Going forward is what this thread is all about. Injustice of the past cannot be undone but that absolutely does not mean we can't fix it in the here and now.
How deep do you think the roots against gay marriage go into Christian values? I believe they do go quite far and therefore assert freedom from religion.
Marriage is the only contract available. Don't want gays to have "marriage?" Give them civil unions instead: they get their rights and the bigots get to keep their bigotry. Civil unions and marriage are not separate because the people trying to enforce their values on others won't let them be. Puritanical Christians screaming sanctity. I'm not puritanical and barely christian so as long as I'm not hurting someone who doesn't enjoy it then, please, fuck off.
People marry out of love and consent. If either is missing - which in your example it seems to be - then it is not "marriage." And disadvantging younger "men"? Not their problem, when you decide you love a particular person it is not the states place to step in and say "your disadvantaging young men!"
They may differ in degree but the core of an ugly person is the same deep down when they enforce their prejudice on others. Might as well cut straight to that core: they have the freedom from religion too, it is for religious reasons that the debate is so heated. Christian morals are being enforced on those that obviously don't share them.
Cloning will offer a way for people who don't have the compatible equipment reproduce. That is not far off. My indignation comes mainly because of injustice in treatment. Marriage brings a whole host of benefits to a couple mainly in terms of how they can financially manage their mutual lives. Denying these benefits to people who love each other just as deeply may not benefit society but it sure as hell wrongs those individuals. Can't claim each others income together when applying for the mortage? I'll admit I'm inexperienced in the details of what gets denied but the fact remains: I was raised that we are all equals and I will rail against "traditions" that make some less equal than others. Society is defined by individuals not the other way around.
I think a binding thread to consider is that these unions are consenting. If everyone agrees to a contract with each other they should not be denied rights that others in contracts that are arguably identical enjoy.
Replacing the old irrational with a new irrational is worthwhile when its real people just trying to find their own path through life. It is iterative, someday life may be fair if new issues never crop up but that doesn't mean we have to give up on making it better right now.
That reminds me directly of a quote I read: "Don't support gay marriage? Then shut the fuck up and don't get one." You're right it doesn't need to be in your face but the issue does need to be in the face of those with that bit of evil in their hearts.
The fortune at the bottom of the screen is invaluable right now: "As long as the answer is right, who cares if the question is wrong?"
It's about awareness and exposing injustice in all the forums it even tangentially applies. I point out its a civil rights struggle regularly to my friends and family. Usually they shut right up and change the topic rather than confront their inner demons. Shining a light of obvious truth kills all but the most degenerate evils.
I did think of that while I was writing my post but the important part is: consenting. We should all agree to not tell each other, as adults, what to do. If a woman has twenty husbands and all the husbands are ok with that: it's none of my damn business. Or are we still stuck with women are property attitudes and lineage must be proven from a male dominated perspective?
Gay rights are the civil rights struggle of our generation. When you have two consenting adults living and loving each other and then telling them they cannot get life insurance on each other to cover their mutual home in case of tragety is bigotry. This "marriage is between a man and a woman" bit is exactly the same as "coloreds don't drink from the white fountain." I don't even happen to be gay and I can still clearly see this.
How about exploring this for a bit: perhaps the student has bigger things to worry about. Like say whether or not they are going to get shot on their way to class, or if that crack dealer is going to pummel them because one of their friends owes him. You know, just sayin' that its a whole problem. Drugs in schools are a huge problem and prohibition has only made it worse, education is what is needed, ironically, of wider issues than just the "teachers" in isolation.
Is this an end-run around the "served your time" part? I thought our theory of law was that once you served your punishment you were a Citizen again (yeah like convicts can't have guns...). So, is this indefinite punishment? And this is coming from someone who thinks animal abusers have serious psychological problems: the real problem is what when 1000's of different "registries" exist?
Exactly, what *when* they go out of business? Because on the scale of what gets done when a company is bankrupt customers are dead last. There are no more customers: the company is gone. What matters at that point is creditors and the more your owed the higher you are on the list. If there is no non-restricted version held in escrow with a lawyer who has explicit instructions to release when the company goes insolvent then FACT: Your purchase is gone.
And others with limited connectivity. I hope this DRM fails and fails hard, if only to scare other publishers away from something that is truly anti-customer (not consumer).
The issue is Apple is a gatekeeper and they are very opaque about their reasoning in the case-by-case calls. I'd rather have incompatibility and no-one telling me what I can and cannot do rather than be forced to choose among the paid offerings that are well integrated. Even if they are really shiny. I suppose this philosophy is why I run Linux, I know there are other philosophies out there: Microsoft's and Apple's existence prove this but this does not mean that I have to buy in. I think choice is a good thing, choose Apple if you like;)
I'm so glad you make all the hard decisions for me! Would you like to cast my next vote for me?? Oh yeah, when I actually succumb to mobile devices they will be open. This is like Microsoft telling you what software you can install on Windows! Is this the future? Twenty years from now Mac's will only be able to get applications from Apple's approved store? Yeah, I'm not gonna help with that.
Slashdot Mirror
They do it there for different reasons. I'm talking about here. It is religious here, someones imaginary man in the sky is being foisted on gays.
Going forward is what this thread is all about. Injustice of the past cannot be undone but that absolutely does not mean we can't fix it in the here and now.
