How long until the police/feds/intelligence/etc get to start using this on civilians?
They already are. See the latest OnStar commercials. If they're chasing you and you don't stop, they can either slow your car down, kill it, and/or make it start honking and flashing lights. And they can keep you locked in your car.
They've also been caught using it to spy on people by activating the voice channel.
Can someone explain this article to me using a car analogy?
Sure. You don't qualify for a car loan, but they'll sell you a car, with a 5% per month interest rate, all sorts of fees, and a "you pass by the office by such-and-such a date with the cash or we kill your car" deal. Lots of cash income, much of it undeclared by the dealer, since the financing is not reported to credit rating agencies (it's called "in house financing" for a reason:-)
The car analogy? It's like getting a sh*tty deal on a sh*tty car.
Sure, but this one from muppetlabs is much more complete, better-written, predates it by more than a decade (July 1999), etc. You can combine that with the overview and the other examples for a much better understanding.
w8loss.exe shipped with various Borland products. I know it came with BC++3.1 (which I upgraded to from Turbo C 1.0) and Delphi. If you have either of those, you should have a copy.
A few years after I bought Delphi 1.0 ($500) Borland allowed it to be released as a cover disk as part of an effort to generate buzz for a later version.
Delphi 1.0 was on a cover CD for the December 1997 issue of the UK magazine PCW, with upgrade offers; Delphi 2.0 was on a cover CD for the May 1999 issue of the UK magazine PCW, with upgrade offers; Delphi 3.0 was remaindered by Inprise UK in September 1998; I have used it. both for GUI and console mode programs; Delphi 7.0 was current; as was a version for LINUX.
It *might* also be sitting in a kylix distribution (oh, the pain).
Even with no formal non-compete, the former employee is not allowed to use the previous employers customer and supplier lists. They are not the employee's property - they're part of the "work-for-hire" product.
Hope this clears it up a bit. It's a land-mine out there, and nowhere near as simple as things used to be.
Now you've got me wondering how many people don't really know what their compiler does under the hood... darn! Oh well, here's a few places to start digging (it's interesting if you stick with it:-).
Okay, and where am I supposed to learn it from? That was new to me, after using gcc for a very long time.
You may have noticed that the man page for STDOUT (man 3 STDOUT) states:
Under normal circumstances every Unix program has three streams opened for it when it starts up, one for input, one for output, and one for printing diagnostic or error messages. These are typically attached to the user's terminal (see tty(4) but might instead refer to files or other devices, depending on what the parent process chose to set up. (See also the "Redirection" section of sh(1).)
... and from this we can deduce that, since there were open for you before your call to main() ever gets executed, that there's startup code in there somewhere to open stdin, stdout, stderr, and tie them to 3 file descriptors. In fact, several dead-tree manuals point this out - that the startup code initializes these for you before your code executes.
... or man 3p stdin
At program start-up, three streams shall be predefined and need not be opened explicitly: standard input (for reading conventional input), standard output
(for writing conventional output), and standard error (for writing diagnostic output).
Also, there's additional information with man 3 atexit, that indicates that there's cleanup code that has to be executed after your call to exit - this cleanup code has to come from somewhere...
The run-time support provides not only the C standard library functions, but possibly other material needed to create an environment for the C program, such as initialization prior to the invocation of the main function,
This is stuff like initializing argc, argv, and env so that your program can use them.
Also mentioned in dead-tree compiler manuals. Or, for example, C Reference Manual, 1991, Harbison, Samuel P and Steel, Guy L, Ch 20 (p358) - 20.1 MAIN. Also, Ch. 15 (page 304) 15.4 STDIN, STDOUT, STDERR - The external variables stdin, stdout, and stderr are initialized prior to the start of an application program to certain standard text streams.
Playing around with an assembler would also help, but isn't required.
Two parties legally capable of formulating a contract
The object of the contract
The consideration ("thing given") by each side;
A contract that is one-sided (that you don't put anything into, or that is disproportionate to the benefits) is easily voidable, and WILL be voided by outside parties in, say, a bankruptcy, where the legal presumption will be that it was made to defraud the estate of the bankrupt. It will also be voided by your "partner" should they decide that they want to. They will point out that the contract is too one-sided, that while the intent may have been to form a partnership, in fact it was defective because your contribution was not nearly in proportion to the purported rights and benefits you accrued.
