"I think it's a mistake to assume that just because something is traditional that it has value."
Do you mean society in general or just this specific topic?
"There is no actual evidence that homosexual marriage will harm..."
Yes, science will save us! Oh... Please go back 40 years and replace the words 'homosexual marriage' with 'smoking'. THAT'S science for you.
The truth is, we don't know WHAT the truth is. But you apparently are willing to throw away what's worked for something that is untried here. And your side seems to have no compunction about flouting the law in California - a law by the way - voted on by the people in 2000.
If you want gay marriage, then why not present it to the people that way? Why doesn't Kerry or Edwards speak up, speak out about the 'injustice' done to the homosexual community? Where are their voices for the cause?
You have no legal mandate to do this. Even your lib friends are terrified of what such a bold statement would mean - at least Bush has been honest about where he stands - not that he would expect any support from the homosexual community at large anyway.
Don't talk to me of civil rights when you have the very fabric of our law being torn in half over this issue with everyone just standing around trying to figure out what the next move should be.
"You are making a common error: assuming that marriage and its associated civil benefits are for the purpose of providing for children. "
No, you are here because of this 'unusual occurance' of children. Marriages often result in children. It IS an underlying purpose and it goes to the heart of our society (and any others I can think of).
"This argument is not based on reality No one is suggesting that the marriage laws be rewritten."
Some of them will be rewritten to accomodate this exception. Some of them are just IGNORED like they are in SF and New Paltz. I suppose it would be better to do all this legally, but that again, doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it.
"You are making the same arguments that were made against interracial marriages years ago. "
Your belief and mine differ about homosexuality. It's this definition that defines the whole argument: Is homosexuality a choice? I believe it is - heterosexuality is the natural order. Being black or hispanic isn't a choice and therefore their civil rights are (to me at least), defendable.
"These are undeniable facts.."
Uhmmm.. To use netspeak: Bwahahahahaha! If this argument has proven ANYTHING, it's that there are no such things. I think that your side bends reality around thousands of years of tradition for self-interest. Evidently, you don't agree with me.
"if you don't want to deal with gays or gay rights, don't."
If it were only that easy! Just roll over and play a dead neo-con, huh? I will defend my own rights where and when I can sir. Nonetheless, I already concede that gay marriage will become law. Our poor Founders had no idea that such things would be attempted and so there are no provisions against it. That's no clearer than here in Pennsylvania, an analysis of our state constitution yields that 'no person regardless of sex' can be denied civil rights.
That doesn't mean I'm happy about it - not in the least. Maybe it's your equation and definition of homosexuality that bothers me here. I believe that homosexuality is a choice - you probably feel that it's genetic. Regardless, the natual order is heterosexual - it's why you're here.
I don't feel that I, or the VAST majority who agree with me are somehow 'better'. I do think that marriage is an institution for a special case - men and women producing children. Something men/men women/women can't do alone.
I'm not instituting some new form of 'control' - this is the way it's always been. As more and more such controls are loosened, anarchy will reign - just as it is in SF, New Paltz, and elsewhere. The system will collapse simply because people will be able to point to moments like this and say, "Well, THEY did it, why can't we?" Care to guess what kind of system will replace the one we have now?
No, gay marriage isn't the end of everything - it's the beginning of the end. Tradition, morality, representative gov't. Ruined.
To me, that's something worth fighting against no matter how futile it is. You're asking for some sort of right to something that will affect 99% of the rest of the nation.
So it's all a joke, right? I'm glad you can laugh about it. This is what I mean about the 'institution' of marriage being weakened. But what the hell, its no big deal, right?
"Andrea Yates's children certainly didn't derive long-term benefits..."
Uhmmm, that's a little extreme for an example, isn't it? Yates is hardly a common model - there will always be exceptions. You wouldn't be here yourself without a mom and dad (no matter how badly they treated you). And you know what? NO homosexual alive today became a person otherwise - even artificially. Until that basic biology changes, this exception (in the form of marriage), should remain one.
"full, thorough understanding of what that involves..."
I understand this all too well. I'M not the one rewriting the traditional definition of marriage here:
'The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.'
So if you can rewrite what this means, why stop there? What IS age but a number, right? My point is that your type sets no boundries, no limits. That would be discriminatory, right?
"Are you disputing that it happened or are you just unhappy that it did?"
WTF - whose being 'dishonest' now? Of course I agreed with that decision because their local gov't officials were BREAKING THE LAW. You know, like they are in SF. Of course, you won't see a beatdown there, but in light of the attitude displayed there, I wouldn't mind it.
"...only a lot of hysterical blathering and dishonest, easily debunked arguments."
Well, that's the whole thing about opinion. I explained my point of view but I didn't expect him or you to accept that. I happen to think there's plenty of evidence, but then when you define reality so differently, there's going to be little, if any common ground.
"There you again with the blatant, moronic dishonesty."
No, no dishonesty (unless you think you were really supposed to believe it), rhetorical statements. I truly believe that the breaking of the definition of marriage will lead to such travesties. You don't have to share that view, but that doesn't make me a fucking LIAR!
Oh, and nice to meet you by the way. Welcome to the party!:)
"...breaking an unjust or unconstitutional law(and this is both) is a time honored form of protest. "
Yes, by citizens perhaps - but we're talking about elected officals taking the law into their own hands. That's far more serious.
"unlike you, i do not try to legislate my morality on others."
Not you personally, but there's been plenty of work to ramrod this down the throats of the American people - who clearly do not want this.
