What isn't in Microsoft's press release and what I'm sure Google is actually doing is making it easier to get your Information out of Office. Whittle away, bit by bit.
Hooray! Now out of the pool of people who thought it was a good idea to buy this steaming pile at least some of them will now be thinking twice: and more important talking about it with the equally uninformed.
All you have done is solidify your evil in my mind. Too afraid gays will get what bigots enjoy, always dancing about with words? Your heart is dead if you can't see the issue. Have fun leading your soulless life.
Just because injustice is written in a book it must be perpetuated forever? Even when it is obviously evil? Evil is hurt which the opponents of gay-marriage seem all to willing to do to others over something that won't affect their day-to-day lives, just their sensibilities. But I suppose its ok to trod on another just so you can feel smug, hmm?
You think the nuclear family already hasn't fallen apart from the '50s when it was - arguably - perfect?;) Its about equality not tradition, tradition is the shield bigots hide behind.
I assert that it's none of their damn business so stop denying gays their rights. I also strongly believe that it does fall under freedom from religion because I watched the debates on American television and that is what it was. This is what I convince my friends and family with and I am having great success with the process. I am led to wonder why so many I interact with validate my points while you in particular seem actually intent on making the issue go away. Each of your posts deflects adequately but I think that overall I see a pattern that makes us incompatible. Therefore I must simply concentrate my efforts elsewhere: with those from my point of view I think can actually be saved.
Tell me a tale full of wonder and life - avoid this direct question again if you must reveal yourself again: Is it not religious prejudice that motivates the majority of people who are anti-gay marriage? When it must be admitted that it is does this not fall under freedom from religion in the constitution? Christianity, religion of love my ass it just happens to be what we were raised to be blind to.
I think we should have nookie rooms regularly placed throughout cities so couples can boink on a whim. Perhaps with cheering sections. But then again, I'm not a prude and I trust you to have the capability to just look away when someone would like to be nonconformist and express themselves.
I believe that teaching a child religion before they are capable of making a rational adult decision on what to believe is child abuse and those children should be rescued as soon as possible. It poisons their undeveloped minds. Now, we can have our differences of opinion but what matters is how the government treats people: equally under the law. And if the law isn't the same, straight or gay, then it will be made the same. Getting there will probably take the Supreme Court in this case and I know deep in my heart that every day of injustice that passes is one too many.
John and Joe humping in their bedroom is not an attack on traditional marriage. Bigots are making it an attack and setting poor John and Joe up. That is the issue. Just let John and Joe hump each others brains out and get co-signed on the mortage too like any other decent couple.
Saying: "you might re-apply for admittance into the world of adult conversation." doesn't help your own membership in said mythical organization. You are trying to pick these issues apart with intellect. This is doomed to fail, the issues are emotional in nature. This topic gets more results out of an emotional quotient than an intellectual one. Still messy as hell.
There are advantages to being married: government supplied ones. Equality under government is something to be desired. So if the gays can't get the advantages, take them away from straights? Poetic justice but would probably lead to more than a few deaths.
Arbritration would have to be a big component. And you as an individual would have to realize that there are wider consequences to entering into a multi-partner arrangement. But yes, a can of worms that while not inherently wrong would need care and attention and new case law to settle.
I think religion should get out of marriage. You want to go to your church and have water and rice thrown at you? Fine. Doesn't count. The only thing that should count is the government recognition of a union. And the only reason that should count is because it affects money. Government is regulation and they are regulating the money. Thats what counts. Gays have a strong weapon by pushing the separation of church (ideals) and state. It would be a supreme justice if before that court church marriages were deemed a ceremony only and only government issued civil documents carried any real weight.
The love for each other should be given preference. The man in the sky is much more difficult for me to experience but I have experienced love. Why is it only justice for some? Why is there justice, it is all just chemicals spreading semi-randomly. Let's get rid of all these chemically inspired soups and start with dumping the constitution. The only opinion that matters is the presidents and how well he does with keeping the GDP up. After all, those things can be measured.
Because we don't see eye-to-eye is the reason it is a struggle. I see people being pissed on. I know it's wrong and perhaps I could articulate it better: but it doesn't change the fact that I see them being pissed on.
Marriage is loaded with religion. As getting black people into white schools took the government to establish I believe getting gays equal treatment will also need government to initiate the break through bigotry. Since "marriage" is so contentious, what is wrong with civil unions? Gay people don't have to step into that horrid "church" to get their love recognized and get the benefits other groups of two people loving each other get. Do you support civil unions? If you don't can you argue from the other side and even if you don't believe it list reasons why civil unions should be?
Slashdot Mirror
What isn't in Microsoft's press release and what I'm sure Google is actually doing is making it easier to get your Information out of Office. Whittle away, bit by bit.
Liar! Not having an Internet connection is never an issue! Ubisoft told me so!
Hooray! Now out of the pool of people who thought it was a good idea to buy this steaming pile at least some of them will now be thinking twice: and more important talking about it with the equally uninformed.
