Yeah, I just spent 80 odd hours doing just that on my Wii with Godfather, Blackhand edition (great game, by the way). I recognize it. Although I really doubt these boys brought tire-irons, brass knuckles or tommy guns for the occasion.
Either which way, since the BBC is essentially the government I doubt it is a good move. As a general rule I think it would be wise not to try 'n' muscle the one institution that has a monopoly on violence in society.
So, what would you call something that has no gender (yet)?
"Das Kind war so froh, dass es ein Wii im Geburtstag kriegen würde" "Barnet grät när mamman sa till det ordentligt"
In both German and Swedish it's perfectly alright to call a kid "it" because kids are gramatically speaking neither male nor female. In Dutch, my mother tongue, you wouldn't refer to a child as "it" too often if the gender is known. It is noteworthy however that while "the man" and "the woman" are "DE man" and "DE vrouw" respectively, "the child" turns into "HET kind".
I believe that unless the gender is pronounced, "the child" would also be an "it" in English. The fact that you are too damn politically correct to use proper grammar doesn't change that, now does it?
In our case, the gender will most likely be male (or so the echo-people said), but this can only be said with 80% certainty at this stage in the pregnancy. So "he" is more likely than "she" but it's still a bit premature. I think "it" suits it just fine for the moment, floating in its sac of water with no fully developed genitalia yet.
The difference between some people and my girl is that she's far from stupid. And I respect that. There is no need for me to insult her or to try and tell her her own past experiences are moot.
> So are you just waffling, or did you not really mean what you said earlier?
No, and yes.
The word doesn't bother me. The institute and society's view on it do. Nuffsaid.
> you as much as came right out and said you have a lack of commitment
Any more bullshit coming out of you and you could go right into the fertilizer business.
I said I have a girlfriend who is a geek and she's pregnant. THen I said that I will legally recognize the kid, and I will enter into a registered partnership contract. Then I said that I will never consider marrying.
How in the hell do people translate THAT to "having a lack of commitment"? Really, seriously. If you *still* don't understand it... Well... Fuck you then.
It strikes me as odd (and disappointing) that a community like/. which is supposed to be about technology, geekdom and all that would crash down on someone who has a slightly unconventional view of relationships. I guess all of that "we hate sony, bush and the big corporations" bullshit you (slashdotters in general) spew on a daily basis is just plain old hogwash. Deep down inside, many people here must be Christian right wing conservatives.
If I wanted the back door open, I'd marry my girlfriend. She's got more cash than I do, so a divorce with the relevant split would be beneficial to me.
All kidding aside though, divorces come a dime a dozen. I still don't see how not getting married for reasons of religion, problems with the institute itself, a realistic expectation of long-term relationships all add up to "wanting the back door open". You just displayed an enourmous capacity to make my belief system sound cheap, which actually bothers me.
Marriage does not safeguard you in any way. Why can't people on/. get that through their thick skulls?
Either which way, as I've mentioned in other posts: I live in Israel. Which only slightly exacerbates my rebelliousness, because it's needed here. But even countries like Holland or Sweden, some of the most progressive on the planet, are not entirely there yet.
Actually, she was out of the army by the age of 21. I met her when she was 28. By this time she was all into suitably low cut tops and high heels. However, now that she's pregnant, her choice of footwear is more in line with the Salvation Army: Dapper and practical shoes.
You're a nasty little bastard, aren't you? Telling other people what commitment is while you, in all statistical likelihood, probably pee beside the pot regularly, ignore your wife kids for most of their lives, raise 'm in front of a TV set while your idea of quality time with the family would be going to McDonalds once a week to justify three card-nights a week with your boozing buddies.
I'd say you wouldn't know life's truths if they squarely kicked you in the ding-ding. Being married doesn't make you a good husband or father. And judging by the tone of your reply I am grateful beyond words that I am no child of yours.
Of course I'm touchy about the fact that 90% of any given society deems itself in their right when they're being presumptuous about the choices I make in my life.
Specially when it coincides with the fact that 90% of the human race are utter and complete morons about most things.
> Legal implications
As long as those legal implications exist, I refuse to play. A liberal society will guarantee rights for any citizen regardless of life-style or convictions.