"i think maybe you really want to do a little man dating..."
Don't assume that my refusal to accept this as 'normal' means that I somehow have 'issues' with my own sexuality. This is EXACTLY the way in which you sow confusion amongst those who don't know better.
I'm very comfortable with my own preference, thank you. Was that an offer?:)
"But I would never compare you to Hitler; I don't believe in insulting the dead."
Ah, I see we're getting into insult territory now...
This is where any meaningful civil discourse ends unless you have something reasonable to say for yourself.
You know... Funny how for one so open minded and liberal you start degenerating the argument like this.
If you really wanted to have a good argument, you'd find a way to weasel out of explaining how our lawmakers/breakers are operating in SF currently. I see that you didn't/couldn't do that. Why not just simply admit that what they are doing is WRONG? Righteous indignation stuck in your throat?
Too bad, because I've enjoyed 'chatting' with you all the same. This is exactly the sort of thing I mean when I tell my liberal friends to let go of their hate. The hate for anything you disagree with shows it's disrespect - don't think that I or the majority of Americans you spit on don't see it.
---I couldn't put it better than the Family Research Council on why homosexual marriages damage the traditional family. I see no need to restate this, so here is some relevant info:
"...the most significant impact of legally recognizing same-sex unions would be more indirect. Expanding the definition of what 'marriage' is to include relationships of a homosexual nature would inevitably, in the long run, change people's concept of what marriage is, what it requires, and what one should expect from it. These changes in the popular understanding of marriage would, in turn, change people's behavior both before and during marriage.
For one thing, it would reinforce many of the negative changes described above. As an example, marriage will open wide the door to homosexual adoption, which will simply lead to more children suffering the negative consequences of growing up without both a mother and a father.
Among homosexual men in particular, casual sex, rather than committed relationships, is the rule and not the exception. And even when they do enter into a more committed relationship, it is usually of relatively short duration. For example, a study of homosexual men in the Netherlands (the first country in the world to legalize "marriage" for same-sex couples), published in the journal AIDS in 2003, found that the average length of "steady partnerships" was not more than 2 years (Maria Xiridou et al., in AIDS 2003, 17:1029-1038).
In addition, studies have shown that even homosexual men who are in "committed" relationships are not sexually faithful to each other. While infidelity among heterosexuals is much too common, it does not begin to compare to the rates among homosexual men. The 1994 National Health and Social Life Survey, which remains the most comprehensive study of Americans' sexual practices ever undertaken, found that 75 percent of married men and 90 percent of married women had been sexually faithful to their spouse. On the other hand, a major study of homosexual men in "committed" relationships found that only seven out of 156 had been sexually faithful, or 4.5 percent. The Dutch study cited above found that even homosexual men in "steady partnerships" had an average of eight "casual" sex partners per year.
So if same-sex relationships are legally recognized as "marriage," the idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive and faithful relationship will be dealt a serious blow. Adding monogamy and faithfulness to the other pillars of marriage that have already fallen will have overwhelmingly negative consequences for Americans' physical and mental health."
---I put no trust in a poll done by the liberal media. Remember how Howard Dean was supposed to win big also? Here's some reality for you:
California, arguably one of the most liberal states in the union voted for defining marriage as between a man and a woman in 2000.
Yeah, the Left never obfusticates the truth to get their way, right? Tell me, what IS 'is' anyway?
"...if someone wants to protest, it's their right."
Yes, and if that's all this bullshit going on in California was about, that'd be fine. Let them carry a banner and sing songs until the cows come home (or whatever will work in SF this week).
The problem here is your presentation of it. Your comparison won't shake off the fact that what SF is doing has nothing to do with protest. THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW. The *legislature* will determine the legality, not the mayor. The people in California HAVE already spoken to this issue!
"it is ridiculous to say that the existence of gays means that you cannot live the way you want. you most certainly can. now how about giving them the same consideration?"
Yes it is apparent that you aren't listening again. The EXISTANCE of gays isn't what concerns me. I know they exist. And if you can believe it, I do have gay friends as well. I totally respect their rights... Until they trample mine. If you can't accept the simple fact that most people feel gay marriage DOES affect the security of others, why bother arguing? Just go out and help other people break the law.
YOU say it won't affect 'straight' marriage. Don't you see that this argument BY ITS OWN DEFINITION has already altered the meaning? 'Straight'?! I hate the perversion of your definition on the grounds that 'straight' marriages are the ONLY legal ones as of this date.
Marriage in its base form really comes down to the health and future welfare of our country. Last I checked, the 'future' will involve children. Am I not right in assuming that man/man and woman/woman relationships are not in and of themselves child-bearing?
Since you folks love to use the courts so much, tell me, how do you propose to resolve the differences between states in 'alternative relationships'? Do you have any idea what a legal and moral mess this will be? And again, you didn't deny the fact that this is only the first step to even worse travesty.
Do YOU support the rights of siblings who wish to marry? Human/animal marriages? Anything goes - those things won't affect any 'straight' relationships, right?
Yes, it's discriminatory! So's my taste in ice cream, and although you can eat all the sherbert you want, I won't support a mandate that we all have to like it also.
Marriage is and should be a special case. It is an institution that has had its definintion for thousands of years. Well... Until now apparently, since you and SF seem to know more than the rest of us. It's amazing how you claim to respect the Founders words until you try and bring them into the present and support breaking the rule of law anyway.
