to find it was secure. We walked on only to find another secure hotspot. After walking the French Quarter for the next 2 hours we had found several hotspots, but none that we could tap into. Now we realized that we really should have been partying.
Why can't someone build a WiFi detector that finds the hotspot, flashes if its open and blinks if it can be subscribed to?
From the article:
The only thing that seems to be missing is detection of whether the network is locked down by MAC address. Isn't the device described above approximately what you are looking for?
We have cost of living differences throughout the USA too, and the playing field within the US is considered equal already, right?
In the U.S., lower costs of living usually go hand-in-hand with lower levels of education. So, while HP could probably hire people cheaper in Alabama than in Silicone Valley, it's unlikely that they would find the people with the skills and education that they need.
Your example of Mumbai is actually a good one because, for equivalent standards of living, pricing is already approaching parity with major western cities. That $100/month apartment is going to be really ghetto in Mumbai, so ghetto that we probably have few equivalents in the USA. A decent western-standards apartment in Mumbai costs a whole lot more.
The "whole lot more" that I'm seeing is in the range of $250 per month, and we're talking about units with 2 bedrooms, lots of square footage, balconies, and advertised as being near tech businesses like Mindspace. That's $3,000/year. That might get you two months in a crappy studio apartment in a major tech center of the U.S.
ok, then it should be ok for you to be taxed multiple times depending on where you live and what nation you are actually a citizen of.
I am taxed by the federal government, the state government, and the county government.
In the end, all this will do is force the company to leave and make what the US operations a subsidary of the foreign parent company so all profits leave the US.
I could move to Alaska or Florida and avoid a lot of the taxes that I now pay, but I don't do it. Many companies would not move overseas either. The infrastructure in the U.S. is too good for business. And the cost of moving is too great.
As far as the regulations, what country's regulations take precedent?
They have to, by law, conform to the regulations of the country in which they are located. But if the U.S. has tighter standards, then the company would have to adhere to those standards. For instance, if Vietnam allowed the employment of 12 year olds and the U.S. had a minimum age of 16, then the U.S. firm would have to conform to the 16 year old age limit in its Vietnam factory.
That won't work, they will just add a western name to their official name and use that.
Some will, but I bet that many will not. Imagine the cost, headache, and hassle of changing your name and getting the change to trickle down through bank accounts, employer, government, etc.
This is the big one. All this talk of "leveling the playing field" from the outsourcing advocates seems to conveniently side-step this issue. Our worker protections are a major component in our costs - if we export the protections along with the jobs then the playing field really is levelled.
I wouldn't go that far, but it's closer to level. There is still the entire cost of living aspect. How does an American compete when an Indian worker in Mumbai can rent an apartment for under $100US per month? There is also the cost of office space and services in the U.S. In major metropolitan areas, you can be looking at lease costs of $20/sq.ft. and up. Figure that the average cubicle is about 80 sq.ft. Now add in the cost of common areas (conference rooms, lobby, hallways, restrooms, kitchen/vending and you're looking at around 200 sq.ft. per employee. That's probably a total cost that exceeds what you would pay for an Indian tech worker who already has a cubicle.
Unlike you, I'm not an anonymous coward and I do have solutions:
1. Eliminate tax incentives for companies that outsource.
1a. Tax American companies on their foreign subsidiaries' profits just like they are taxed on their domestic profits.
2. Collect larger unemployment insurance payments from profitable companies that layoff U.S. workers. The amount could be based on a formula that takes profit margin, number of workers laid off, and average pay of laid-off workers into account.
3. Collect a per-laid-off-worker retraining fee that would be put into a fund to provide government-assisted training to laid off workers.
4. Give preferential consideration for government contracts to companies that minimize outsourcing.
5. Require that companies inform U.S. consumers when their phone calls are being transferred out of the country (e.g., "please hold while your call is transferred to our call center in Bangalore, India"). Also require that telephone representatives provide their actual names. If a person's name is "Ramanpreet," "Suryanarayanan," or "Priyamvada," then don't allow them to identify themselves to a caller as "Jim", "George", or "Sharon." These requirements would allow consumers to make informed choices on their purchases.
