It's true that some moderates denounce specific terrorist acts.
No, the official position of most religious authorities is to denounce terrorist acts. There's a fatwa against terrorism. If you paid any attention to what the muslims say, instead of what people who hate them say they say, you would know that.
the concept of martyrdom is widely accepted
How far would you have to go to find a monument dedicated to those who have given their lives fighting for a cause that is dear to your nation? I can reach a good number of such martyr-worship shrines by foot. And most of them have crosses on them.
Until Muslims agree to change their holy texts
Yeah, riiiiight. That sounds fair!
the fringe actions of a few moderates
Moderates are the majority, extremists are the fringe.
And what does marriage mean? Is it not the joyous union of two people who love each other, and are publicly declaring their willingness to bind to each other? Is it not the promise of friends and family to support the couple in their quest for happiness together?
No, and no. That's just nice fluff that can come with. There's tons of loveless, joyless mariages, and marriages opposed by the families of the enlopers. Marriage has nothing to do with mushy feelings. It's nicer when these things are there, but they're just an added bonus.
There is no special definition of marriage to exclude people of the same sex from getting married.
Mariage is a legally binding contract granting exclusive sexual (reproductive) rights for a man to a woman, in exchange for financial compensation. Its purpose is to ensure a patriarchal line.
The world is not going to change for the worse because same-sex couples publicly and enthusiastically declare their love for each other, and bind their lives together.
I know, 's why I say they should go and get all the civil unions they can handle.
Marriage is one thing, and it exclude them. They should find their bliss without obsessing over something that isn't necessery to their lives and from which they are excluded by definition, and by function.
If you want marriage to be defined by what your religion says
BOOM! Pidgeonholing! Name my religion (hint: I don't have one).
detach it from all the benefits previously enumerated. Make it so that people get married in church if they want, and then if they want legal recognition they also get a civil partership, or whatever you want to call it.
That... could work, except it's an increase in paperwork, and I happen to oppose the spread of bureaucraties. Like I said, civil unions are fine, but I don't think that to give it to gay couples you need to remove the legal power of religious institutions to make their marriages legally binding.
And you certainly will not get support from any religious types if you want to take something away from them to give something to people they don't like! So, no, I don't think your solution will work.
Perhaps its just me, but I don't understand why some people are for homosexual civil unions, but not homosexual marriage, even when they are functionally the same.
It's about the word, and what it means.
A civil union is fine by me, because I'm not all "t3h gheys are t3h evil". I'm not opposed to the legal functions of marriage to apply to gay couples, I can see how your partner would want to come see you at the hospitals, and the hospital has rules against roomates visiting, but I don't think the solution is to redefine something that has a basic meaning throughout the world. I think the solution is to provide an alternative that will serve the same purpose.
Me, I don't understand why some people are for homosexual marriage, but not satisfied with homosexual civil unions, even when they are functionally the same. Well, I see it, I lied. I see it and I don't agree with it: They want to be told they're normal: "See, we get maried and have white picket fences!". I support the right not to be normal. The civil union would do juuuuuust fine for all intents and purposes, except one: It wouldn't be something to throw in the face of people who hate fags. I don't think that's valid.
P.S. I got about ten replies to this (whoa!), and you're the first rational one to date. You deserve a cookie:)
Don't you have anything more important to worry about? [...] Does it affect you in any way whatsoever? Get over it and find something more relevant to spend your time worrying about...
Ok, would you use the same "it doesn't affect you" argument over the fact that I, say, oppose a war between foreign nations? You know what, I get to care about things that aren't about me.
Anyway, yes it does affect me, redefining the language, redefining the laws under which I'm governed, these things affect me. Gays can live in bliss and have all the gay sex they want in their bedrooms (between consenting adults), THAT I don't care, that is their lives.
And I'm not worrying about it, it just gets thrown in my face all the time. Even OT in a/. thread! Like I said, if it's about the legal rights that come with mariage, civil unions will do JUST fine. Redefining marriage, on the other hand, is more than that. It's an effort to "fit in", to be told they're normal, to force society to validate their lives, and I opppose that. You don't redefine something as old as civilisation, you just don't.