I object to the combination of the origins of the ceremony as well as what it stands for (the "duty" to stay together no matter if it's the right thing to do or not) and lastly the power that Christian morality (or Jewish morality) has over government and legislation to this day. I am quite sure I can safeguard me, my girlfriend and my boy from harm by taking other measures than get married.
In the mean time, Christian, Jewish and Islamic morality and rules can fuck off. Today's society isn't what the bearded tossers envisioned 2500 years ago.
How about being committed to something that's just plain wrong? Picture this...
20 years from now, your wife can't stand you anymore. She spends 24 hours a day bitching at you for what a lazy lard-ass you are, and how you never give her flowers. Simultaneously, you're not attracted to her anymore, and you're watching porn in your tool-shed while wacking off. Secretly, you'd like to "do" the 14 year old daughter of your neighbours, and you haven't been to the movies, theatre or anywhere fun with your wife for over a decade. The kids are out of the house and they don't visit you because of the bitter, nagging sons of bitches you've become, so all you have to kill is time and each other.
Personally, I would rather get a life.
Commitment schmommitment. You have to *want* to be in the relationship, there's no Duty or force involved if it's a good one.
My partner sees being Jewish as her identity. She does more or less believe in a God, but for her it's more about the liberty to keep certain traditions she associates with. That's what I meant with Jewish by faith. And I am even working on that with her through such things as constantly discussing the state of the nation and wether or not our son should be circumcised (I think not, she does... ), and questioning what makes a Jew a Jew.
In my eyes you cannot be Jewish by blood because it just doesn't exist. Just because you drop out of your momma's pussy doesn't mean you are anything in particular in my eyes, except human. Again, I am not Jewish or anything by faith. I am me, and this is enough for my view on the universe. I start and end with me, and I pretty much only believe in me, at the end of the day. If you are bothered by that notion, I couldn't care less on top of it.
Pretty much all Israelis, even the Arab ones, are Israelis because they dropped out of their mothers' womb on Israeli soil, or they came here as Jewish immigrants. The Israelis are so full of shit about pretty much everything that it surprises me they haven't fertilized the Sinaii yet.
Personally I am an expat. I don't believe in the premises on which Israel is built at the moment. I think it's inherently racist and rather primitive. Although I must admit that they seem to be quite a lot more liberal than most of their backwater neighbours.
No I don't. I am an indivisualist. Right now I am together with my girlfriend because I love her and vice versa. If these things change, I have a personal interest to get out of the relationship. And the same applies to her. Altruism is a cop out, and I don't believe in it. Ultimately, people claim to be altruists for selfish reasons more often than not.
I am me, and I look out for me more than for most others. Let's be 100% clear on that.
> Are you against marriage due to your anti-religious beliefs? > Or are you afraid of commitment?
As I stated in another post: We live together. We pool, manage and share 100% of our assets together without reservations. We love each other and we are expecting a boy.
How much more commitment do you want to see? All I say is that marriage or not doesn't make a difference. Married people cheat, lie, steal, keep separate accounts or even have pre-nups, and lastly they divorce. As a matter of fact, my girlfriend was once married, but she divorced while making sure she never got pregnant by this individual.
To me it looks like she's more committed to me than she was to her husband at the time.
> truly committed, you will very likely WANT, IE: CHOOSE a monogamous relationship
I know people that are truly committed (and married) to each other while allowing for, well, extracurricular activities. Then I know people that are married but go to swingers clubs together. And I know people totally committed to each other that chose to let it go because it couldn't work.
Who are you to judge what it means to be committed to another human being? Who are you to tell me that a monogamous relationship backed up by a pink slip is the only commitment that is "valid"?
It's people like you that make me not want to get married, don't you understand?
I don't see the connection between humans' inherent desire to mate with more than one sexual partner over the course of their life-time and "date rape" versus young women "putting out".
I'm sorry, but your argument is just completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
In absurdum meaning that I will not push my atheism to the point where I am the spiritual equivalent of a vegan. To make the analogy clear, I can understand people who would rather not eat meat out of principle, but to push it to the point where eggs, milk, butter, leather shoes or woolen sweaters are off the market too is just over-zealous and illogical.
> Oh, so you're fine with one word that had it's roots in organized religion, but not > another?
No. You are grossly misunderstanding me. I do not have anything against the words "marriage", "husband" or "wife" per se. They are fine words to indicate a partnership of some sorts. A connection.