So, that being the case, I offer no opinion, but to recommend that the answer is in that verse. (Romans 1:26) Regarding the Bible, I don't deal in opinions.
Sure you do. The books in the bible that are currently considered canonical were selected based on opinions. These opinions by people who claim to have been guided by god are continually shown to be demonstrably fallible - see how many ordained ministers, who were "called by god" in the opinion of their congregation and their peers, turn out not to be so godly.
What is lawful? ISTR someone saying "All things are lawful for me." At the same time, I can make an superior case that nothing is right - there is no possibility of anyone taking (or refusing to take) any action that doesn't ultimately end up harming someone somewhere. That being the case, there is no such thing as absolute good. There is no "what is lawful and what is not." Everything is relative.
As for what is legal, I don't particularly care about what is legal and what isn't, because I recognize one fundamental rule of law - that the laws we have are just an imperfect attempt to codify what we believe is just. I care a LOT more about what is just and good, than I do about what is legal and what is not. The laws are "Justice for dummies" - good for those who cannot grok fundamental justice and rights, and so need laws to guide them.
Example: It's illegal to beat my dogs. I don't beat my dogs, but not because it's illegal - but because I care about them. The bible says not to spare the rod, but I never hit my daughters. In this case, the bible is clearly wrong - and you'd know it if you have ever been beaten by someone who says they love you. They're lying. They love themselves and their pride and ego more - they feel they have the "right" to place their anger at a higher priority than another persons' physical safety. Spanking a kid, or assaulting an adult - they're both wrong, but the bible approves of the former, and propagates injustice.
After all, isn't it written "teach a child how it should go when it is young, and when it is older, it shall not depart from it?" Beat the kid when he or she is young, and watch how they in turn repeat the cycle of abuse. The bible should at the very least be censored to remove all references to condoning child abuse. I've seen parents using it as an "excuse" to justify their abusive behavior, and it sickens me.
And yet, supposedly "godly" minsters get up and preach that it's okay to beat your kids. I've sat through enough Sunday school classes, and listened to enough sermons, and enough Wednesday night bible studies, to say this isn't the exception among the fundies. I've even heard parents, when I've pointed out that their kids are afraid of them, say that their children should be afraid of them. That is just messed up!
I only had a few simple rules:
Don't tie up all three phone lines.
Your room can be as messy as you want, as long as you don't leave food hanging around. It's your mess, and your problem if you can't find anything.
If you're going to be late, CALL ME because I worry. As long as I know you're safe, I won't be angry.
I didn't sweat the small stuff - you want to dye your hair? No problem - but I think purple or pink would be better than black. Black will make you look pale as a ghost (so of course she dyed it black, then had to ask me to help her change the color back when she got out of the bathroom:-). Hamsters? Sure. Just make sure they don't get loose so the dog doesn't get them (so of course they got loose, and the dog found them, caught them, and brought them to us, live and unharmed, just their little tails hanging out of his mouth).
As for Jesus condemning fornication, I would say that nowadays there's no such thing as the "sin of fornication". Just like there's no such thing as "it's okay to beat a child." Up here we've removed all grounds for di
Don't be silly. The two articles were written by two different people, one of each sex. They were equally lame. If you look at the comment thread for the previous article, dozens of people slammed it for making false and misleading claims. What next - an article that goes "gee whiz - did you know you can use a hex editor to write binary code directly, without an assembler?"
"what I hoped to get across in this post is that that's not true--in the right circumstances, adding people to a software project can get a lot done, even in a short time"
As many people have pointed out, you did NOT add people to a software project. You created a dozen small, one-person projects. Your self-serving reply to all that is just one more mis-representation. Have you no shame?
I'm sure we're not the only ones to have used embedded assembler in c programs.
If it's not legal, then you're a partner in crime - not exactly the same thing. If that's what floats your boat, that's your problem, not mine. We could also claim that you can never have to work a day in your life - just commit 3 felonies in a "3 strikes" state. Somehow, I don't think people would buy that as a valid argument.