6. Require that companies comply with U.S. labor and environmental laws when they open plants overseas. If it's wrong for Nike to hire a 14 year old child in the U.S., then it's wrong for them to do it in Vietnam. If it's wrong for General Motors to expose a worker in the U.S. to asbestos, it's wrong for them to expose a worker in Malaysia to asbestos. If it's wrong for Mattel to pollute the air from their U.S. plant, then it's wrong for them to pollute the air from their Mexican plant.
There are many more things that can be done and, obviously, details to be worked out by legislative bodies before the suggestions that I made could be implemented. But I've made suggestions rooted in ethics that could help a lot.
You won't have a job if the corporation does not make a profit.
That's clearly untrue as National Geographic, a non-profit, employs hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Other companies that just break even employ countless thousands of people. Also, you ignore the fact that most firms are already profitable before they start outsourcing.
Company X has a CEO who makes $7million/year. They outsource software development to India to save $5million/year. They could have cut the CEO's salary to $2million per year and kept the U.S. development staff. What outsourcing does is make a tiny percentage of senior management rich while driving down wages for the bulk of the workers.
Other people developed new skills and started something called the industrial revolution.
So what will be this generation's "industrial revolution"? Where should the out-of-work software engineers be channelling their energy? Be specific. Many of these people are watching their bank accounts dwindle as they try to put food on the table, so they don't have time to spend going down dead-end roads.
You can cry about it and get left behind, or you can continue to develop skills that will allow you to feed your family.
What skills should a software engineer develop to compete with people who can live comfortably on $6K/year? What skills will allow him to maintain the standard of living that his family currently enjoys? Should he go back to school for four years to get a law degree or an MBA? While doing that, should his family live in van in the Walmart parking lot, maybe with the wife turning tricks to pay for food? What happens when the kid gets sick and there is no insurance during those four years with no real income?
I'm tired of the right-wing making vague comments about learning "new skills," "creating value," and other hollow, Limbaugh-esc crap. It's like the idiotic "work smarter" malarkey that managers spout when they set unrealistic deadlines. They don't have a real answer, so they try to blame the workers for the bad situation.
P.S. My job is not directly threatened by outsourcing in any way, so don't try to personalize it. And don't try to portray me as someone only concerned with my own self-interests -- I am not a Republican.
Spare me the anti-capitalist bullshit.
You may jerk-off to Forbes magazine, but don't knock those people who have more concern for their jobs than for corporate profits.
Indian programmers can now compete with US ones; good for them
Yes, it is good for them and it's bad for U.S. programmers. It's also bad for the U.S. economy because we will lose the competitive edge in tech. Right now, we have U.S. firms outsourcing to Indian programmers. How long do you think that it will be before tech firms open up in India and start competing with the likes of SMC and Cisco? It won't do you much good to be able to get a router for $10 less if you aren't employed, will it?
Corporations have a duty to their shareholders to make money. This is nothing new.
I remember when corporations felt an obligation to their employees and the community -- not just to their shareholders.
So, in your view of capitalist nirvana, just what would the average worker earn? Do you view a race to the bottom as being the ideal, with corporate CEOs getting seven figure salaries while outsourcing all work to workers who live in countries where apartments can be rented for $50/month?
Move up to a halogen 100W from Sylvania, and you're at 1,500 watts.
The word "watts" should obviously have been "lumens." Sorry for any confusion that may have caused.
if you read closely, the claim that the lights put out twice the light output of a 100w flood only applies to the COLORED floodlights.
Thanks for that clarification. Sylvania product number 15623 is a 100 watt red incandescent floodlight. It puts out 650 lumens.
It's a shame that the synopsis on Slashdot made it sound like they were talking about conventional white floodlights, though.
These may be different, but that remains for them to prove. ;-)
According to their web site, they produce LED lights by using their "Enlux proprietary Light Engine, using red, amber, green and blue LED array" rather than simply using the bluish-white LEDs to which you probably refer. That lets them tune the color spectrum and temperature.