What I am not fine with is the fact that I have observed that countries that are run by religion to a larger degree such as Israel, even though there is some improvement of late, push marriage in its full religious glory. Furthermore, the gentlemen rabbis do not deem it necessary to give people that make different life-style choices an equal set of rights.
Now in the Netherlands, again, the situation is different. Anyone can get a civil marriage, a registered partnership in the form of a notary-drafted contract or simply live together under the same roof for x amount of time, and have their rights recognized to a much larger degree. Be they gay, straight, religious or not.
In spite of the Netherland's progress in terms of legislation, society as a whole still votes for the Christian Democrats (CDA), still goes to church even though they quit believing ages ago, and still has a degree of staunch conservatism in their attitude. Still society has the notion that a "decent" guy will marry his pregnant girlfriend. Because otherwise I am a blemish on my family, have "issues with commitment" or some such poppycock.
Until society really respects different life-style choices to their full extent, I will not participate in this whole Judeo-Christian moral song and dance. Their morals are not mine.
> Seems to me like you just have some issues with commitment.
You don't know me. I am living under the same roof as my partner. We manage, pool and plan all of our assets together, shared to a 100% without reservation. We are expecting a baby boy. This responsibility is huge, and I am well aware of it.
How much more do you want me to be committed? Will a pink slip signed by some clergyman or whoever keep me more committed than that? If you look at divorce statistics all over the world I would argue that there are plenty of people that have commitment issues even though they do tie the knot.
All I'm saying is that I don't know how our lives will fare in the long run, and I'm being realistic when I say that.
I try to do right by my partner. Just because I'm against the concept of marriage because of a phletora of reasons you shouldn't judge my ability to conduct a relationship or express affection.
Hell, maybe this will last longer than the average marriage.
The ceremony of marriage such as it can be carried out in Israel is Jew-Jew, Christian-Christian or Islamic-Islamic religious.
No mixing, civil stuff or whatever.
Granted, in Holland you can get a civil marriage. But there are more reasons for me to be against it.
A registered partnership recognizes my (and her) rights without saying "we're married", which in many places still is a botched form of ownership. Marriage did exist before the whole Judeo-Christian/Islamic hubbub, but then it was more about exclusive ownership. Which, in the case of individuals, I am against.
I can own many things, but not my partner. She stays as long as she wants me, and vice versa. And it is good.
Cheating, divorcing and all kinds of sexual practices like swinging, sex-clubbing and whatnot should prove to people that a forced monogamous relationship is, if not impossible, at least hard to reconcile with our basic biological function.
Therefore I will not make promises that amount to "until death do us part". I promise I will try to raise the kid with all the love and wisdom I can muster. I promise to honour my partner, but I will not be lured into the naive and stupidly romantic gesture of telling everyone this will be "forever".
And yes, Israel has batshit-insane policies. On many things.
Being Dutch, it's quite the culture shock for me, I can assure you.:-D
A notary doesn't have that function anymore and in Holland hasn't had that function for over 300 years. I'm fine with going to one, as long was we don't have to call it marriage.
I am a Dutch Atheist, you insensitive clod. You don't know me, so don't even try. But it might please you to hear there is not a drop of Jewish blood in my veins. Certainly also because (and this might interest you) Jewish blood does not exist.
Genetic research has long ago proven that our genes do not differentiate enough to call differently shaped humans "races". There is one "race", the human race. The rest are just minor adaptations to climate and diet.
My partner however, is Jewish (by faith) Israeli. She is *not* causing havoc in your "great" nation. It's imbeciles like you that do.
I will go as far as to consider registering the partnership at a civil notary. Furthermore, I will recognize the unborn foetus to make sure the child, upon birth, is issued a Dutch passport along with its Israeli passport.
I will not, however, partake in ceremonies that have their roots in organized religion. So no, I would not consider getting married. Frankly, I take offence in the fact that you actually posted that comment.
Tss.... I mean, I understand the joke, I sure do. But I'm still a bit miffed.
- I'm on/. - I'm a geek - I have a girlfriend - She is good looking and pregnant to boot - I caused the pregnancy - To top it off, she's a former HP-UX and Service Guard field technician and account support engineer - She did VMS maintenance for the Israeli army during the draft - She is currently an L2 storage software support engineer
Why is this clown on the front page with his better half while I am not? My girlfriend could out-weld pretty much anyone's girlfriend on this forum. Is it because of the photos?