If you have the skills/contacts/whatever that someone wants they could employ you or the could offer you an equity stake and some control over the company.
Taking a partner on for their customer or vendor contact lists opens you up to a lawsuit, and to having to basically turn over your company to their former employer. Do you really want to engineer your own liquidation?
Taking them on as an employee is only slightly less risky.
This isn't just the case in high tech. From industrial rubber products to fried chicken outlets (just to cite 2 local lawsuits) and everything in between, it's a really stupid move.
And in today's economy, there's enough people with the skills in most areas that offers of equity and partial control simply aren't needed - unless you're already so shaky that that's all you can really offer them.
At the Village Church, we believe that whether you are trans or bi, straight, lesbian or gay, you can follow Jesus. Here's what matters. Do you love God, and love your neighbor, as you love yourself? That's what is important. Love. But there are a whole lotta people in the world, good Christian people who disagree with us. I've been at this more than 20 years. I can stand firm in my truth. But some of you, have never met a preacher before who said it's ok to be gay and Christian. And so together, we're going to learn how to have the conversation with other folks.
--- snip ---
Do you know what Jesus said about homosexuality? Who can tell me? Do you know? NOTHING. He said plenty about money and greed. Said plenty about how we should forgive one another. He did not spend one minute talking about homosexuality.
He spent plenty of time talking about love and about relationships. He said love one another. Love God. Love your neighbor as yourself. This is my greatest commandment: that you love one another as I have loved you. (John 15:12)
Yeah, Jesus said plenty about love. Not one word about homosexuality.
When I see two people who love God, and who love one another, and who want to be in a committed relationship with each other, for life, and when those two people want to follow Jesus together, and ask God to bless their home and their life together - I gotta think that brings God joy - regardless of whether it's two men, a man and a woman, or a man who has transitioned to become woman who is then in relationship with a man, or a woman. Two people - who love each other and love God - I think that's really all God cares about.
--- snip ---
So, the other day, a friend here at The Village asked me how I become such a fierce advocate for LGBT persons? I said it was really quite simple. I went from college in Abilene TX in 1985, where I really didn't consciously know any gay or lesbian folks; and I moved to the big city of Atlanta, where there were gay students at my seminary. They were wonderful folks who loved God and who were clearly called to be in ministry. Now I had grown up in a liberal family that taught me the value of working against racism. I was a feminist when I was in the 3rd grade. It was a no-brainer for me to join the cause of standing with my gay and lesbian classmates who were being denied ordination. They were gifted people, who loved God and wanted to serve God in the church just like me. I knew what it was like to be told I should not be a pastor because I was a woman - back home in West Texas. So I was sympathetic to my gay friends. My REASON and my EXPERIENCE told me these friends had just as much right to be pastors as I did, and that who they loved and who they chose to be in life-long partnerships with had nothing to do with whether or not they could be good pastors. And so I became a straight ally. An advocate. A fighter for justice.
So, here we are today. I promised we would look at those six scriptures that people use to say you can't be gay and Christian, so let's take a look, briefly, at them.
There's more.
It's not a question of being offended (though thanks for the consideration),,, but you still haven't answered the question of who a post-op transsexual can marry, in YOU opinion. You danced around it. My point is that it highlights a serious problem - that the world is a lot more complex than it was before, and that the bible doesn't necessarily have the answers, despite peoples claims.
So, who can a male-to-female transsexual marry without sinning?
[_] They can only marry a man, because they are now legally a woman;
[_] They can only marry a w
So you expect to go into partnership with someone without putting in any equity? If you don't put something in, you're not a partner -you're an employee.
Deut 23: You're talking about prostitutes, not same-sex couples.
And I'm sure you've broken plenty of the rules in the old testament. And so have people you know. Has any girl ever worn a man's t-shirt, or runners, or jeans? Death. Has any guy ever worn a kilt? Death. Ever put gas in your car on the sabbath? Death. Ever DRIVEN your car on the sabbath? Death. Ever done laundry on the sabbath? Death!