But that's according to their web page, which also claims that the 300 lumen LED flood will save you money, even though it costs $80 and produces less light than the 11W Sylvania compact fluorescent floodlight you can get at many home centers.
According to the GE web site, their regular old 90W floodlight produces 1,100 lumens. Move up to a halogen 100W from Sylvania, and you're at 1,500 watts. From what I saw on the Enluxed web site, their 22w (nominal) LED floodlights produce 300 lumens.
I'm a big fan of LED lighting (having bought three LED flashlights last night as presents), but this is just absurd -- unless there is some kind of misprint or my reading comprehension is not up to par today.
Though I have personal opinions that may not like some aspects of the gay scene (as portrayed by the parades and the lot), and I have my reservations on a lot of things, there is a difference between my personal (dis)likings, and what is actually right based on logic and a measure of being able to view the point from the perspective of others.
True. But keep in mind that, for every gay guy parading down the street in leather chaps and nipple clamps, there are probably hundreds who are quietly spending the evening at home, at the movies, or going out to dinner -- like any of us.
It are those two aspects that many Xians, and active religious people in general, fail at, IMHO. They can't seem to make the difference between personal feelings (which, in this case, they try to justify with quotes from the bible or other religious dogma's), and a rationale based on common (non religious) principles.
I don't know if it's that of if they think that their religious beliefs should be codified into law. Many probably believe that their "God" wants them to force his/her will on all of society through whatever means is available.
They call it 'moral relevationism' and refute it, but the truth is, morality and ethical questions ARE relative. Without that part of the philosophy of Kant (or similar concepts) and the use of logic, you can't really determine anything that would constitute something 'better', morality wise, then anything else - it would just depend on subjective opinion (and often to hypocrisy).
Sadly, many people use religion as a means of avoiding thinking about morality and ethics. As Albert Einstein said, "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." I believe that far too many religious people would find themselves raping, pillaging, and burning were it not for a belief in God, Satan, and an afterlife.
Yet, I've imagined an absolute libertarian concept, something in the lines of 'the state of the free will', and I must confess I have trouble actually making it coherent, even only pondering it hypothetically. For instance, in principle, you could say anyone is free to do anything he likes, even in public places, as long as he doesn't infringe on the freedoms of others. Yet, I could imagine that I won't feel all to happy, say, waiting on a bus, and next to me is a guy, nude, who's jerking off, for instance. I mean, on itself, I would have to conclude he doesn't restrict my freedom, and he doesn't force me to do it too, nor forbids it to me, so basically...well, it follows the points I made.
I think that it's more than a restriction on freedom. I think that there is the issue of causing excessive anxiety in a reasonable person. And that's where we get into relativistism. Who determines what is "reasonable"? How do we decide, as a society, how much anxiety should be considered "excessive"? Should it be illegal for me to wear leather because it upsets people from PETA? I'd say no. Should it be illegal for me to expose my genitals in public? Probably. Should it be illegal for a guy to go out in public in pumps, fishnets, and a tutu? I'd say no. Should it be illegal for two men to kiss in public? Again, I'd say no.
Without such consideration, we would have to get rid of laws against assault (not battery), since threatening to harm or kill someone doesn't actually restrict their freedom. I don't think that any sane (my definition, thank you) person would go down that route.
Thanks for an enlightening and thought-provoking discussion.
Honestly now, can we quite fucking the Kyoto Treaty as if it's some sacared cow and the environmental apocolypse will rain down upon us if everybody doesn't climb aboard and give it a blow job? I didn't list that stuff to prove you wrong. I listed it to illustrate the point that there are other factors that probably have far more influence than man ever could short of nuclear wepondry. You know, like nature itself?
You ignore the fact that there are far more reputable, peer-reviewed studies attributing global warming to man-made greenhouse gases.