So dude, marriage does mean more than one thing and it has very little to do with religion. It is a financial and social construct.
1- Bravo, pidgeonholer, you have assumed that I oppose it for religious reasons because "religion" in the hole into which you... pidgeoned... ah crap my metaphor is falling appart. Anyway...
2- I've been telling other pidgeonholers exactly hat: It's a construct.
So yes, the meaning of marriage has changed over the years and will continue to change as our concepts of society and self do.
Nope, the DETAILS have changed, and btw, I wasn't only referring to one society, I mean marriage is the same, excluding details, all over: A man getting exclusive reproductive rights to a woman.
I'm not opposed to polygamy, I'm not opposed to arranged marriages, as long as all parties involved keep the right to free will and to refuse to enter into the contract. I really don't care about the sanctity of marriage, as I stated. It's the intent to change the meaning of marriage from "exclusive reproductive rights in exchange for material compenastion" to "a token of love" that I abhor.
Fuck, don't pigeonhole people in your lil' prejudiced categories just because they disagree with you on one issue.
I suggest you practice what you preach, since you are clearly and in no uncertain way trying to pigeonhole all nonstandard marriages into the same narrow religious definition (which sounds awefully Christian-based to me).
Hahahahaha! Me, spouting christian crap! Lol! DUDE! FUCK OFF WITH THE PIDGEONHOLING ALREADY!
f you want to take the religious angle
Wow, my opinion differs from yours, I MUST BE one of the religious right types! I must, I say, I must!
Do he and I being married somehow damage your marriage?
And I must be affraid that, contrary to what I specifically SAID, your acts would teint "my" marriage. Even though I'm not married, nor do I plan to be.
Society changes, and if there's any amount of true intelligence and compassion in that society, it's norms and what it expects of it's citizens should also change eventually.
1- Your "progress" argument is utter bullshit. Scientific and technological progress has nothing to do with redefining societal constructs.
2- Why the fuck do you hold on to an outmoded tradition that specifically excludes you? Fuck marriage, let it alone, it's not meant for you, deal, and live your fucking life instead of trying to desperatly fitting in by redefining the damn thing to include you.
You want progress, move beyond marriage instead of obsessing over it.
Who gives a shit what the ancient Greeks considered to be "normal"?
And bravo for entirely missing the point in your fucking rush to pidgeonhole me into your damn simple-minded black and white "if x oposes y, he must be part of z who also oppose y" bullshit. The point, my deluded, close-minded slasdotter, is this: How else do you expect the ruling majority of the society to behave but to specifically marry man to woman? Just because it's been some certain way for centuries doesn't mean it's being done entirely right.
Even when homosexuals WERE NOT EXCLUDED FROM SOCIETY marriage was still between a man and a woman. Shit, you dismiss my point and then ask for an example of my point! Get off your fucking high horse and THINK for just once second instead of spewing the same old tired rethoric.
Yes, and god damn it it should remain a legally binding contract between a man and a brides family?
Well, if they're not allowed to enter into a contract, it can't be between a man and a woman. However, since those uppity suffragettes got their way, I think that the detail of the signatory party of the contract has gotten simplified, allowing the object of the contract to enter into it without outside representation. The goal is still the same: sexual exclusivity to ensure a patriarchal line.
Marriage does not mean one thing, it has and does mean different things in different places and different times. For example marriage has sometimes been considered insoluble (and probably still is in some places). However for most of us it isn't. In some times and places men have been allowed multiple wives. In some cases marriages are arranged between people who have never met.
Marriage is the legally binding contract ensuring sexual exclusivity between a man and a woman in exchange for material compensation. It's a tool of a patriarchal society, because you can never be sure who the father is unless there's only one candidate (and even then, you still have to trust the mother that there's only one candidate). Details like these do not change that.
Ttradition alone is no argument because it could equally be used to support slavery or deny women the vote.
I'm not arguing tradition, I'm arguing definition.