Ever beaten your kid? For some reason, that's okay. Ever owned a slave? For some reason, that's okay. Ever killed someone for shopping on the sabbath? For some reason, that's okay. Ever had 300 wives and 700 personal prostitutes, like Solomon? For some reason, that's okay.
Except it's not okay, so stop with all the old testament garbage. It's not a cafeteria line, where you can pick and choose what you believe. Either you believe Jesus and ONLY Jesus is the final authority, (and recognize that even the apostles can and were wrong) or convert to Judaism, or become an atheist.
And I would counter that the Bible clearly states that the apostles are not authoritative - Paul and Peter are a good example of where they do not agree. Same as the old testament is not authoritative.
So if Jesus didn't say it, it's subject to human error.
And Jesus didn't condemn it. Quite the contrary, he said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesars" - local authority has the right to legislate on same-sex marriage, same as other laws.
Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven. So why are you people so getting your panties in a knot over something that Jesus himself said was ONLY limited to the here-and-now, and not the hereafter?
Ok, for the sake of argument, lets say it would be OK with Jesus that you and your girl got married. Here is some set theory for you: Sex between two people of the same sex is always verboten in the Bible.
And so is shopping on the sabbath, or driving a car on the sabbath, or doing laundry on the sabbath, or premarital sex, or being obese (the body is the temple and should be treated as such), or having sex while a woman is on her period, or for a woman to disobey her husband... and it's okay to keep slaves, beat the kids (and the wives - plural, because you're allowed more than one).
Jesus never said anything forbidding marriage between two people of the same sex. Paul may have, but Paul also admits that the apostles can and are wrong on many points - see him when he says "I withstood Peter to his face".
It's funny - xians want to impose their views on others, but refuse to grant the same right to others. Jesus hated such hypocrites. In other words, Jesus hated today's fundies - they're the modern-day pharisees who condemn people to a slavish obedience to the law, and in so doing deny the truth.
What would Jesus do? He'd condemn you with your own hypocrisy.
Tin-foil hats, a bit of duct tape, don't forget to deposit sperm or ova before you go, and think of all the money you'll save by being able to glow in the dark... even better than a CF bulb.
And nowhere in the bible does it exclude same-sex unions. That's why I said learn set theory. Jesus gave one example, a man and a woman. He never said that same-sex marriage was wrong, sinful or whatever. Also, show me the original. You can't. Nobody can - it doesn't exist.
Just that NOWHERE in the Bible does Biblical marriage include same-sex unions.
Nowhere in the bible does it include a good recipe for spaghetti sauce. So what?
Same-sex marriage is not in the bible, so the bible does NOT forbid it.
But lets go afield a bit... what about transsexuals. A woman gets a sex change so that her body now matches her gender - female. Can she marry a man? After all, she's legally a woman. Can she marry a woman? After all, she was created a man?
And in case you think this is far-fetched, one lesbian couple just got a California marriage license based on this. A male-to-female transsexual was able to get a marriage license to marry another woman by the simple expedient of not filing for an amended birth certificate. She legally changed her name a few years before, so her drivers license says female, but the registrar only looks at birth certs.
You would have been better buying a stand-alone blu-ray player. The PS3 is a power hog when it comes to playing movies - almost 200 watts, as opposed to stand-alone blu-ray players well under 20 watts - and SILENT. And with stand-alone blu-ray players at $100, the PS3 is a no-buy as a BD player. Hot and noisy.
And the bad thing about Wiimote is that you have to keep your hand absolutely still or the stupid thing decides you're trying to swing it around. That's the only kind of control Wiimote's motion control really allows. Shake or swing it, and your character does something, usually completely unrelated to the motion; try to replicate the actual motion of the Wiimote in the gameworld, and control becomes an exercise in frustration due to the lack of tactile feedback and the inaccuracy of motion detection.
Wii games use motion control as a gimmick. The actual control is usually done with the joystick (the "nunchaku") and buttons, and shaking either the joystick or the Wiimote is used as one of the buttons - and an inaccurate one at that, with the added bonus of firing randomly whenever you move. That doesn't make anything easier, just more annoying.
Where's the "-1 I only tried it with 2 cheap games and I don't know what I'm talking about" mod when you need it?
