"My point is this: It's wrong to treat others as lesser then yourself when they haven't done any harm."
(hey its good to debate with someone reasonable on here for a change;)
The only senses in which I'd say lesser would be; 1. its reproduction-impaired. There, thats about as PC as I can make it. So therefore it *is* lesser. Even with cloning or artificial wombs, for me this would still hold true since I believe that adherence to natural reproduction is important for the healthy development of our species.
2. it is my firm belief, having known and hung out with gays and transexuals for several years, that they are deeply confused people. I am not saying this out of ignorance and bigotry but this is my interpretation of my personal experience. They are ok people, mostly, but confused.
With respect to (2) hey, *I* get confused too and maybe *as* confused as a transexual but about different things so I don't hold that against them.
"Stone inscriptions, stored reasonably well, will last quite a long time."
And theres good evidence to suggest that heiroglyphics were *intended* to be legible for a long time; the writing system incorporates some amazing redundancy techniques such that its possible to lose lots of paint fragments from a section of wall and still be able to figure out what it originally said from whats left.
Gay couples are not the same as heterosexual couples.
I mean, what on earth would possess anyone to say that they are the same or even comparable?
Gays are perfectly entitled to live their lifestyle, sure, and so are heterosexuals.
Whats wrong with gay and hetero couples having different rights and priviledges? Surely it only makes sense?
Otherwise its like that sketch in Life of Brian with the guy that wants to have babies, or the Southpark episode where Mr Garrison has a sex change operation and thinks hes a woman when really he is a man with a mutilated penis.
At the root of it all, I believe is the nuclear family; raising children is a 24/7 operation.
You can't get a decent rotation with just two people. IMO at least 4 couples is the minimum for raising children.
The real problem is that the human race has been adapted to the needs of industrialisation, whereas it should have gone the other way around; the needs of the human race should come first.
Look around you and tell me that the society that you live in is not dysfunctional.
Sure, a dysfunctional society or family can produce decent individuals but they are the exception, not the rule.
I see no problem with gay couples having all the rights and privileges of hetero married couples (except adopting children) and I bet that most of the anto-gay-marriage campaigners would feel similarly.
Its just this insistence by gays that what they are *doing* is marriage that gets sand in everyones vaginas.
Using some other word would be a nice and civilised way to defuse the whole situation. But Noooooo the political correctness brigade insist that they shove sand up everyone elses vagina and so we have the mess that we have.
"More or less so then having gay marriage as illigal?"
No, that would be silly too. Gay marriage is just daft and passing laws with respect to it is a waste of time.
If gay people want to live together, I have no problem with that.
If they want to *call* it marriage, I have no problem with that. They are wrong and confused, but people are allowed to be wrong and confused.
It just seems that the word 'marriage' is best used to describe a reproductive relationship between a male and a female.
Oh and gay couples adopting? I was adopted, I know what its like. The thought of gay couples adopting chills me to the bone not because I hate gays, I don't. Because of human nature or rather its distortion.
Divorce is just a symptom. People should put more effort into finding the cause.
I do believe that divorce is way too commonplace, at least in the society I live in. Why? Can't people just suck it up and get along with one another? This is the generic problem in this society.
If you can't stick with someone long enough to raise a child then you shouldn't reproduce.
I don't know about making divorce illegal though, thats just silly.
"Really? I personally haven't heard any arguments against gay/poly marriages that were not rooted in ignorance, bigotry, or both."
Ok heres one for you.
I believe that the process of turning a child into a human being requires close and continuous contact with 'parents' of both genders. This way the resulting human being has a perspective on life that could not be achieved had they been raised by a same-sex couple.
Ok I guess you might say thats just bigoted if you regard the human race as made up of more than one gender or that gender is a continuum. If you did believe this then I'd argue that you were confused and should perhaps study human biology.
"So, you are saying that the issues like gay weddings, living wills, abortion, and the teaching of evolution simply are not worthy of debate?"
I think that what he is getting at is that they are not worthy of *political* debate.