> seat belts, then airbags, then ABS, then traction control, then side-curtain airbags, now this > crap.
Funny you should mention that, because when I still lived in Sweden, I had a Saab 9-3 150 bhp TurboDiesel car with Airbags, Seatbelts, ABS, traction control, anti-spin, side-curtain airbags and another feature you don't mention: Adaptive steering. Meaning that depending on the steering the driver was doing and the position, speed and lateral movement of the car, the car would decide to help steering a bit wit the rear axles.
The ABS, Traction control, adaptive steering and Anti-Spin technology, when linked to a powerful engine and powerful brakes, made for a car that was extraordinarily safe and stable while being a total fucking blast to drive.
Then, in Copenhagen, a Mercedes S 600 decided to pile drive me off the road. So the Airbag, side-curtain airbag, deformation zone and seatbelts did their job to the point where I hardly felt I was hit myself. There was a loud bang and a smell, but those were the airbags. The car got fixed up, and is still in service. All of this technology makes it a wonderful vehicle.
Then I moved to Israel, where I got a Ford Focus with ABS, Airbag and belts. The rest of the options are just not there. And it is a total piece of shit to drive. Much like all other cars in Israel, because people are hardly enabled to order anything but the cheap-ass default cars without all the trimmings.
So, so get back to your point... "Ain't it just like automobile manufacturers" to give us splendid high-tech to really enhance our driving experience?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I just spent 80 odd hours doing just that on my Wii with Godfather, Blackhand edition (great game, by the way). I recognize it. Although I really doubt these boys brought tire-irons, brass knuckles or tommy guns for the occasion.
Either which way, since the BBC is essentially the government I doubt it is a good move. As a general rule I think it would be wise not to try 'n' muscle the one institution that has a monopoly on violence in society.
So, what would you call something that has no gender (yet)?
"Das Kind war so froh, dass es ein Wii im Geburtstag kriegen würde"
"Barnet grät när mamman sa till det ordentligt"
In both German and Swedish it's perfectly alright to call a kid "it" because kids are gramatically speaking neither male nor female. In Dutch, my mother tongue, you wouldn't refer to a child as "it" too often if the gender is known. It is noteworthy however that while "the man" and "the woman" are "DE man" and "DE vrouw" respectively, "the child" turns into "HET kind".
I believe that unless the gender is pronounced, "the child" would also be an "it" in English. The fact that you are too damn politically correct to use proper grammar doesn't change that, now does it?
In our case, the gender will most likely be male (or so the echo-people said), but this can only be said with 80% certainty at this stage in the pregnancy. So "he" is more likely than "she" but it's still a bit premature. I think "it" suits it just fine for the moment, floating in its sac of water with no fully developed genitalia yet.
The difference between some people and my girl is that she's far from stupid. And I respect that. There is no need for me to insult her or to try and tell her her own past experiences are moot.
I will leave it at that.
> So are you just waffling, or did you not really mean what you said earlier?
/. which is supposed to be about technology, geekdom and all that would crash down on someone who has a slightly unconventional view of relationships. I guess all of that "we hate sony, bush and the big corporations" bullshit you (slashdotters in general) spew on a daily basis is just plain old hogwash. Deep down inside, many people here must be Christian right wing conservatives.
No, and yes.
The word doesn't bother me. The institute and society's view on it do. Nuffsaid.
> you as much as came right out and said you have a lack of commitment
Any more bullshit coming out of you and you could go right into the fertilizer business.
I said I have a girlfriend who is a geek and she's pregnant. THen I said that I will legally recognize the kid, and I will enter into a registered partnership contract. Then I said that I will never consider marrying.
How in the hell do people translate THAT to "having a lack of commitment"? Really, seriously. If you *still* don't understand it... Well... Fuck you then.
It strikes me as odd (and disappointing) that a community like
Being in denial is an awkward thing, ain't it?
If I wanted the back door open, I'd marry my girlfriend. She's got more cash than I do, so a divorce with the relevant split would be beneficial to me.
/. get that through their thick skulls?