I agree with everything up to this... But the US bubble was not all that huge in the big scheme of things - the only thing that made it bad was the sheer size of the market and the no-recourse walkaways (now have a look at the mess that Spanish or Dubai property is...). The UK bubble was also not all that big, but still has the distinction of being unpricked due to politicians propping it up - somewhat like Canada.
How are Canadian politicians "propping up housing prices"? There's not only NO income tax deduction for mortgage interests - there's a 5% federal sales tax on new houses.
Slashdot Mirror
They already are. See the latest OnStar commercials. If they're chasing you and you don't stop, they can either slow your car down, kill it, and/or make it start honking and flashing lights. And they can keep you locked in your car.
They've also been caught using it to spy on people by activating the voice channel.
Never buy a vehicle with OnStar.
Sure. You don't qualify for a car loan, but they'll sell you a car, with a 5% per month interest rate, all sorts of fees, and a "you pass by the office by such-and-such a date with the cash or we kill your car" deal. Lots of cash income, much of it undeclared by the dealer, since the financing is not reported to credit rating agencies (it's called "in house financing" for a reason :-)
The car analogy? It's like getting a sh*tty deal on a sh*tty car.
Sure, but this one from muppetlabs is much more complete, better-written, predates it by more than a decade (July 1999), etc. You can combine that with the overview and the other examples for a much better understanding.
w8loss.exe shipped with various Borland products. I know it came with BC++3.1 (which I upgraded to from Turbo C 1.0) and Delphi. If you have either of those, you should have a copy.
A few years after I bought Delphi 1.0 ($500) Borland allowed it to be released as a cover disk as part of an effort to generate buzz for a later version.
It *might* also be sitting in a kylix distribution (oh, the pain).
Even with no formal non-compete, the former employee is not allowed to use the previous employers customer and supplier lists. They are not the employee's property - they're part of the "work-for-hire" product.
Hope this clears it up a bit. It's a land-mine out there, and nowhere near as simple as things used to be.
1. run w8loss.exe against your executable to strip it. (I just love that name :-)
2. recompiling using the tiny memory model, shouldn't you call it hello.com?
Now you've got me wondering how many people don't really know what their compiler does under the hood ... darn! Oh well, here's a few places to start digging (it's interesting if you stick with it :-).
You may have noticed that the man page for STDOUT (man 3 STDOUT) states:
Also, there's additional information with man 3 atexit, that indicates that there's cleanup code that has to be executed after your call to exit - this cleanup code has to come from somewhere ...
And then there's wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_standard_library
This is stuff like initializing argc, argv, and env so that your program can use them.
Also mentioned in dead-tree compiler manuals. Or, for example, C Reference Manual, 1991, Harbison, Samuel P and Steel, Guy L, Ch 20 (p358) - 20.1 MAIN. Also, Ch. 15 (page 304) 15.4 STDIN, STDOUT, STDERR - The external variables stdin, stdout, and stderr are initialized prior to the start of an application program to certain standard text streams.
Playing around with an assembler would also help, but isn't required.
Two parties legally capable of formulating a contract
The object of the contract
The consideration ("thing given") by each side;
A contract that is one-sided (that you don't put anything into, or that is disproportionate to the benefits) is easily voidable, and WILL be voided by outside parties in, say, a bankruptcy, where the legal presumption will be that it was made to defraud the estate of the bankrupt. It will also be voided by your "partner" should they decide that they want to. They will point out that the contract is too one-sided, that while the intent may have been to form a partnership, in fact it was defective because your contribution was not nearly in proportion to the purported rights and benefits you accrued.
TANSTAAFL
Sure you do. The books in the bible that are currently considered canonical were selected based on opinions. These opinions by people who claim to have been guided by god are continually shown to be demonstrably fallible - see how many ordained ministers, who were "called by god" in the opinion of their congregation and their peers, turn out not to be so godly.
What is lawful? ISTR someone saying "All things are lawful for me." At the same time, I can make an superior case that nothing is right - there is no possibility of anyone taking (or refusing to take) any action that doesn't ultimately end up harming someone somewhere. That being the case, there is no such thing as absolute good. There is no "what is lawful and what is not." Everything is relative.