Funnily enough when homosexual people in Australia did get civil unions recognised in the Australian Capital Territory the federal goverment overturned it because (get this) our constitution gives the federal goverment jurisdiction over marriage. So even if homosexual people do call it a different name to avoid 'offending' people's sensibilities the opponents of homosexual unions will still call it marriage if it suits their position.
Ah, that's political bullshitting that ALSO abuses definition. I don't like that either.
Repeat after me: Terrorism is when you fly planes into skyscrapers, not when you allow free elections.
Main Entry: terror Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE 4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands synonym see FEAR
Shock and Awe The basis for Rapid Dominance rests in the ability to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary through imposing sufficient Shock and Awe to achieve the necessary political, strategic, and operational goals of the conflict or crisis that led to the use of force.
Terror is terror, wether you comandeer a plane or you use guided missiles.
There is no fucking way to prevent Western Union, or your bank, or cash or the Internet or any other device or service that offers a generic service like information or money transfer from being used by people with an agenda you don't like without building a police state.
Won't somebody please think of the children! If we don't build a police state, the terrorist win! Why do you hate America? And so forth.
9/11 was the single biggest boon to American fascists since the red scare.
Gee, a U.S. company is following U.S. law and flagging financial transactions that may be related to terrorism.
Did YOU RTFA? First paragraph:
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Money transfer agencies have delayed or blocked thousands of cash deliveries on suspicion of terrorist connections simply because senders or recipients have names like Mohammed or Ahmed, company officials said.
Oh yeah, you're named "Mohammed", you therefore may be related to terrorism! Does that make sense to you? It's a stunningly common name! And that's from a company official, not some cashier.
Sounds to me like the Western Union employee didn't understand what actually happens
Sounds to me like you didn't understand what actually happened.
there are two reasons to oppose gay marriage: bigotry and political pandering to bigots
#3: Dude, marriage means one thing, and changing it to mean a new thing is not something I approve. Let 'em get civil unions and change the laws to include benefits and visitation right to civil unions, instead of changing marriage, change the technicalities that make marriage a necessity.
Fuck, don't pigeonhole people in your lil' prejudiced categories just because they disagree with you on one issue.
P.S. Couldn't care less about the sanctity of marriage or any of that, it's been one thing since it has existed, and changing it is not a move. Ancient greeks weren't opposed to homosexuality, but they had the same meaning for marriage that we have now.
Land mines are extremely effective and it would be stupid to not use them.
So are chemical and biological weapons, as well as tactical nuclear weapons. Not to mention massacres, they get those pesky civilians out of the way, and they're extremely effective at demoralising enemy troops. It would be stupid not to massacre people!
The US does not deploy land mines that way
And the US dow not torture people. The US does not spy on it's own citizens. The US doesn't do a lot of the things it gets caught doing...
I'm sure the military was also involved in all the testing that showed that the city would be turned into a toilet bowl after a major hurricane
Whoa, whoa, WHOA! NO ONE could have predicted a breach of the levees! Don't you go giving these fine soldiers a bad rap there, claiming they could have... for shame!
I find it amusing that everyone on here claims to have such a clear-cut moral compass. "Don't work on anything that could possibly have a bad use" covers an awful lot of ground. Our SHM prototype used Linux; have you ever contributed to the kernel, and if so does that make you an accessory too?
Can this screw be used to make a weapon? Sure, but it's just a screw. Can this flying anti-tank mine be used as anything BUT a weapon? No.
There's a big difference between working on something that *might*, and working on something that *is* going to kill.
This is especially true of North Americans with regard to mixing of blacks and whites, for well-known reasons.
It's also very odd that you added a "north" in there. Mexicans and Canadians didn't massively import black slaves, so the well-known reason doesn't apply to them. Mexicans tend to have mixed Spanish and Mayan blood, Canadians... well, depends on the region, the French mixed more with the Indians than the English, and there's been immigration from everywhere recetly, so there's a whole lot of mixing going on, but it's not the same mix black/white as in the U.S.A.
Slashdot Mirror
It's true that some moderates denounce specific terrorist acts.