All kidding aside though, divorces come a dime a dozen. I still don't see how not getting married for reasons of religion, problems with the institute itself, a realistic expectation of long-term relationships all add up to "wanting the back door open". You just displayed an enourmous capacity to make my belief system sound cheap, which actually bothers me.
Marriage does not safeguard you in any way. Why can't people on
Either which way, as I've mentioned in other posts: I live in Israel. Which only slightly exacerbates my rebelliousness, because it's needed here. But even countries like Holland or Sweden, some of the most progressive on the planet, are not entirely there yet.
Actually, she was out of the army by the age of 21. I met her when she was 28. By this time she was all into suitably low cut tops and high heels. However, now that she's pregnant, her choice of footwear is more in line with the Salvation Army: Dapper and practical shoes.
:-D
Can't wait for pregnancy to be over.
How does it feel to be a bigot and a hypocrite?
You're a nasty little bastard, aren't you? Telling other people what commitment is while you, in all statistical likelihood, probably pee beside the pot regularly, ignore your wife kids for most of their lives, raise 'm in front of a TV set while your idea of quality time with the family would be going to McDonalds once a week to justify three card-nights a week with your boozing buddies.
I'd say you wouldn't know life's truths if they squarely kicked you in the ding-ding. Being married doesn't make you a good husband or father. And judging by the tone of your reply I am grateful beyond words that I am no child of yours.
Indeed I am. If you have a problem with that, I really do suggest you swing by sometime to discuss that face to face.
Gives you a chance to meet the missus too. Can't diss 'm till you meet 'm, can you?
To get things straight, I never said I wanted to do any swinging or sex-clubbing.
Good heavens, no! I thouroughly dislike too many people to even bother. The thought alone makes me more tired than the thought or raising a kid.
Another thing marriage doesn't help against...
Quite a few babies born within wedlock are not fathered by the father, if you catch my drift.
In the mean time, I'm more of a nurture than nature kind of guy in terms of bonding, so that's OK.
Of course I'm touchy about the fact that 90% of any given society deems itself in their right when they're being presumptuous about the choices I make in my life.
Specially when it coincides with the fact that 90% of the human race are utter and complete morons about most things.
> Legal implications
As long as those legal implications exist, I refuse to play. A liberal society will guarantee rights for any citizen regardless of life-style or convictions.
I object to the combination of the origins of the ceremony as well as what it stands for (the "duty" to stay together no matter if it's the right thing to do or not) and lastly the power that Christian morality (or Jewish morality) has over government and legislation to this day. I am quite sure I can safeguard me, my girlfriend and my boy from harm by taking other measures than get married.
In the mean time, Christian, Jewish and Islamic morality and rules can fuck off. Today's society isn't what the bearded tossers envisioned 2500 years ago.
How about being committed to something that's just plain wrong? Picture this...
20 years from now, your wife can't stand you anymore. She spends 24 hours a day bitching at you for what a lazy lard-ass you are, and how you never give her flowers. Simultaneously, you're not attracted to her anymore, and you're watching porn in your tool-shed while wacking off. Secretly, you'd like to "do" the 14 year old daughter of your neighbours, and you haven't been to the movies, theatre or anywhere fun with your wife for over a decade. The kids are out of the house and they don't visit you because of the bitter, nagging sons of bitches you've become, so all you have to kill is time and each other.
Personally, I would rather get a life.
Commitment schmommitment. You have to *want* to be in the relationship, there's no Duty or force involved if it's a good one.
No. People can think what they like, and they can say so when asked.
I just have an issue with the fact that the comment was rather presumptuous.
My partner sees being Jewish as her identity. She does more or less believe in a God, but for her it's more about the liberty to keep certain traditions she associates with. That's what I meant with Jewish by faith. And I am even working on that with her through such things as constantly discussing the state of the nation and wether or not our son should be circumcised (I think not, she does... ), and questioning what makes a Jew a Jew.
In my eyes you cannot be Jewish by blood because it just doesn't exist. Just because you drop out of your momma's pussy doesn't mean you are anything in particular in my eyes, except human. Again, I am not Jewish or anything by faith. I am me, and this is enough for my view on the universe. I start and end with me, and I pretty much only believe in me, at the end of the day. If you are bothered by that notion, I couldn't care less on top of it.