All you have done is solidify your evil in my mind. Too afraid gays will get what bigots enjoy, always dancing about with words? Your heart is dead if you can't see the issue. Have fun leading your soulless life.
Just because injustice is written in a book it must be perpetuated forever? Even when it is obviously evil? Evil is hurt which the opponents of gay-marriage seem all to willing to do to others over something that won't affect their day-to-day lives, just their sensibilities. But I suppose its ok to trod on another just so you can feel smug, hmm?
Blah blah blah. You are a troll purposely or ignorantly seeking to steer the conversation away from granting rights to those who are being wronged.
You think the nuclear family already hasn't fallen apart from the '50s when it was - arguably - perfect? ;) Its about equality not tradition, tradition is the shield bigots hide behind.
I assert that it's none of their damn business so stop denying gays their rights. I also strongly believe that it does fall under freedom from religion because I watched the debates on American television and that is what it was. This is what I convince my friends and family with and I am having great success with the process. I am led to wonder why so many I interact with validate my points while you in particular seem actually intent on making the issue go away. Each of your posts deflects adequately but I think that overall I see a pattern that makes us incompatible. Therefore I must simply concentrate my efforts elsewhere: with those from my point of view I think can actually be saved.
Tell me a tale full of wonder and life - avoid this direct question again if you must reveal yourself again: Is it not religious prejudice that motivates the majority of people who are anti-gay marriage? When it must be admitted that it is does this not fall under freedom from religion in the constitution? Christianity, religion of love my ass it just happens to be what we were raised to be blind to.
I think we should have nookie rooms regularly placed throughout cities so couples can boink on a whim. Perhaps with cheering sections. But then again, I'm not a prude and I trust you to have the capability to just look away when someone would like to be nonconformist and express themselves.
You see, you think you won. But you have to live in your own mind :D That is the greatest revenge for him!
I've already given him a tag. I believe he's intelligent enough to infuriate but not intelligent enough to hide his true motivations.
How about giving child tax benefits only to couples who actually have children and equally giving the other benefits to all couples?
You may not see the need but I'm beginning to side more with Virak than yourself.
Most states means it's not over until its all rights in all states. Equal under the law.
I believe that teaching a child religion before they are capable of making a rational adult decision on what to believe is child abuse and those children should be rescued as soon as possible. It poisons their undeveloped minds. Now, we can have our differences of opinion but what matters is how the government treats people: equally under the law. And if the law isn't the same, straight or gay, then it will be made the same. Getting there will probably take the Supreme Court in this case and I know deep in my heart that every day of injustice that passes is one too many.
John and Joe humping in their bedroom is not an attack on traditional marriage. Bigots are making it an attack and setting poor John and Joe up. That is the issue. Just let John and Joe hump each others brains out and get co-signed on the mortage too like any other decent couple.
Saying: "you might re-apply for admittance into the world of adult conversation." doesn't help your own membership in said mythical organization. You are trying to pick these issues apart with intellect. This is doomed to fail, the issues are emotional in nature. This topic gets more results out of an emotional quotient than an intellectual one. Still messy as hell.
There are advantages to being married: government supplied ones. Equality under government is something to be desired. So if the gays can't get the advantages, take them away from straights? Poetic justice but would probably lead to more than a few deaths.
If your proposed answer is to nullify any advantages to marriage then that would also nullify the issue of gay marriage.
Arbritration would have to be a big component. And you as an individual would have to realize that there are wider consequences to entering into a multi-partner arrangement. But yes, a can of worms that while not inherently wrong would need care and attention and new case law to settle.
I think religion should get out of marriage. You want to go to your church and have water and rice thrown at you? Fine. Doesn't count. The only thing that should count is the government recognition of a union. And the only reason that should count is because it affects money. Government is regulation and they are regulating the money. Thats what counts. Gays have a strong weapon by pushing the separation of church (ideals) and state. It would be a supreme justice if before that court church marriages were deemed a ceremony only and only government issued civil documents carried any real weight.
The love for each other should be given preference. The man in the sky is much more difficult for me to experience but I have experienced love. Why is it only justice for some? Why is there justice, it is all just chemicals spreading semi-randomly. Let's get rid of all these chemically inspired soups and start with dumping the constitution. The only opinion that matters is the presidents and how well he does with keeping the GDP up. After all, those things can be measured.
Because we don't see eye-to-eye is the reason it is a struggle. I see people being pissed on. I know it's wrong and perhaps I could articulate it better: but it doesn't change the fact that I see them being pissed on.
Marriage is loaded with religion. As getting black people into white schools took the government to establish I believe getting gays equal treatment will also need government to initiate the break through bigotry. Since "marriage" is so contentious, what is wrong with civil unions? Gay people don't have to step into that horrid "church" to get their love recognized and get the benefits other groups of two people loving each other get. Do you support civil unions? If you don't can you argue from the other side and even if you don't believe it list reasons why civil unions should be?