No, the official position of most religious authorities is to denounce terrorist acts. There's a fatwa against terrorism.
If you paid any attention to what the muslims say, instead of what people who hate them say they say, you would know that.
the concept of martyrdom is widely accepted
How far would you have to go to find a monument dedicated to those who have given their lives fighting for a cause that is dear to your nation? I can reach a good number of such martyr-worship shrines by foot. And most of them have crosses on them.
Until Muslims agree to change their holy texts
Yeah, riiiiight. That sounds fair!
the fringe actions of a few moderates
Moderates are the majority, extremists are the fringe.
And what does marriage mean? Is it not the joyous union of two people who love each other, and are publicly declaring their willingness to bind to each other? Is it not the promise of friends and family to support the couple in their quest for happiness together?
No, and no.
That's just nice fluff that can come with. There's tons of loveless, joyless mariages, and marriages opposed by the families of the enlopers.
Marriage has nothing to do with mushy feelings. It's nicer when these things are there, but they're just an added bonus.
There is no special definition of marriage to exclude people of the same sex from getting married.
Mariage is a legally binding contract granting exclusive sexual (reproductive) rights for a man to a woman, in exchange for financial compensation. Its purpose is to ensure a patriarchal line.
The world is not going to change for the worse because same-sex couples publicly and enthusiastically declare their love for each other, and bind their lives together.
I know, 's why I say they should go and get all the civil unions they can handle.
Marriage is one thing, and it exclude them. They should find their bliss without obsessing over something that isn't necessery to their lives and from which they are excluded by definition, and by function.
If you want marriage to be defined by what your religion says
BOOM! Pidgeonholing! Name my religion (hint: I don't have one).
detach it from all the benefits previously enumerated. Make it so that people get married in church if they want, and then if they want legal recognition they also get a civil partership, or whatever you want to call it.
That... could work, except it's an increase in paperwork, and I happen to oppose the spread of bureaucraties.
Like I said, civil unions are fine, but I don't think that to give it to gay couples you need to remove the legal power of religious institutions to make their marriages legally binding.
And you certainly will not get support from any religious types if you want to take something away from them to give something to people they don't like!
So, no, I don't think your solution will work.
Perhaps its just me, but I don't understand why some people are for homosexual civil unions, but not homosexual marriage, even when they are functionally the same.
:)
It's about the word, and what it means.
A civil union is fine by me, because I'm not all "t3h gheys are t3h evil". I'm not opposed to the legal functions of marriage to apply to gay couples, I can see how your partner would want to come see you at the hospitals, and the hospital has rules against roomates visiting, but I don't think the solution is to redefine something that has a basic meaning throughout the world. I think the solution is to provide an alternative that will serve the same purpose.
Me, I don't understand why some people are for homosexual marriage, but not satisfied with homosexual civil unions, even when they are functionally the same.
Well, I see it, I lied. I see it and I don't agree with it: They want to be told they're normal: "See, we get maried and have white picket fences!".
I support the right not to be normal. The civil union would do juuuuuust fine for all intents and purposes, except one: It wouldn't be something to throw in the face of people who hate fags. I don't think that's valid.
P.S. I got about ten replies to this (whoa!), and you're the first rational one to date. You deserve a cookie
Don't you have anything more important to worry about? [...] Does it affect you in any way whatsoever? Get over it and find something more relevant to spend your time worrying about...
/. thread! Like I said, if it's about the legal rights that come with mariage, civil unions will do JUST fine. Redefining marriage, on the other hand, is more than that. It's an effort to "fit in", to be told they're normal, to force society to validate their lives, and I opppose that. You don't redefine something as old as civilisation, you just don't.
Ok, would you use the same "it doesn't affect you" argument over the fact that I, say, oppose a war between foreign nations? You know what, I get to care about things that aren't about me.
Anyway, yes it does affect me, redefining the language, redefining the laws under which I'm governed, these things affect me. Gays can live in bliss and have all the gay sex they want in their bedrooms (between consenting adults), THAT I don't care, that is their lives.