Justice of the Peace time! Get them civil unions! Wait, what, can't do that either? Back to the root: marriage.
How deep do you think the roots against gay marriage go into Christian values? I believe they do go quite far and therefore assert freedom from religion.
Marriage is the only contract available. Don't want gays to have "marriage?" Give them civil unions instead: they get their rights and the bigots get to keep their bigotry. Civil unions and marriage are not separate because the people trying to enforce their values on others won't let them be. Puritanical Christians screaming sanctity. I'm not puritanical and barely christian so as long as I'm not hurting someone who doesn't enjoy it then, please, fuck off.
Denied services? Shit beat out of them? Doesn't happen? Where do you live cause gay people will flock there.
You must live a sheltered life.
People marry out of love and consent. If either is missing - which in your example it seems to be - then it is not "marriage." And disadvantging younger "men"? Not their problem, when you decide you love a particular person it is not the states place to step in and say "your disadvantaging young men!"
They may differ in degree but the core of an ugly person is the same deep down when they enforce their prejudice on others. Might as well cut straight to that core: they have the freedom from religion too, it is for religious reasons that the debate is so heated. Christian morals are being enforced on those that obviously don't share them.
Cloning will offer a way for people who don't have the compatible equipment reproduce. That is not far off. My indignation comes mainly because of injustice in treatment. Marriage brings a whole host of benefits to a couple mainly in terms of how they can financially manage their mutual lives. Denying these benefits to people who love each other just as deeply may not benefit society but it sure as hell wrongs those individuals. Can't claim each others income together when applying for the mortage? I'll admit I'm inexperienced in the details of what gets denied but the fact remains: I was raised that we are all equals and I will rail against "traditions" that make some less equal than others. Society is defined by individuals not the other way around.
You don't need to reproduce to love each other.
I think a binding thread to consider is that these unions are consenting. If everyone agrees to a contract with each other they should not be denied rights that others in contracts that are arguably identical enjoy.
Replacing the old irrational with a new irrational is worthwhile when its real people just trying to find their own path through life. It is iterative, someday life may be fair if new issues never crop up but that doesn't mean we have to give up on making it better right now.
Thank you! Putting that arrow in my quiver ;)
That reminds me directly of a quote I read: "Don't support gay marriage? Then shut the fuck up and don't get one." You're right it doesn't need to be in your face but the issue does need to be in the face of those with that bit of evil in their hearts.
The fortune at the bottom of the screen is invaluable right now: "As long as the answer is right, who cares if the question is wrong?"
It's about awareness and exposing injustice in all the forums it even tangentially applies. I point out its a civil rights struggle regularly to my friends and family. Usually they shut right up and change the topic rather than confront their inner demons. Shining a light of obvious truth kills all but the most degenerate evils.
I did think of that while I was writing my post but the important part is: consenting. We should all agree to not tell each other, as adults, what to do. If a woman has twenty husbands and all the husbands are ok with that: it's none of my damn business. Or are we still stuck with women are property attitudes and lineage must be proven from a male dominated perspective?
Gay rights are the civil rights struggle of our generation. When you have two consenting adults living and loving each other and then telling them they cannot get life insurance on each other to cover their mutual home in case of tragety is bigotry. This "marriage is between a man and a woman" bit is exactly the same as "coloreds don't drink from the white fountain." I don't even happen to be gay and I can still clearly see this.
How about exploring this for a bit: perhaps the student has bigger things to worry about. Like say whether or not they are going to get shot on their way to class, or if that crack dealer is going to pummel them because one of their friends owes him. You know, just sayin' that its a whole problem. Drugs in schools are a huge problem and prohibition has only made it worse, education is what is needed, ironically, of wider issues than just the "teachers" in isolation.
Is this an end-run around the "served your time" part? I thought our theory of law was that once you served your punishment you were a Citizen again (yeah like convicts can't have guns...). So, is this indefinite punishment? And this is coming from someone who thinks animal abusers have serious psychological problems: the real problem is what when 1000's of different "registries" exist?
If they are still in business. If they go out of business its a whole different ballgame. Customers no longer exist to be pleased then.
Exactly, what *when* they go out of business? Because on the scale of what gets done when a company is bankrupt customers are dead last. There are no more customers: the company is gone. What matters at that point is creditors and the more your owed the higher you are on the list. If there is no non-restricted version held in escrow with a lawyer who has explicit instructions to release when the company goes insolvent then FACT: Your purchase is gone.
And others with limited connectivity. I hope this DRM fails and fails hard, if only to scare other publishers away from something that is truly anti-customer (not consumer).
The issue is Apple is a gatekeeper and they are very opaque about their reasoning in the case-by-case calls. I'd rather have incompatibility and no-one telling me what I can and cannot do rather than be forced to choose among the paid offerings that are well integrated. Even if they are really shiny. I suppose this philosophy is why I run Linux, I know there are other philosophies out there: Microsoft's and Apple's existence prove this but this does not mean that I have to buy in. I think choice is a good thing, choose Apple if you like ;)
I'm so glad you make all the hard decisions for me! Would you like to cast my next vote for me?? Oh yeah, when I actually succumb to mobile devices they will be open. This is like Microsoft telling you what software you can install on Windows! Is this the future? Twenty years from now Mac's will only be able to get applications from Apple's approved store? Yeah, I'm not gonna help with that.