But let's hypothesize that you are right. What happens if we enter into the Kyoto Treaty and it doesn't solve the problem? Well, we'll have reduced air pollution. Fewer people will have asthma and other respiratory problems. Many of the dirty fossil fuel powerplants will probably have been replaced by nuclear, cutting demand for fossil fuels. That hardly sounds like a bad thing.
Now I know that the big businesses that bought Bush scream that reducing air pollution will put thousands of people out of work. They said the same thing when tighter pollution regulations were put on cars in the early '70s. They claimed that there would never again be high performance cars. They said that no one would be able to afford cars. They said that fuel economy would suffer horribly. But look at the situation today. You can get a Corvette with 400hp (at the rear wheels) that gets over 22mpg. Or you can get a 300hp Subaru WRX that also gets 22mpg. There's less air pollution in urban areas (e.g., Los Angeles). And there are far more cars on the road today than there were in 1970.
Now let's turn it around and suppose that we do nothing and that global warming does turn out to be caused by greenhouse gases. In that case, we may see temperatures spiral out of control, species be killed in mass extinctions, and devastating severe weather that kills thousands and leaves even more homeless. In the worst-case scenario, much of humanity could be killed off.
I'd rather err on the side of caution, reduce pollution, improve the environment, and hope that it solves, or reduces, global warming.
Apart from that, say they truelly made their decision freely in any sense even you could conceive of; then marriages between brothers, for instance, should be allowed. Staying within the reasoning, no other conclusion can be logically made. Agreed?
Yes, but the religious and social taboos against incest are so strong, that I expect that there would be a backlash that very strictly defined marriage -- based on religious dogma rather than logic. I fear that the same argument you have just provided would be used to try to force legislation against gay marriage (i.e., 'if we allow gay marriage, then, logically, we have to allow incestuous marriage, so therefore we *can't* allow gay marriage').
Frankly, I don't have any kind of big hang-up about any marriage of two consenting adults acting on their own free will. In general, I don't believe that it's the government's place to legislate against actions which have no victims. Now, if something is so revolting that the mere sight of it causes most people disgust, then it should be illegal in public places -- like this.
Genetic defects are not caused by incest, but by repeated procreation by incest.
It's does not have to be repeated. From Wikipedia: Inbreeding leads to an increase in homozygocity, that is, the same allele at the same locus on both members of a chromosome pair. This occurs because close relatives are more likely to share more alleles than nonrelated individuals. If an individual has an allele linked to a congenital birth-defect, it is likely that close relatives also have this allele; a homozygote would express the congenital birth defect...Recent research on the mechanisms of human adaptive immunity suggests that there is a strong evolutionary pressure to maintain as diverse an array of antibody genes as possible.
That's a good medical argument against incestuous procreation.
People could use condoms or other means not to make children with genetic defects; after all, current relationships (and marriage) hasn't got the obligation to create children, let alone healthy genetic-defect-free children, as far as I am aware. So what if they make sure they can't get children? Then your objection, even if it was a valid one, dissapears.
Birth control is rarely so effective.
And what if they simply can't? Let's say two adult brothers do it with eachother...no way of genetic defects. And you are all for gays to have the same rights. And you claim that it should be allowed, as long as it doesn't affect your marriage, your rights, or your church. Well, it doesn't.
So, logic dictates you would/should accept incest, and even the union of siblings, following your own reasoning. Do you?
*Perhaps* it should be accepted if it is permanently medically impossible for the couple to breed.
But I still have concerns about whether the relationships are truly of free will. If a daughter chooses to marry her father. Is it because she was bred for that purpose? Was she raised to expect to marry her father when she turned 18? Was she told from age three that good little girls grow up to marry their daddies? If a brother and sister marry, was it because the parents kept them apart for years to avoid the Westermarck effect while telling them that they would be able to meet, and marry, their sibling later in life? In both of those circumstances, we have victims rather than consenting adults.
Ermm...actually, all worker bees are female. ;-)
;-)
;-)
:-)
I'll take your word for it. I never turned one over.
Male bees a drones, and basically only serve to do it with the queen once in their lifetime (if they get lucky
They also may play a part in regulating the temperature of the hive.