And I'm not worrying about it, it just gets thrown in my face all the time. Even OT in a
So dude, marriage does mean more than one thing and it has very little to do with religion. It is a financial and social construct.
1- Bravo, pidgeonholer, you have assumed that I oppose it for religious reasons because "religion" in the hole into which you... pidgeoned... ah crap my metaphor is falling appart. Anyway...
2- I've been telling other pidgeonholers exactly hat: It's a construct.
So yes, the meaning of marriage has changed over the years and will continue to change as our concepts of society and self do.
Nope, the DETAILS have changed, and btw, I wasn't only referring to one society, I mean marriage is the same, excluding details, all over: A man getting exclusive reproductive rights to a woman.
I'm not opposed to polygamy, I'm not opposed to arranged marriages, as long as all parties involved keep the right to free will and to refuse to enter into the contract.
I really don't care about the sanctity of marriage, as I stated. It's the intent to change the meaning of marriage from "exclusive reproductive rights in exchange for material compenastion" to "a token of love" that I abhor.
Hahahahaha! Me, spouting christian crap! Lol! DUDE! FUCK OFF WITH THE PIDGEONHOLING ALREADY!
f you want to take the religious angle
Wow, my opinion differs from yours, I MUST BE one of the religious right types! I must, I say, I must!
Do he and I being married somehow damage your marriage?
And I must be affraid that, contrary to what I specifically SAID, your acts would teint "my" marriage. Even though I'm not married, nor do I plan to be.
Society changes, and if there's any amount of true intelligence and compassion in that society, it's norms and what it expects of it's citizens should also change eventually.
1- Your "progress" argument is utter bullshit. Scientific and technological progress has nothing to do with redefining societal constructs.
2- Why the fuck do you hold on to an outmoded tradition that specifically excludes you? Fuck marriage, let it alone, it's not meant for you, deal, and live your fucking life instead of trying to desperatly fitting in by redefining the damn thing to include you.
You want progress, move beyond marriage instead of obsessing over it.
Who gives a shit what the ancient Greeks considered to be "normal"?
And bravo for entirely missing the point in your fucking rush to pidgeonhole me into your damn simple-minded black and white "if x oposes y, he must be part of z who also oppose y" bullshit.
The point, my deluded, close-minded slasdotter, is this: How else do you expect the ruling majority of the society to behave but to specifically marry man to woman? Just because it's been some certain way for centuries doesn't mean it's being done entirely right.
Even when homosexuals WERE NOT EXCLUDED FROM SOCIETY marriage was still between a man and a woman. Shit, you dismiss my point and then ask for an example of my point! Get off your fucking high horse and THINK for just once second instead of spewing the same old tired rethoric.
Yes, and god damn it it should remain a legally binding contract between a man and a brides family?
Well, if they're not allowed to enter into a contract, it can't be between a man and a woman. However, since those uppity suffragettes got their way, I think that the detail of the signatory party of the contract has gotten simplified, allowing the object of the contract to enter into it without outside representation.
The goal is still the same: sexual exclusivity to ensure a patriarchal line.
Marriage does not mean one thing, it has and does mean different things in different places and different times. For example marriage has sometimes been considered insoluble (and probably still is in some places). However for most of us it isn't. In some times and places men have been allowed multiple wives. In some cases marriages are arranged between people who have never met.
Marriage is the legally binding contract ensuring sexual exclusivity between a man and a woman in exchange for material compensation. It's a tool of a patriarchal society, because you can never be sure who the father is unless there's only one candidate (and even then, you still have to trust the mother that there's only one candidate).
Details like these do not change that.
Ttradition alone is no argument because it could equally be used to support slavery or deny women the vote.
I'm not arguing tradition, I'm arguing definition.
Funnily enough when homosexual people in Australia did get civil unions recognised in the Australian Capital Territory the federal goverment overturned it because (get this) our constitution gives the federal goverment jurisdiction over marriage. So even if homosexual people do call it a different name to avoid 'offending' people's sensibilities the opponents of homosexual unions will still call it marriage if it suits their position.