As for what is legal, I don't particularly care about what is legal and what isn't, because I recognize one fundamental rule of law - that the laws we have are just an imperfect attempt to codify what we believe is just. I care a LOT more about what is just and good, than I do about what is legal and what is not. The laws are "Justice for dummies" - good for those who cannot grok fundamental justice and rights, and so need laws to guide them.
Example: It's illegal to beat my dogs. I don't beat my dogs, but not because it's illegal - but because I care about them. The bible says not to spare the rod, but I never hit my daughters. In this case, the bible is clearly wrong - and you'd know it if you have ever been beaten by someone who says they love you. They're lying. They love themselves and their pride and ego more - they feel they have the "right" to place their anger at a higher priority than another persons' physical safety. Spanking a kid, or assaulting an adult - they're both wrong, but the bible approves of the former, and propagates injustice.
After all, isn't it written "teach a child how it should go when it is young, and when it is older, it shall not depart from it?" Beat the kid when he or she is young, and watch how they in turn repeat the cycle of abuse. The bible should at the very least be censored to remove all references to condoning child abuse. I've seen parents using it as an "excuse" to justify their abusive behavior, and it sickens me.
And yet, supposedly "godly" minsters get up and preach that it's okay to beat your kids. I've sat through enough Sunday school classes, and listened to enough sermons, and enough Wednesday night bible studies, to say this isn't the exception among the fundies. I've even heard parents, when I've pointed out that their kids are afraid of them, say that their children should be afraid of them. That is just messed up!
I only had a few simple rules:
I didn't sweat the small stuff - you want to dye your hair? No problem - but I think purple or pink would be better than black. Black will make you look pale as a ghost (so of course she dyed it black, then had to ask me to help her change the color back when she got out of the bathroom :-). Hamsters? Sure. Just make sure they don't get loose so the dog doesn't get them (so of course they got loose, and the dog found them, caught them, and brought them to us, live and unharmed, just their little tails hanging out of his mouth).
As for Jesus condemning fornication, I would say that nowadays there's no such thing as the "sin of fornication". Just like there's no such thing as "it's okay to beat a child." Up here we've removed all grounds for di
Don't be silly. The two articles were written by two different people, one of each sex. They were equally lame. If you look at the comment thread for the previous article, dozens of people slammed it for making false and misleading claims. What next - an article that goes "gee whiz - did you know you can use a hex editor to write binary code directly, without an assembler?"
This is basic knowledge that ANYONE using c should know - that the startup library is linked to so it can find main.
This is almost as lame as their previous slashvertisement/product_whoring - where they claimed to have gotten around the Mythical Man-Month and quadrupled output - and it turned out that neither claim was true.
And their lame excuse, which I derided in this comment:
I'm sure we're not the only ones to have used embedded assembler in c programs.
If it's not legal, then you're a partner in crime - not exactly the same thing. If that's what floats your boat, that's your problem, not mine. We could also claim that you can never have to work a day in your life - just commit 3 felonies in a "3 strikes" state. Somehow, I don't think people would buy that as a valid argument.
Taking a partner on for their customer or vendor contact lists opens you up to a lawsuit, and to having to basically turn over your company to their former employer. Do you really want to engineer your own liquidation?
Taking them on as an employee is only slightly less risky.
This isn't just the case in high tech. From industrial rubber products to fried chicken outlets (just to cite 2 local lawsuits) and everything in between, it's a really stupid move.
And in today's economy, there's enough people with the skills in most areas that offers of equity and partial control simply aren't needed - unless you're already so shaky that that's all you can really offer them.
Extraordinary trans-friendly church practices what they preach
There's more.
It's not a question of being offended (though thanks for the consideration) ,,, but you still haven't answered the question of who a post-op transsexual can marry, in YOU opinion. You danced around it. My point is that it highlights a serious problem - that the world is a lot more complex than it was before, and that the bible doesn't necessarily have the answers, despite peoples claims.
So, who can a male-to-female transsexual marry without sinning?