I'm certain that Eugene winced when he saw the first page of this article. Trust me, Defender had some pretty cool graphics for its day - not like that article shows. Maybe I'm just being picky here...
I can tell you one thing - if Defender had actually looked like that screenshot I would've been FAR less interested. What did they get that from? My guess is the 2600 version of Defender II (what the pros know as 'Stargate').
I'll never forget seeing my first Stargate machine (Defender II for those not in the know). It was like my life suddenly had meaning again! Or... Something.
Man I miss games of skill like early Willams stuff. Back in the day where if you were good enough, you could keep a single game going for hours on just one quarter. Of course, it would take you MANY quarters worth of practice to GET that good...
Damn, I was thrown out of a lot of places too...
"Hey! HEY! It's time, it's time! You go on home now - it's LATE! You play the game for too long, too LONG! Go on now... Yes! NOW!" - A frustrated pizza show owner.
There is a difference between having incomplete information and out and out lying. Just ask the BBC. They were busted for distorting the truth of the situation. Our media and our politicians should be held accountable for their words in this matter as well. Especially the bastards who voted for it or stumped for action against Iraq even during the Clinton years. If there was bad information it was formed years before Bush even got into office.
"...the protesters are excercising their constitutional right to protest, or are you conservatives out to banish that as well?"
No, I'm all for it - if it's constructive. But what we have going on in California is a breakdown of law. What else would you have, some town in Idaho that forces every resident to own a gun because the second amendment suggests that they should?
It's one thing to have demonstrations and/or protests, it's another when the law is being broken. The normal state of affairs is for everyone to follow the law. When this breaks down there is anarchy. Are you proposing a switch to no government at all, or just one you personally feel better about?
"...just because there is a christian in office and he happens to be pushing your agenda, doesn't make it right."
Again, MY agenda? No sir, not mine! All I'm saying is let's not replace what has worked for years with theories.
In the case of marriage, true marriage, the real problem isn't gay rights - that's what's stated but that isn't it at all. The real problem can only be seen by those who have the foresight and moral outrage to realize what's next.
When you continue to breakdown the fundamental building blocks of family, you risk the destruction of this country. Today it's gay marriage - which makes no sense to me since a man/man or woman/woman can never hope to bear children on their own - something that the majority of us will do. Marriage is a commitment for society as well as to your partner. It is a civil act and forms the basis for society at it's core.
You liberals think nothing of mocking the traditional view, but it's a view that was formed over thousands of years. Without preamble, you would have the true meaning of it destroyed or at least severely weakened.
Don't quote the Founding Fathers. If they saw what you were trying to do they'd be disgusted. People forget that although this country was founded on reigious tolerance it was understood that meant CHRISTIAN forms of religion. In the early days of this nation they used to burn people at the stake for anything less. The Founders never intended for this sort of thing.
I'm certainly not suggesting that we go back to that, but I AM suggesting that the success of this nation has much to do with her heritage. Throwing that history away, ignoring all the lessons of what's gone on before is wrongheaded.
But the worst is what's to come next out of the travesty that is gay marriage. EXAMPLE: In Holland, you recently had a woman marry HERSELF. Could this have happened with a strict definition of marriage?
Let me ask you this: Since you believe that everyone should be able to 'do their own thing', how about marriage between siblings? Any problems with incest? How about a man who wants to marry his sheep? You think this is far-fetched, but then again, even GAYS thought the concept of marriage was far fetched not too long ago.
"...you see liberals don't want you to support gay marriage, just the rights of other individuals..."
Like my own? There are some things that are more important than SELF INTEREST. Where my tolerance becomes outrage is when the actions of others begin to affect me, my family, my nation. Don't pretend that gay marriage is somehow innocent of that crime. It will be just one more thing to help weaken an already abused institution.
You talk of fascism, while I'm simply pointing out facts here. We're on a slippery slope. Stupid slogans or lofty ideals won't replace the facts. Liberals ar
"...we don't persecute gays, or minorities. that's your deal."
Uh, no frankly it's not, and you don't know me. But I know what I see from the Left. Your side is the one who can't be straight up and tell the American people the truth about their true intentions. Let Kerry or Edwards FOR ONCE, stand up and say what they actually believe - what they'd DO, not just Bush/Nader bash.
Talk about rhetoric - what about when they asked them a question about gay marriages last night and both of these individuals said, "Well, we'll let the states decide..."
What the hell kind of weasel answer is that? I guess it depends on what IS is, huh? The question was, "Are you in favor of gay marriages?" You know and I know that they are - but they have to be sneaky/secret about it, don't they? The truth won't play well for your average Joe in Minnesota and you know it.
Meanwhile we have cities BREAKING THE LAW to allow gay marriage since apparently they can't do it legally. California passed an anti-gay marriage law. I'd say, at least in that state, the people have spoken. Or was THAT rigged as well?
The actual truth is, the Dems have 'supported' the gay lifestyle about as much as the Republicans do. They talk big about rights, but then back down when it counts. The gay marriage thing is only one small example.
Also, I don't mind that our country has had a Christian heritage for over 300 years. I don't think the track record of most Islamic nations are exactly models to follow. And countries self-imposing atheism found themselves without values or healthy government.
Tolerance is one thing but I don't have to like what I see, please don't confuse the two. My thinking that the relationship between a man and a woman in being the basis for marriage doesn't mean I hate anybody. Remember, it was the liberal Dems and their friends who've held the 'Hate Bush' rallys.