Ah, that's political bullshitting that ALSO abuses definition. I don't like that either.
Line breaks, Bub.
I ain't reading huge blocks of text: Line breaks, paragraphs, these are essentials, not frivolities.
Terror is terror, wether you comandeer a plane or you use guided missiles.
You first.
So it relates to skin color/social class, has negative connotations, and is thus racist.
I think you meant: "So it relates to skin color and is thus racist."
Racism is discrimination based on race. Positive, negative, and social class don't play into it.
There is no fucking way to prevent Western Union, or your bank, or cash or the Internet or any other device or service that offers a generic service like information or money transfer from being used by people with an agenda you don't like without building a police state.
Won't somebody please think of the children! If we don't build a police state, the terrorist win! Why do you hate America? And so forth.
9/11 was the single biggest boon to American fascists since the red scare.
Did YOU RTFA?
First paragraph:
Oh yeah, you're named "Mohammed", you therefore may be related to terrorism! Does that make sense to you? It's a stunningly common name! And that's from a company official, not some cashier.
Sounds to me like the Western Union employee didn't understand what actually happens
Sounds to me like you didn't understand what actually happened.
there are two reasons to oppose gay marriage: bigotry and political pandering to bigots
#3:
Dude, marriage means one thing, and changing it to mean a new thing is not something I approve. Let 'em get civil unions and change the laws to include benefits and visitation right to civil unions, instead of changing marriage, change the technicalities that make marriage a necessity.
Fuck, don't pigeonhole people in your lil' prejudiced categories just because they disagree with you on one issue.
P.S. Couldn't care less about the sanctity of marriage or any of that, it's been one thing since it has existed, and changing it is not a move. Ancient greeks weren't opposed to homosexuality, but they had the same meaning for marriage that we have now.
Muslims have never denounced the actions of Muslim Extremism.
You ignorant piece of shit.
Seriously. Who's modding up your blatant lies?
I love car crashes on TV!
You could put it into a museum and claim it to be modern art. :-)
That... would actually be a pretty cool
I'm getting tired of stupid journalists who just bend over and accept the corporate line without investigating the other side of the coin.
If they get enough coins, they won't bother looking at each one up close.
Land mines are extremely effective and it would be stupid to not use them.
So are chemical and biological weapons, as well as tactical nuclear weapons.
Not to mention massacres, they get those pesky civilians out of the way, and they're extremely effective at demoralising enemy troops. It would be stupid not to massacre people!
The US does not deploy land mines that way
And the US dow not torture people.
The US does not spy on it's own citizens.
The US doesn't do a lot of the things it gets caught doing...
I'm sure the military was also involved in all the testing that showed that the city would be turned into a toilet bowl after a major hurricane
Whoa, whoa, WHOA!
NO ONE could have predicted a breach of the levees! Don't you go giving these fine soldiers a bad rap there, claiming they could have... for shame!
I find it amusing that everyone on here claims to have such a clear-cut moral compass. "Don't work on anything that could possibly have a bad use" covers an awful lot of ground. Our SHM prototype used Linux; have you ever contributed to the kernel, and if so does that make you an accessory too?
Can this screw be used to make a weapon? Sure, but it's just a screw.
Can this flying anti-tank mine be used as anything BUT a weapon? No.
There's a big difference between working on something that *might*, and working on something that *is* going to kill.
I thought that it was better to launch things from the equator. Something about angular momentum, maybe?
If you want to get in, or escape earth orbit, yes.
But Virgin Galactic only goes to the edge of "space" and then falls right back down.
This is especially true of North Americans with regard to mixing of blacks and whites, for well-known reasons.
It's also very odd that you added a "north" in there.
Mexicans and Canadians didn't massively import black slaves, so the well-known reason doesn't apply to them. Mexicans tend to have mixed Spanish and Mayan blood, Canadians... well, depends on the region, the French mixed more with the Indians than the English, and there's been immigration from everywhere recetly, so there's a whole lot of mixing going on, but it's not the same mix black/white as in the U.S.A.