That pretty much covers bees. Should we talk about birds now?
A law that is 'for everybody' doesn't make it a just law, nor does it diminuish the ethical rights homosexuals or other people have, I'm sure we can all agree to that.
I agree with that completely.
PS.I would appreciate a response to my 'incest-question' post
I shall post one, then.
I did a bit of research. A 1994 book by the late Yale Historian John Boswell ("Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe", Villard, New York, NY,) demonstrates that Greece and many Christian churches both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex, until modern times. That book lists the original texts and English translations of a number of religious ceremonies:
Office of Same-sex Union, (and similar names), 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th & 16th century translations, Greece.
Office of Same-sex Union, 11th century Christian church in Greece.
The Order for Uniting Two Men, 11-12 century, Old Church Slavonic.
Office of Same-Gender Union, 12th century Italio-Greek.
An Order for the Uniting of Two Men [or Two Women], 14th century Serbian Slavonic.
Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men, prior to 18th century, Serbian Slavonic.
So what *is* marriage? Well, I guess it's just a state and socially recognized union of two people in love. *Who* those two people are, and whether it's exclusive to those two people) is up to the society and state. I would wager more the former myself. Though due to some finangling, "married" has also developed legal and tax status.
And that's where we get into a legal quagmire. If a gay couple cannot marry, they cannot enjoy the same legal benefits that a straight couple can. Don't underestimate how intertwined marriage is with the law and even with such things as benefits at someone's place of work. If I am a straight parent with a wife, she is covered by my employer-provided health insurance. If I am a gay parent with a partner at home, he would not be covered. If my wife were in the ICU, I could visit her. If my gay partner were in the same ICU, I would not be allowed to visit. (I am straight, so feel no need to be delicate in any reply you may post).
That's true. But we do it all the time. It's illegal to walk around in public nude, to wear offensive clothing in public, and many other public displays.
But I submit that there is an important distinction. A marriage is not a public display. A child seeing two women in a car has no way to know whether they are married, for example.
That's true. We see it in humans too. But it serves no purpose IMHO. It's an oddity of nature.
But you wrote: I don't consider homosexuality to be as nature intended (nevermind God). Apparently nature did intend it.
To tell you the truth, this is a subject I'm still not totally sure on. I've gone back and forth a few times on it. At the moment I'm having a hard time justifying same-sex marriage though. It *is* a change (not just since the 1990's though - when were any homosexuals allowed to marry before that? I can only accept it as having been "okay" if anybody succeeded). I've known gays, had some as friends and coworkers. But I still don't think it's something society should accept. As you say, polygamy, and other "oddities" are right down the same path.
I can only comment on my philosophy. Human sexuality is a complex thing. One person might be into BDSM while another might only be sexually aroused while wearing diapers. Still others need to be ridden around like ponies with bits in their mouths and saddles on their backs. If we start legislating and deciding, as a society, what is "right" from a sexuality standpoint, most of us will find ourselves in some minority of which the others disapprove. If we allow a male-female couple to marry even though their idea of sex involves rubber pants, nipple clamps, and urine (sorry for any offense if that was too graphic), then who are we to tell a same sex couple that they cannot marry and are, thus, denied the benefits that go along with marriage?
I believe that the government should be looking for ways to maximize freedoms, not curtail them. If two
Lets not reduce the argument to mud slinging.
Deal. Please accept my apologies for my temper.
Well, then we're disagreeing on semantics here. You think "foo" is a right, and nothing else defines it as such
Marriage is a right. It's recognized by state and federal laws.
I'm saying "foo" is a right, so long as it's legal. I'm NOT, however, saying that the law is always correct, so don't make this mistake.
So then we can agree that gay marriage was a right throughout most of the U.S. until the 1990s, when it was made illegal. Prior to that, there was no law against it in most states.
In your analogy it's a right denied to *everyone*.
The right to marry someone of the same sex is being denied to *everyone*.
This I will answer, if you answer the bit about polygamy, beastiality, incest, etc. (what makes same sex marriage "okay" but not those?).