My view is that politicians should have far more important matters of state to deal with and if they can waste time on issues like same sex marriages then maybe they arn't doing their job.
In NZ the politicians seem to spend a lot of time debating how much one another spends on underwear. Same problem different subject matter.
Someone who can get up onthe podium at a trekkie convention and look out over the trekkies all dressed up as klingons and romulans and starfleet 'uniforms' and say "Look at you all! Why don't you go out and get a life!" is ok in my book.
Even with his Mr Tamborine man rendition to consider, and Tek war, Shatner is cool.
"That's why \"news\" exists -- to make these OPINIONS the de facto foundation of public consciousness."
Jean Baudrillard, 'Simulations' circa 1983;
"Therein lies the secret of mass representation. It is no longer necessary that anyone produce an opinion, all that is needed is that all reproduce public opinion..."
Slashdot Mirror
"EXCUSE ME, where did this attitude and why have we come to this?"
Because, as George Bush pointed out not long after the Sept 11 2001 attacks, the terrorists have won.
I quote from memory;
"If the terrorists can make us change our way of life then they will have won".
Thanks for stating the obvious, George, but the game is obviously over.
"California auto stations are required to provide ... to any paying customers at their station."
So one could buy, say, a single packet of cigarette papers and fill up with all the compressed air you like?
No, not nothing. I understand;
"Double-quote enter enter enter enter enter enter double-quote"
whats so hard about that?
"frist post."
This must be the first time that an article actually has *less* spelling errors than the first post!
at last, a slashdot article that isn't a dupe and which I can completely understand!
"My point is this: It's wrong to treat others as lesser then yourself when they haven't done any harm."
;)
(hey its good to debate with someone reasonable on here for a change
The only senses in which I'd say lesser would be;
1. its reproduction-impaired. There, thats about as PC as I can make it. So therefore it *is* lesser. Even with cloning or artificial wombs, for me this would still hold true since I believe that adherence to natural reproduction is important for the healthy development of our species.
2. it is my firm belief, having known and hung out with gays and transexuals for several years, that they are deeply confused people. I am not saying this out of ignorance and bigotry but this is my interpretation of my personal experience. They are ok people, mostly, but confused.
With respect to (2) hey, *I* get confused too and maybe *as* confused as a transexual but about different things so I don't hold that against them.
"Stone inscriptions, stored reasonably well, will last quite a long time."
And theres good evidence to suggest that heiroglyphics were *intended* to be legible for a long time; the writing system incorporates some amazing redundancy techniques such that its possible to lose lots of paint fragments from a section of wall and still be able to figure out what it originally said from whats left.
No thats not the same at all.
There is bugger all difference between one race and another; they are more like family resemblances than anything else.
There is, however a very real and *obvious* difference between gay couples and hetero couples.
Just think about it.
Or go and read some Nietzche.
no, not equal.
They are different and incommensurate.
Gay couples are not the same as heterosexual couples.
I mean, what on earth would possess anyone to say that they are the same or even comparable?
Gays are perfectly entitled to live their lifestyle, sure, and so are heterosexuals.
Whats wrong with gay and hetero couples having different rights and priviledges? Surely it only makes sense?
Otherwise its like that sketch in Life of Brian with the guy that wants to have babies, or the Southpark episode where Mr Garrison has a sex change operation and thinks hes a woman when really he is a man with a mutilated penis.
and the divorce rate is going up or down?
At the root of it all, I believe is the nuclear family; raising children is a 24/7 operation.
You can't get a decent rotation with just two people. IMO at least 4 couples is the minimum for raising children.
The real problem is that the human race has been adapted to the needs of industrialisation, whereas it should have gone the other way around; the needs of the human race should come first.
Look around you and tell me that the society that you live in is not dysfunctional.
Sure, a dysfunctional society or family can produce decent individuals but they are the exception, not the rule.
Look, the word 'marriage' is already taken.
Find some other word to use for it.