Pretty much all Israelis, even the Arab ones, are Israelis because they dropped out of their mothers' womb on Israeli soil, or they came here as Jewish immigrants. The Israelis are so full of shit about pretty much everything that it surprises me they haven't fertilized the Sinaii yet.
Personally I am an expat. I don't believe in the premises on which Israel is built at the moment. I think it's inherently racist and rather primitive. Although I must admit that they seem to be quite a lot more liberal than most of their backwater neighbours.
> you come off as very altruistic
No I don't. I am an indivisualist. Right now I am together with my girlfriend because I love her and vice versa. If these things change, I have a personal interest to get out of the relationship. And the same applies to her. Altruism is a cop out, and I don't believe in it. Ultimately, people claim to be altruists for selfish reasons more often than not.
I am me, and I look out for me more than for most others. Let's be 100% clear on that.
> Are you against marriage due to your anti-religious beliefs?
> Or are you afraid of commitment?
As I stated in another post: We live together. We pool, manage and share 100% of our assets together without reservations. We love each other and we are expecting a boy.
How much more commitment do you want to see? All I say is that marriage or not doesn't make a difference. Married people cheat, lie, steal, keep separate accounts or even have pre-nups, and lastly they divorce. As a matter of fact, my girlfriend was once married, but she divorced while making sure she never got pregnant by this individual.
To me it looks like she's more committed to me than she was to her husband at the time.
> truly committed, you will very likely WANT, IE: CHOOSE a monogamous relationship
I know people that are truly committed (and married) to each other while allowing for, well, extracurricular activities. Then I know people that are married but go to swingers clubs together. And I know people totally committed to each other that chose to let it go because it couldn't work.
Who are you to judge what it means to be committed to another human being? Who are you to tell me that a monogamous relationship backed up by a pink slip is the only commitment that is "valid"?
It's people like you that make me not want to get married, don't you understand?
I don't see the connection between humans' inherent desire to mate with more than one sexual partner over the course of their life-time and "date rape" versus young women "putting out".
I'm sorry, but your argument is just completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
>what?
In absurdum meaning that I will not push my atheism to the point where I am the spiritual equivalent of a vegan. To make the analogy clear, I can understand people who would rather not eat meat out of principle, but to push it to the point where eggs, milk, butter, leather shoes or woolen sweaters are off the market too is just over-zealous and illogical.
> Oh, so you're fine with one word that had it's roots in organized religion, but not
> another?
No. You are grossly misunderstanding me. I do not have anything against the words "marriage", "husband" or "wife" per se. They are fine words to indicate a partnership of some sorts. A connection.
What I am not fine with is the fact that I have observed that countries that are run by religion to a larger degree such as Israel, even though there is some improvement of late, push marriage in its full religious glory. Furthermore, the gentlemen rabbis do not deem it necessary to give people that make different life-style choices an equal set of rights.
Now in the Netherlands, again, the situation is different. Anyone can get a civil marriage, a registered partnership in the form of a notary-drafted contract or simply live together under the same roof for x amount of time, and have their rights recognized to a much larger degree. Be they gay, straight, religious or not.
In spite of the Netherland's progress in terms of legislation, society as a whole still votes for the Christian Democrats (CDA), still goes to church even though they quit believing ages ago, and still has a degree of staunch conservatism in their attitude. Still society has the notion that a "decent" guy will marry his pregnant girlfriend. Because otherwise I am a blemish on my family, have "issues with commitment" or some such poppycock.
Until society really respects different life-style choices to their full extent, I will not participate in this whole Judeo-Christian moral song and dance. Their morals are not mine.
> Seems to me like you just have some issues with commitment.
You don't know me. I am living under the same roof as my partner. We manage, pool and plan all of our assets together, shared to a 100% without reservation. We are expecting a baby boy. This responsibility is huge, and I am well aware of it.
How much more do you want me to be committed? Will a pink slip signed by some clergyman or whoever keep me more committed than that? If you look at divorce statistics all over the world I would argue that there are plenty of people that have commitment issues even though they do tie the knot.
All I'm saying is that I don't know how our lives will fare in the long run, and I'm being realistic when I say that.
All joking aside, let's put it this way:
I try to do right by my partner. Just because I'm against the concept of marriage because of a phletora of reasons you shouldn't judge my ability to conduct a relationship or express affection.
Hell, maybe this will last longer than the average marriage.