Fair enough. I don't have a problem with polygamy between consenting adults. Beastiality victimizes animals that can't give consent. Incest is likely to lead to genetic deformities.
This may surprise you, but I'm not forcing my religion on anybody. I have no religion (I'm not even baptised, consider myself agnostic).
I admit to being surprised. I am an atheist.
Marriage is historic and *natural*. I don't consider homosexuality to be as nature intended (nevermind God).
Homosexuality is common in nature as you can see in this article. It occurs throughout the animal kingdom, from swans to apes to penguins.
The very fact that we populate through heterosexual relations is proof enough of this.
It's only proof that reproduction is a heterosexual act, not that every single animal is intended to be part of the reproductive cycle. Look at bees: The only fertile female in the nest is the queen bee and male worker bees do not fertilize any eggs.
I'm not saying that homosexuality is *wrong* per se, but that society shouldn't endorse it. IOW homosexuality is a sexual deviance (like BDSM, etc.). This is a little difficult to explain in a short time through text. But try not to take this as much more "mean spirited" than I mean it. It should be "accepted" as okay, but not codified as a right ("You have the right to free speech, to bear arms, and to have same-gender sex")
There is mounting (no pun intended) evidence that homosexuality is influenced by nature more than nurture. There are genetic traits associated with homosexuality. So, unlike BDSM, it's not simply a lifestyle choice.
I am a liberal (no surprise there). I believe that the government should not be limiting people's rights unless it is to protect others. Preventing two consenting adults from getting married in the legal sense of the term "married" isn't protecting anyone. It's curtailing the rights of those people in order to codify the moral beliefs of third parties into U.S. law. This isn't about making something legal. It's about making it illegal. That's an important distinction.
Like everyone who opposes same-sex marriage is a homophobe? Because of this little slip I refuse to answer you too much, you're obviously not serious.
It wasn't a "little slip." It was a carefully considered word that accurately describes people who try to oppress gays -- as you are advocating. I'm deadly serious and if you won't answer me, it's because your arguments don't hold water.
No, I don't (can't say "didn't" because I was born after this was an issue). But that was still a *new* right. It was a right I agree with though.
No, it was not a new right. The existing right to marry was simply denied to mixed race couples just as it is now being denied to gay couples.
The law states a man and woman can marry.
It was not until the "Defense Of Marriage Act" of the 1990s that most states had any prohibition against same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, and Rhode Island still have not adopted DOMA and have no prohibitions against gay marriage. So for over 200 years, there was no prohibition against same-sex marriages in the vast majority of the country and laws denying the right to marry to same-sex couples were only crafted recently.
I never said anything about degrading marriage, or the sanctity of marriage BTW.
Then just why do you want to prevent same sex couples from marrying? Do you feel threatened by such marriages? Do you feel that your religious beliefs should be made the law of the land? What is your motivation.
Just that Gays do *NOT* have less rights than straights. We are all limited by the same law the same way.
So we can make insulin injections illegal and then claim that it's not denying a right to medical care to diabetics because insulin is illegal for everyone. A damned good analogy to what you're claiming.
If I claimed my religion required me to marry my sister, would it be religious prosecution to not allow me to exercise my right?
First off, it's not a "right." It a tenet of your religion. Secondly, it would not be religious persecution because laws against incest were not passed specifically to limit the rights of people of your faith. Laws against gay marriage were intended to limit the rights of people because of their sexual orientation.
BTW: It's "persecution," not "prosecution."
I think the problem people on right have, is the government's percieved endorsement of gay mariage as good and right. I personally feel the solution to this problem (since I believe it is not right, but don't want the government enforcing my views on others) is to get government out of the equation all together. Let the government issue cival unions for any couple, gays, traditional marriages, or two elderly siblings supporting each other. The issue of marriage is to be decided by the church. I will choose not to attend a church that sanctions gay marriage, or to recognize such marriages.
That is an extremely enlightened and reasonable approach. Though I think that "married" is on way too many forms, in too many laws, etc. to be replaced with another term. People should just recognize that a legal marriage and a church marriage are two separate things.