Keep in mind that it was this same Christian system that taught the importance of tolerance in the first place - which is why our government won't come and kill me for stumping for Ralph. It's also why I don't take the law into my own hands and burn down the Mayor's house in San Francisco.
Ultimately, it's about respect. Respect for the rule of law, gov't, yes, even the office of the presidency. NONE of these things are being shown by the Left and it's why Congress will remain (R) for the time being and Bush will probably win.
You guys really need to get over your hate issues...
"...everyone one is afraid Bush will get elected next time."
Really? You should get out of our liberal circles hit the countryside. There's reason why the house and senate are (R) - and will continue to be for the next four years or so. I suppose you can claim that there's no representation here (EVERY ballot is RIGGED man!), but I suspect you don't get out enough.
Please stop deluding yourself about a guy (Kerry) who can't make the most basic statements about how he stands on things like: Gay Marriage, Iraq Solutions (not just bitching about it), The Economy (not just condemning Bush), etc. LISTEN to him for Chrissakes - he says NOTHING! That may play now - until the convention - but at some point the man is going to have to own up to his lousy record and state what he actually believes. You may disagree with Bush (or hate him viscerally), but at least you know his opinion on things.
If there is no fear in your camp, why is it that a bunch of Dems protested Nader's run? You didn't see any Republicans there did you? And then there was this bullshit canned statement from the left about how Nader's run was 'self-serving'! What a crock!
Your side's hate - not Nader - is going to help you lose this next election. Hate is not enough to sway most thinking Americans (READ: those without an adjenda). In fact, hate has its root in fear (some would call ignorance). Americans tend to pick leaders who aren't afraid.
Face it, Hillary! is the one you should be pinning your hopes on... For 2008.
Not to be paranoid here but doesn't all this extra stray RF concern anyone? It's been proven that excessive radar signal was the cause of excessive cancer rates in some state troopers. True, those radar guns might have been a *bit* more powerful than what's being described here. Maybe the total exposure is dangerous like the great George Carlin once said, "...but only when swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time."
It's not that I'm concerned so much about one or two of these things. It's the constant bombardment of excessive signal that I worry about. Should we be concerned? All I know is I don't want some guy in a white coat telling me 25 years from now that I have inoperable brain cancer due to radiation exposure coming off my toaster oven or some other appliance. That would kind of... Piss me off.
"Aw, HELL YEAH! I gots me a RADARR in my car, my vacuum cleaner... Sheeoot! Even my CAT got an RFID collar!"
For no other reason than stock price. Aquisitions - no matter how stupid and pointless - often raise expectations and therefore stock prices, especially on tech stocks.
Think of all the bank mergers in the late 90's/early 2000's - guess who made all the money on those deals? Tons and tons of jobs lost, communities without competing banks, and a lot of wasted effort and money. But the execs made off big time.
But it's also true that Origin just wasn't the same when Roberts left and Wing Commander fell apart. Damn I spent a lot of hours on that game. Hell, I even upgraded to a 386 to play Wing Co II!
I'm aware that it's not just a simple detuning process but check out that Gibson! Each string does have its own information stream over Ethernet. Totally amazing possibilities there!
...(whether or not by design) is a "harbor house" of sorts for child pornographers, terrorists, and other criminals."
Oh, you mean like the Internet? Or maybe you mean SCO's definition of Linux? Or maybe how China looks at any sort of freedom of expression that isn't sanctioned by the gov't?
I'm NOT taking anything to extremes here - as I sometimes do to prove a point - these are all realistic and reasonable examples. I could also mention guns (if you outlaw guns than only...) or even democracy itself (even well educated people can make stupid decisions!)
Child porn and other filth exist because there is demand for it. Arrest the bastards responsible when possible - what else can be done? Should we also ban digital cameras and/or color printers because of their possbile infringing uses? There is a point at which we must realize that technology will bring us both good and bad consequences - but this does not mean that it is necessarily evil.
Is your argument about Freenet that it can be used to distribute bad stuff, or that YOU can't find any other legitimate use for it?
As usual, RMS penetrates to the core. The X Consortium has made this software non-free. Ultimately, right or wrong, they have the control.
But here's the issue - the last time this happened we ended up with GNONE (not that I dislike it) and KDE (not that I mind so much). Further fracturing the desktop (not that it's GNOME OR KDE's fault).
Can you imagine what will happen if the general consensus is to dump Xfree86 but NOT be able to agree on a successor? Then you'll have even more problems with compatability to deal with!
Ultimately KDE assured the community with a broader license but we all still live with the aftermath.
BTW, do you think that this licensing in any way affects or is partly because of Apple?
...nasty reviews made by rivals should be revealable as well. The one author interviewed said that he did it to couteract rivals who he felt were trashing his book.
Slashdot Mirror
"I think it's a mistake to assume that just because something is traditional that it has value."
Do you mean society in general or just this specific topic?
"There is no actual evidence that homosexual marriage will harm..."
Yes, science will save us! Oh... Please go back 40 years and replace the words 'homosexual marriage' with 'smoking'. THAT'S science for you.
The truth is, we don't know WHAT the truth is. But you apparently are willing to throw away what's worked for something that is untried here. And your side seems to have no compunction about flouting the law in California - a law by the way - voted on by the people in 2000.
If you want gay marriage, then why not present it to the people that way? Why doesn't Kerry or Edwards speak up, speak out about the 'injustice' done to the homosexual community? Where are their voices for the cause?