The ceremony of marriage such as it can be carried out in Israel is Jew-Jew, Christian-Christian or Islamic-Islamic religious.
No mixing, civil stuff or whatever.
Granted, in Holland you can get a civil marriage. But there are more reasons for me to be against it.
A registered partnership recognizes my (and her) rights without saying "we're married", which in many places still is a botched form of ownership. Marriage did exist before the whole Judeo-Christian/Islamic hubbub, but then it was more about exclusive ownership. Which, in the case of individuals, I am against.
I can own many things, but not my partner. She stays as long as she wants me, and vice versa. And it is good.
Well, it's not just that.
:-D
Cheating, divorcing and all kinds of sexual practices like swinging, sex-clubbing and whatnot should prove to people that a forced monogamous relationship is, if not impossible, at least hard to reconcile with our basic biological function.
Therefore I will not make promises that amount to "until death do us part". I promise I will try to raise the kid with all the love and wisdom I can muster. I promise to honour my partner, but I will not be lured into the naive and stupidly romantic gesture of telling everyone this will be "forever".
And yes, Israel has batshit-insane policies. On many things.
Being Dutch, it's quite the culture shock for me, I can assure you.
Interesting indeed.
However, I am not atheistic in absurdum.
A notary doesn't have that function anymore and in Holland hasn't had that function for over 300 years. I'm fine with going to one, as long was we don't have to call it marriage.
Hahahaha... You're such a bloody idiot, really.
I am a Dutch Atheist, you insensitive clod. You don't know me, so don't even try. But it might please you to hear there is not a drop of Jewish blood in my veins. Certainly also because (and this might interest you) Jewish blood does not exist.
Genetic research has long ago proven that our genes do not differentiate enough to call differently shaped humans "races". There is one "race", the human race. The rest are just minor adaptations to climate and diet.
My partner however, is Jewish (by faith) Israeli. She is *not* causing havoc in your "great" nation. It's imbeciles like you that do.
Do I sound like "some people" to you?
I will go as far as to consider registering the partnership at a civil notary. Furthermore, I will recognize the unborn foetus to make sure the child, upon birth, is issued a Dutch passport along with its Israeli passport.
I will not, however, partake in ceremonies that have their roots in organized religion. So no, I would not consider getting married. Frankly, I take offence in the fact that you actually posted that comment.
Tss.... I mean, I understand the joke, I sure do. But I'm still a bit miffed.
/.
- I'm on
- I'm a geek
- I have a girlfriend
- She is good looking and pregnant to boot
- I caused the pregnancy
- To top it off, she's a former HP-UX and Service Guard field technician and account support engineer
- She did VMS maintenance for the Israeli army during the draft
- She is currently an L2 storage software support engineer
Why is this clown on the front page with his better half while I am not? My girlfriend could out-weld pretty much anyone's girlfriend on this forum. Is it because of the photos?
It's just not fair!
> seat belts, then airbags, then ABS, then traction control, then side-curtain airbags, now this
> crap.
Funny you should mention that, because when I still lived in Sweden, I had a Saab 9-3 150 bhp TurboDiesel car with Airbags, Seatbelts, ABS, traction control, anti-spin, side-curtain airbags and another feature you don't mention: Adaptive steering. Meaning that depending on the steering the driver was doing and the position, speed and lateral movement of the car, the car would decide to help steering a bit wit the rear axles.
The ABS, Traction control, adaptive steering and Anti-Spin technology, when linked to a powerful engine and powerful brakes, made for a car that was extraordinarily safe and stable while being a total fucking blast to drive.
Then, in Copenhagen, a Mercedes S 600 decided to pile drive me off the road. So the Airbag, side-curtain airbag, deformation zone and seatbelts did their job to the point where I hardly felt I was hit myself. There was a loud bang and a smell, but those were the airbags. The car got fixed up, and is still in service. All of this technology makes it a wonderful vehicle.
Then I moved to Israel, where I got a Ford Focus with ABS, Airbag and belts. The rest of the options are just not there. And it is a total piece of shit to drive. Much like all other cars in Israel, because people are hardly enabled to order anything but the cheap-ass default cars without all the trimmings.
So, so get back to your point... "Ain't it just like automobile manufacturers" to give us splendid high-tech to really enhance our driving experience?