This is a biggoted statement.
Untrue. It's based on studies and population distributions.
You'll find that evangelicals as a group have an average distribution of education and intelligence. I've not done any studies, but you shouldn't assume otherwise until you've done some studies.
I have seen reputable studies and they show that evangelicals are less likely to have a college degree than the rest of the population. Just look at where evangelical Christians make up the largest percentage of the population. It's states like Missisipi, Alabama, Arkansas, etc. It's sure not college towns like Boston or Princeton.
What right-wing bullshit. Gays don't have the same rights if they can't marry the person with whom they are in love. You have that right. They do not. Don't play ignorant word games with me, homophobe.
Same-sex marriage is a *new* right. Not the same right.
In the same sense that mixed-race marriage was a "new" right when it became legal. But you probably opposed that right, too, didn't you?
And it's debatable as to whether it's "right" or not. Is incest "right?" How about beastiality? They don't effect you, right?
Not even close to an analogy since incest causes genetic defects and beastiality victimizes animals.
You still didn't address the crux of the argument:
Bravo! I'm sick and tired of religious zealots trying to pass off their intolerance, hatred, and bigotry as "moral values."
It's an uninformed perception designed to induce hatred and fear of anyone who happens to believe that moral values that have served civilization for thousands of years are to be trusted over more recent notions regardless of their popularity.
The "fear and hatred" was directed at same-sex couples who wished to have the same rights as straight couples. If two women marry one another, it doesn't affect your marriage, your rights, or your church. It doesn't diminish your love for your spouse. It doesn't take away your rights to inheritance, family visitation rights in hospitals, family medical insurance, ability to qualify for a loan, lower auto insurance premiums, or any of the other things you could enjoy as a married person. This isn't an issue like rape, murder, mugging, child molestation, or robbery where there is a victim. We're talking about adults who want to make a legal, emotional, and, perhaps, spiritual commitment to their relationship.
As to "moral values," who are you to tell a gay couple that their relationship is immoral? Why should the teachings of your church be codified into law? Other churches have no problem with gay marriage so what moral right do you have to tell them that the marriages they want to perform won't be legally recognized? If you don't want to be in a church that performs same-sex weddings, that's your right.
This also isn't about protecting the sanctity of marriage. If it was, these same evangelical voters would be demanding that marriage licenses be denied to adulterers (like televangelists Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggert), wife beaters, people who have had multiple divorces, drunks, drug addicts, or any of the other "fine couples" one can see on any episode of Cops.
A democracy is not supposed to be three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. As an American, I'm ashamed of the voters who chose to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples. I can only take comfort in the fact that, as a group, evangelicals are some of the least educated among us and that, through better education, we can fight this form of bigotry just as we fought against bigotry that oppressed blacks, mixed race couples, Jews, Japanese, Chinese, Mormons, and many others.
I'd be genuinely grateful to have someone who spoke intelligently and honestly to students about any country -- including the U.S. The purpose of a teacher is not to instill reverence in countries. Teachers are supposed to educate students, teaching them both facts and critical thinking skills. The post to which you replied seemed to hit the mark.
9 years for spam in VIRGINIA the birthplace of the Tax FREE Televangelical Money Church? The home of the 700 Club and Jerry Falwell? The prosecutor should rot in fucking hell forever.
The prosecutor should get sainthood. That fuckwad spammer was wasting the time, bandwidth and storage of millions of people, companies, and ISPs. He sent out 10 million spams per month. That's 120 million spams per year. Assuming that it takes the average person 3 seconds to download, recognize, and delete a piece of spam, that' 360 million seconds per year he's stolen from people's lives. That's over 11.4 years! That doesn't even take into account the cost that others paid for bandwidth and storage for his unwanted e-mail ads. Hell, 9 years isn't even close to enough time given the magnitude of what he was doing.
As to the televangelists and the idiots they dupe out of money, blame the religious right and the Republicans who they vote into office, not the prosecutor who tried to keep some ass-lick from filling our e-mail inboxes.