You have no legal mandate to do this. Even your lib friends are terrified of what such a bold statement would mean - at least Bush has been honest about where he stands - not that he would expect any support from the homosexual community at large anyway.
Don't talk to me of civil rights when you have the very fabric of our law being torn in half over this issue with everyone just standing around trying to figure out what the next move should be.
It's neither 'civil' nor 'right'.
"You are making a common error: assuming that marriage and its associated civil benefits are for the purpose of providing for children. "
No, you are here because of this 'unusual occurance' of children. Marriages often result in children. It IS an underlying purpose and it goes to the heart of our society (and any others I can think of).
"This argument is not based on reality No one is suggesting that the marriage laws be rewritten."
Some of them will be rewritten to accomodate this exception. Some of them are just IGNORED like they are in SF and New Paltz. I suppose it would be better to do all this legally, but that again, doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it.
"You are making the same arguments that were made against interracial marriages years ago. "
Your belief and mine differ about homosexuality. It's this definition that defines the whole argument: Is homosexuality a choice? I believe it is - heterosexuality is the natural order. Being black or hispanic isn't a choice and therefore their civil rights are (to me at least), defendable.
"These are undeniable facts.."
Uhmmm.. To use netspeak: Bwahahahahaha! If this argument has proven ANYTHING, it's that there are no such things. I think that your side bends reality around thousands of years of tradition for self-interest. Evidently, you don't agree with me.
Well... At least THAT'S a fact...
Maybe.
"if you don't want to deal with gays or gay rights, don't."
If it were only that easy! Just roll over and play a dead neo-con, huh? I will defend my own rights where and when I can sir. Nonetheless, I already concede that gay marriage will become law. Our poor Founders had no idea that such things would be attempted and so there are no provisions against it. That's no clearer than here in Pennsylvania, an analysis of our state constitution yields that 'no person regardless of sex' can be denied civil rights.
That doesn't mean I'm happy about it - not in the least. Maybe it's your equation and definition of homosexuality that bothers me here. I believe that homosexuality is a choice - you probably feel that it's genetic. Regardless, the natual order is heterosexual - it's why you're here.
I don't feel that I, or the VAST majority who agree with me are somehow 'better'. I do think that marriage is an institution for a special case - men and women producing children. Something men/men women/women can't do alone.
I'm not instituting some new form of 'control' - this is the way it's always been. As more and more such controls are loosened, anarchy will reign - just as it is in SF, New Paltz, and elsewhere. The system will collapse simply because people will be able to point to moments like this and say, "Well, THEY did it, why can't we?" Care to guess what kind of system will replace the one we have now?
No, gay marriage isn't the end of everything - it's the beginning of the end. Tradition, morality, representative gov't. Ruined.
To me, that's something worth fighting against no matter how futile it is. You're asking for some sort of right to something that will affect 99% of the rest of the nation.
"the marriage has no official standing."
:)
So it's all a joke, right? I'm glad you can laugh about it. This is what I mean about the 'institution' of marriage being weakened. But what the hell, its no big deal, right?
"Andrea Yates's children certainly didn't derive long-term benefits..."
Uhmmm, that's a little extreme for an example, isn't it? Yates is hardly a common model - there will always be exceptions. You wouldn't be here yourself without a mom and dad (no matter how badly they treated you). And you know what? NO homosexual alive today became a person otherwise - even artificially. Until that basic biology changes, this exception (in the form of marriage), should remain one.
"full, thorough understanding of what that involves..."
I understand this all too well. I'M not the one rewriting the traditional definition of marriage here:
'The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.'
So if you can rewrite what this means, why stop there? What IS age but a number, right? My point is that your type sets no boundries, no limits. That would be discriminatory, right?
"Are you disputing that it happened or are you just unhappy that it did?"
WTF - whose being 'dishonest' now? Of course I agreed with that decision because their local gov't officials were BREAKING THE LAW. You know, like they are in SF. Of course, you won't see a beatdown there, but in light of the attitude displayed there, I wouldn't mind it.
"...only a lot of hysterical blathering and dishonest, easily debunked arguments."
Well, that's the whole thing about opinion. I explained my point of view but I didn't expect him or you to accept that. I happen to think there's plenty of evidence, but then when you define reality so differently, there's going to be little, if any common ground.
"There you again with the blatant, moronic dishonesty."
No, no dishonesty (unless you think you were really supposed to believe it), rhetorical statements. I truly believe that the breaking of the definition of marriage will lead to such travesties. You don't have to share that view, but that doesn't make me a fucking LIAR!
Oh, and nice to meet you by the way. Welcome to the party!
"...breaking an unjust or unconstitutional law(and this is both) is a time honored form of protest. "
:)
Yes, by citizens perhaps - but we're talking about elected officals taking the law into their own hands. That's far more serious.
"unlike you, i do not try to legislate my morality on others."
Not you personally, but there's been plenty of work to ramrod this down the throats of the American people - who clearly do not want this.
"i think maybe you really want to do a little man dating..."
Don't assume that my refusal to accept this as 'normal' means that I somehow have 'issues' with my own sexuality. This is EXACTLY the way in which you sow confusion amongst those who don't know better.
I'm very comfortable with my own preference, thank you. Was that an offer?
"But I would never compare you to Hitler; I don't believe in insulting the dead."
Ah, I see we're getting into insult territory now...
This is where any meaningful civil discourse ends unless you have something reasonable to say for yourself.