[_] They can only marry a man, because they are now legally a woman;
[_] They can only marry a w
Registrar: ENOM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.enom.com
Referral URL: http://www.enom.com/
Name Server: NS1.PARKED.COM
Name Server: NS2.PARKED.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 07-mar-2010
Creation Date: 13-mar-2009
Expiration Date: 13-mar-2011
The only difference is that it's O1 (the letter 'O'), not 01
Seems to me that, to add insult to injury, the typo-squatter picked the better domain name to begin with...
So you expect to go into partnership with someone without putting in any equity? If you don't put something in, you're not a partner -you're an employee.
Deut 23: You're talking about prostitutes, not same-sex couples.
And I'm sure you've broken plenty of the rules in the old testament. And so have people you know. Has any girl ever worn a man's t-shirt, or runners, or jeans? Death. Has any guy ever worn a kilt? Death. Ever put gas in your car on the sabbath? Death. Ever DRIVEN your car on the sabbath? Death. Ever done laundry on the sabbath? Death!
Ever beaten your kid? For some reason, that's okay. Ever owned a slave? For some reason, that's okay. Ever killed someone for shopping on the sabbath? For some reason, that's okay. Ever had 300 wives and 700 personal prostitutes, like Solomon? For some reason, that's okay.
Except it's not okay, so stop with all the old testament garbage. It's not a cafeteria line, where you can pick and choose what you believe. Either you believe Jesus and ONLY Jesus is the final authority, (and recognize that even the apostles can and were wrong) or convert to Judaism, or become an atheist.
And I would counter that the Bible clearly states that the apostles are not authoritative - Paul and Peter are a good example of where they do not agree. Same as the old testament is not authoritative.
So if Jesus didn't say it, it's subject to human error.
And Jesus didn't condemn it. Quite the contrary, he said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesars" - local authority has the right to legislate on same-sex marriage, same as other laws.
Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven. So why are you people so getting your panties in a knot over something that Jesus himself said was ONLY limited to the here-and-now, and not the hereafter?
And so is shopping on the sabbath, or driving a car on the sabbath, or doing laundry on the sabbath, or premarital sex, or being obese (the body is the temple and should be treated as such), or having sex while a woman is on her period, or for a woman to disobey her husband ... and it's okay to keep slaves, beat the kids (and the wives - plural, because you're allowed more than one).
Jesus never said anything forbidding marriage between two people of the same sex. Paul may have, but Paul also admits that the apostles can and are wrong on many points - see him when he says "I withstood Peter to his face".
It's funny - xians want to impose their views on others, but refuse to grant the same right to others. Jesus hated such hypocrites. In other words, Jesus hated today's fundies - they're the modern-day pharisees who condemn people to a slavish obedience to the law, and in so doing deny the truth.
What would Jesus do? He'd condemn you with your own hypocrisy.
Tin-foil hats, a bit of duct tape, don't forget to deposit sperm or ova before you go, and think of all the money you'll save by being able to glow in the dark ... even better than a CF bulb.
And nowhere in the bible does it exclude same-sex unions. That's why I said learn set theory. Jesus gave one example, a man and a woman. He never said that same-sex marriage was wrong, sinful or whatever. Also, show me the original. You can't. Nobody can - it doesn't exist.
Nowhere in the bible does it include a good recipe for spaghetti sauce. So what?
Same-sex marriage is not in the bible, so the bible does NOT forbid it.
But lets go afield a bit ... what about transsexuals. A woman gets a sex change so that her body now matches her gender - female. Can she marry a man? After all, she's legally a woman. Can she marry a woman? After all, she was created a man?
And in case you think this is far-fetched, one lesbian couple just got a California marriage license based on this. A male-to-female transsexual was able to get a marriage license to marry another woman by the simple expedient of not filing for an amended birth certificate. She legally changed her name a few years before, so her drivers license says female, but the registrar only looks at birth certs.
http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-356-3.htm
Where's the "-1 I only tried it with 2 cheap games and I don't know what I'm talking about" mod when you need it?
Learn set theory. The quote isn't exclusionary. Oh., wait a second, logic and math are "evil".
How are Canadian politicians "propping up housing prices"? There's not only NO income tax deduction for mortgage interests - there's a 5% federal sales tax on new houses.