You know... Funny how for one so open minded and liberal you start degenerating the argument like this.
If you really wanted to have a good argument, you'd find a way to weasel out of explaining how our lawmakers/breakers are operating in SF currently. I see that you didn't/couldn't do that. Why not just simply admit that what they are doing is WRONG? Righteous indignation stuck in your throat?
Too bad, because I've enjoyed 'chatting' with you all the same. This is exactly the sort of thing I mean when I tell my liberal friends to let go of their hate. The hate for anything you disagree with shows it's disrespect - don't think that I or the majority of Americans you spit on don't see it.
Here's the info you wanted proof for:
---Dutch woman marries herself:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_750 542.html?m enu=news.quirkies
---I couldn't put it better than the Family Research Council on why homosexual marriages damage the traditional family. I see no need to restate this, so here is some relevant info:
"...the most significant impact of legally recognizing same-sex unions would be more indirect. Expanding the definition of what 'marriage' is to include relationships of a homosexual nature would inevitably, in the long run, change people's concept of what marriage is, what it requires, and what one should expect from it. These changes in the popular understanding of marriage would, in turn, change people's behavior both before and during marriage.
For one thing, it would reinforce many of the negative changes described above. As an example, marriage will open wide the door to homosexual adoption, which will simply lead to more children suffering the negative consequences of growing up without both a mother and a father.
Among homosexual men in particular, casual sex, rather than committed relationships, is the rule and not the exception. And even when they do enter into a more committed relationship, it is usually of relatively short duration. For example, a study of homosexual men in the Netherlands (the first country in the world to legalize "marriage" for same-sex couples), published in the journal AIDS in 2003, found that the average length of "steady partnerships" was not more than 2 years (Maria Xiridou et al., in AIDS 2003, 17:1029-1038).
In addition, studies have shown that even homosexual men who are in "committed" relationships are not sexually faithful to each other. While infidelity among heterosexuals is much too common, it does not begin to compare to the rates among homosexual men. The 1994 National Health and Social Life Survey, which remains the most comprehensive study of Americans' sexual practices ever undertaken, found that 75 percent of married men and 90 percent of married women had been sexually faithful to their spouse. On the other hand, a major study of homosexual men in "committed" relationships found that only seven out of 156 had been sexually faithful, or 4.5 percent. The Dutch study cited above found that even homosexual men in "steady partnerships" had an average of eight "casual" sex partners per year.
So if same-sex relationships are legally recognized as "marriage," the idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive and faithful relationship will be dealt a serious blow. Adding monogamy and faithfulness to the other pillars of marriage that have already fallen will have overwhelmingly negative consequences for Americans' physical and mental health."
---I put no trust in a poll done by the liberal media. Remember how Howard Dean was supposed to win big also? Here's some reality for you:
California, arguably one of the most liberal states in the union voted for defining marriage as between a man and a woman in 2000.
"you don't present it as the absolute truth..."
Yeah, the Left never obfusticates the truth to get their way, right? Tell me, what IS 'is' anyway?
"...if someone wants to protest, it's their right."
Yes, and if that's all this bullshit going on in California was about, that'd be fine. Let them carry a banner and sing songs until the cows come home (or whatever will work in SF this week).
The problem here is your presentation of it. Your comparison won't shake off the fact that what SF is doing has nothing to do with protest. THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW. The *legislature* will determine the legality, not the mayor. The people in California HAVE already spoken to this issue!
"it is ridiculous to say that the existence of gays means that you cannot live the way you want. you most certainly can. now how about giving them the same consideration?"
Yes it is apparent that you aren't listening again. The EXISTANCE of gays isn't what concerns me. I know they exist. And if you can believe it, I do have gay friends as well. I totally respect their rights... Until they trample mine. If you can't accept the simple fact that most people feel gay marriage DOES affect the security of others, why bother arguing? Just go out and help other people break the law.
YOU say it won't affect 'straight' marriage. Don't you see that this argument BY ITS OWN DEFINITION has already altered the meaning? 'Straight'?! I hate the perversion of your definition on the grounds that 'straight' marriages are the ONLY legal ones as of this date.
Marriage in its base form really comes down to the health and future welfare of our country. Last I checked, the 'future' will involve children. Am I not right in assuming that man/man and woman/woman relationships are not in and of themselves child-bearing?
Since you folks love to use the courts so much, tell me, how do you propose to resolve the differences between states in 'alternative relationships'? Do you have any idea what a legal and moral mess this will be? And again, you didn't deny the fact that this is only the first step to even worse travesty.
Do YOU support the rights of siblings who wish to marry? Human/animal marriages? Anything goes - those things won't affect any 'straight' relationships, right?
Yes, it's discriminatory! So's my taste in ice cream, and although you can eat all the sherbert you want, I won't support a mandate that we all have to like it also.
Marriage is and should be a special case. It is an institution that has had its definintion for thousands of years. Well... Until now apparently, since you and SF seem to know more than the rest of us. It's amazing how you claim to respect the Founders words until you try and bring them into the present and support breaking the rule of law anyway.
I'm certain that Eugene winced when he saw the first page of this article. Trust me, Defender had some pretty cool graphics for its day - not like that article shows. Maybe I'm just being picky here...
I can tell you one thing - if Defender had actually looked like that screenshot I would've been FAR less interested. What did they get that from? My guess is the 2600 version of Defender II (what the pros know as 'Stargate').
I'll never forget seeing my first Stargate machine (Defender II for those not in the know). It was like my life suddenly had meaning again! Or... Something.
Man I miss games of skill like early Willams stuff. Back in the day where if you were good enough, you could keep a single game going for hours on just one quarter. Of course, it would take you MANY quarters worth of practice to GET that good...
Damn, I was thrown out of a lot of places too...
"Hey! HEY! It's time, it's time! You go on home now - it's LATE! You play the game for too long, too LONG! Go on now... Yes! NOW!" - A frustrated pizza show owner.
"you mean like lying about WMD's?"
There is a difference between having incomplete information and out and out lying. Just ask the BBC. They were busted for distorting the truth of the situation. Our media and our politicians should be held accountable for their words in this matter as well. Especially the bastards who voted for it or stumped for action against Iraq even during the Clinton years. If there was bad information it was formed years before Bush even got into office.
"...the protesters are excercising their constitutional right to protest, or are you conservatives out to banish that as well?"
No, I'm all for it - if it's constructive. But what we have going on in California is a breakdown of law. What else would you have, some town in Idaho that forces every resident to own a gun because the second amendment suggests that they should?
It's one thing to have demonstrations and/or protests, it's another when the law is being broken. The normal state of affairs is for everyone to follow the law. When this breaks down there is anarchy. Are you proposing a switch to no government at all, or just one you personally feel better about?
"...just because there is a christian in office and he happens to be pushing your agenda, doesn't make it right."
Again, MY agenda? No sir, not mine! All I'm saying is let's not replace what has worked for years with theories.
In the case of marriage, true marriage, the real problem isn't gay rights - that's what's stated but that isn't it at all. The real problem can only be seen by those who have the foresight and moral outrage to realize what's next.
When you continue to breakdown the fundamental building blocks of family, you risk the destruction of this country. Today it's gay marriage - which makes no sense to me since a man/man or woman/woman can never hope to bear children on their own - something that the majority of us will do. Marriage is a commitment for society as well as to your partner. It is a civil act and forms the basis for society at it's core.
You liberals think nothing of mocking the traditional view, but it's a view that was formed over thousands of years. Without preamble, you would have the true meaning of it destroyed or at least severely weakened.
Don't quote the Founding Fathers. If they saw what you were trying to do they'd be disgusted. People forget that although this country was founded on reigious tolerance it was understood that meant CHRISTIAN forms of religion. In the early days of this nation they used to burn people at the stake for anything less. The Founders never intended for this sort of thing.
I'm certainly not suggesting that we go back to that, but I AM suggesting that the success of this nation has much to do with her heritage. Throwing that history away, ignoring all the lessons of what's gone on before is wrongheaded.
But the worst is what's to come next out of the travesty that is gay marriage. EXAMPLE: In Holland, you recently had a woman marry HERSELF. Could this have happened with a strict definition of marriage?
Let me ask you this: Since you believe that everyone should be able to 'do their own thing', how about marriage between siblings? Any problems with incest? How about a man who wants to marry his sheep? You think this is far-fetched, but then again, even GAYS thought the concept of marriage was far fetched not too long ago.
"...you see liberals don't want you to support gay marriage, just the rights of other individuals..."
Like my own? There are some things that are more important than SELF INTEREST. Where my tolerance becomes outrage is when the actions of others begin to affect me, my family, my nation. Don't pretend that gay marriage is somehow innocent of that crime. It will be just one more thing to help weaken an already abused institution.
You talk of fascism, while I'm simply pointing out facts here. We're on a slippery slope. Stupid slogans or lofty ideals won't replace the facts. Liberals ar
"...we don't persecute gays, or minorities. that's your deal."
Uh, no frankly it's not, and you don't know me. But I know what I see from the Left. Your side is the one who can't be straight up and tell the American people the truth about their true intentions. Let Kerry or Edwards FOR ONCE, stand up and say what they actually believe - what they'd DO, not just Bush/Nader bash.
Talk about rhetoric - what about when they asked them a question about gay marriages last night and both of these individuals said, "Well, we'll let the states decide..."
What the hell kind of weasel answer is that? I guess it depends on what IS is, huh? The question was, "Are you in favor of gay marriages?" You know and I know that they are - but they have to be sneaky/secret about it, don't they? The truth won't play well for your average Joe in Minnesota and you know it.
Meanwhile we have cities BREAKING THE LAW to allow gay marriage since apparently they can't do it legally. California passed an anti-gay marriage law. I'd say, at least in that state, the people have spoken. Or was THAT rigged as well?
The actual truth is, the Dems have 'supported' the gay lifestyle about as much as the Republicans do. They talk big about rights, but then back down when it counts. The gay marriage thing is only one small example.
Also, I don't mind that our country has had a Christian heritage for over 300 years. I don't think the track record of most Islamic nations are exactly models to follow. And countries self-imposing atheism found themselves without values or healthy government.
Tolerance is one thing but I don't have to like what I see, please don't confuse the two. My thinking that the relationship between a man and a woman in being the basis for marriage doesn't mean I hate anybody. Remember, it was the liberal Dems and their friends who've held the 'Hate Bush' rallys.
Keep in mind that it was this same Christian system that taught the importance of tolerance in the first place - which is why our government won't come and kill me for stumping for Ralph. It's also why I don't take the law into my own hands and burn down the Mayor's house in San Francisco.
Ultimately, it's about respect. Respect for the rule of law, gov't, yes, even the office of the presidency. NONE of these things are being shown by the Left and it's why Congress will remain (R) for the time being and Bush will probably win.
You guys really need to get over your hate issues...
"...everyone one is afraid Bush will get elected next time."
Really? You should get out of our liberal circles hit the countryside. There's reason why the house and senate are (R) - and will continue to be for the next four years or so. I suppose you can claim that there's no representation here (EVERY ballot is RIGGED man!), but I suspect you don't get out enough.
Please stop deluding yourself about a guy (Kerry) who can't make the most basic statements about how he stands on things like: Gay Marriage, Iraq Solutions (not just bitching about it), The Economy (not just condemning Bush), etc. LISTEN to him for Chrissakes - he says NOTHING! That may play now - until the convention - but at some point the man is going to have to own up to his lousy record and state what he actually believes. You may disagree with Bush (or hate him viscerally), but at least you know his opinion on things.
If there is no fear in your camp, why is it that a bunch of Dems protested Nader's run? You didn't see any Republicans there did you? And then there was this bullshit canned statement from the left about how Nader's run was 'self-serving'! What a crock!
Your side's hate - not Nader - is going to help you lose this next election. Hate is not enough to sway most thinking Americans (READ: those without an adjenda). In fact, hate has its root in fear (some would call ignorance). Americans tend to pick leaders who aren't afraid.
Face it, Hillary! is the one you should be pinning your hopes on... For 2008.
Not to be paranoid here but doesn't all this extra stray RF concern anyone? It's been proven that excessive radar signal was the cause of excessive cancer rates in some state troopers. True, those radar guns might have been a *bit* more powerful than what's being described here. Maybe the total exposure is dangerous like the great George Carlin once said, "...but only when swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time."
It's not that I'm concerned so much about one or two of these things. It's the constant bombardment of excessive signal that I worry about. Should we be concerned? All I know is I don't want some guy in a white coat telling me 25 years from now that I have inoperable brain cancer due to radiation exposure coming off my toaster oven or some other appliance. That would kind of... Piss me off.
"Aw, HELL YEAH! I gots me a RADARR in my car, my vacuum cleaner... Sheeoot! Even my CAT got an RFID collar!"
This is in referrence to raids on Kazaa in Australia.
Not a great post, but certainly not offtopic.
For no other reason than stock price. Aquisitions - no matter how stupid and pointless - often raise expectations and therefore stock prices, especially on tech stocks.
Think of all the bank mergers in the late 90's/early 2000's - guess who made all the money on those deals? Tons and tons of jobs lost, communities without competing banks, and a lot of wasted effort and money. But the execs made off big time.
But it's also true that Origin just wasn't the same when Roberts left and Wing Commander fell apart. Damn I spent a lot of hours on that game. Hell, I even upgraded to a 386 to play Wing Co II!
A.S.S.
Another Server Slashdotted
You figure that they could get at least ONE of these things in the air after all this time. It's not like helicopters are a new invention or anything.
If they weren't flying the bitch - I wonder what it was they WERE doing all this time. Not angry, just very curious...
Hmmm.. You get to see some GREAT views of it in action in 'Contact'! :)
I'm aware that it's not just a simple detuning process but check out that Gibson! Each string does have its own information stream over Ethernet. Totally amazing possibilities there!
...digitally? What if you could simply change tone by re-routing the output to a computer which then samples and changes the tuning on the fly?
True, there'd be some degree of delay, but I would think you could get a similar effect set up to do this digitally.
Case in point, what about Gibson's Ethernet guitar?
http://www.gibsonmagic.com/digitalguitar.html
Since the information is digital to begin with, isn't this same thing possible with minimal delay and without all the analog servos?
...(whether or not by design) is a "harbor house" of sorts for child pornographers, terrorists, and other criminals."
Oh, you mean like the Internet? Or maybe you mean SCO's definition of Linux? Or maybe how China looks at any sort of freedom of expression that isn't sanctioned by the gov't?
I'm NOT taking anything to extremes here - as I sometimes do to prove a point - these are all realistic and reasonable examples. I could also mention guns (if you outlaw guns than only...) or even democracy itself (even well educated people can make stupid decisions!)
Child porn and other filth exist because there is demand for it. Arrest the bastards responsible when possible - what else can be done? Should we also ban digital cameras and/or color printers because of their possbile infringing uses? There is a point at which we must realize that technology will bring us both good and bad consequences - but this does not mean that it is necessarily evil.
Is your argument about Freenet that it can be used to distribute bad stuff, or that YOU can't find any other legitimate use for it?
Why can't Comcast try and scoop up Pixar all to itself if that's what it really wants?
As usual, RMS penetrates to the core. The X Consortium has made this software non-free. Ultimately, right or wrong, they have the control.
But here's the issue - the last time this happened we ended up with GNONE (not that I dislike it) and KDE (not that I mind so much). Further fracturing the desktop (not that it's GNOME OR KDE's fault).
Can you imagine what will happen if the general consensus is to dump Xfree86 but NOT be able to agree on a successor? Then you'll have even more problems with compatability to deal with!
Ultimately KDE assured the community with a broader license but we all still live with the aftermath.
BTW, do you think that this licensing in any way affects or is partly because of Apple?
...when the author is deceased. When he ceases to be? When he is... No more! When... You get the picture... :)
...nasty reviews made by rivals should be revealable as well. The one author interviewed said that he did it to couteract rivals who he felt were trashing his book.
What to do, what to do...