I see no problem with gay couples having all the rights and privileges of hetero married couples (except adopting children) and I bet that most of the anto-gay-marriage campaigners would feel similarly.
Its just this insistence by gays that what they are *doing* is marriage that gets sand in everyones vaginas.
Using some other word would be a nice and civilised way to defuse the whole situation. But Noooooo the political correctness brigade insist that they shove sand up everyone elses vagina and so we have the mess that we have.
Thats exactly what I was thinking
"gaaaaahhhhhh replicators! noooooooo!!!!!!!"
then I realised they would be plastic brick replicators. Eminently meltable and crushable based on many years of childhood experience.
Lego replicators I could deal with as if I were Teal'c stomping them out.
yes well thats ok, you were just confused. Again.
oops, did I say that?
"More or less so then having gay marriage as illigal?"
No, that would be silly too. Gay marriage is just daft and passing laws with respect to it is a waste of time.
If gay people want to live together, I have no problem with that.
If they want to *call* it marriage, I have no problem with that. They are wrong and confused, but people are allowed to be wrong and confused.
It just seems that the word 'marriage' is best used to describe a reproductive relationship between a male and a female.
Oh and gay couples adopting? I was adopted, I know what its like. The thought of gay couples adopting chills me to the bone not because I hate gays, I don't. Because of human nature or rather its distortion.
Divorce is just a symptom. People should put more effort into finding the cause.
I do believe that divorce is way too commonplace, at least in the society I live in. Why? Can't people just suck it up and get along with one another? This is the generic problem in this society.
If you can't stick with someone long enough to raise a child then you shouldn't reproduce.
I don't know about making divorce illegal though, thats just silly.
"Really? I personally haven't heard any arguments against gay/poly marriages that were not rooted in ignorance, bigotry, or both."
Ok heres one for you.
I believe that the process of turning a child into a human being requires close and continuous contact with 'parents' of both genders. This way the resulting human being has a perspective on life that could not be achieved had they been raised by a same-sex couple.
Ok I guess you might say thats just bigoted if you regard the human race as made up of more than one gender or that gender is a continuum. If you did believe this then I'd argue that you were confused and should perhaps study human biology.
"So, you are saying that the issues like gay weddings, living wills, abortion, and the teaching of evolution simply are not worthy of debate?"
I think that what he is getting at is that they are not worthy of *political* debate.
My view is that politicians should have far more important matters of state to deal with and if they can waste time on issues like same sex marriages then maybe they arn't doing their job.
In NZ the politicians seem to spend a lot of time debating how much one another spends on underwear. Same problem different subject matter.
"Morality-driven debate is such a powerful tool because you can, by fine-tuning the argument, get a balanced 50-50 split on just about any subject."
So far as I can tell, the purpose of achieving 50-50 splits like this is to weaken democracy; it casts democracy into disrepute.
How can anyone say that whoever wins just the barest margin of majorities in an election is *representative* of the will of the people?
And we are seeing this pattern more and more often in western democracies; there is rarely a landslide victory any more.
Usually the outcome of the vote is a total balance with no clear winner.
Who wins then? The other rising geopolitical powers; the corporations.
One day those former democracies of the western world will wake up and discover that their form of government is actually the corporate republic.
ohhhhhh yes the teen yeoman Rand...
:-P
Someone who can get up onthe podium at a trekkie convention and look out over the trekkies all dressed up as klingons and romulans and starfleet 'uniforms' and say "Look at you all! Why don't you go out and get a life!" is ok in my book.
Even with his Mr Tamborine man rendition to consider, and Tek war, Shatner is cool.
Just not cool toward obsessive trekkies.
"That's why \"news\" exists -- to make these OPINIONS the de facto foundation of public consciousness."
Jean Baudrillard, 'Simulations' circa 1983;
"Therein lies the secret of mass representation. It is no longer necessary that anyone produce an opinion, all that is needed is that all reproduce public opinion..."
"How much coke do you think one of these things could carry?"
Dunno, but it would probably get a helping hand from Michael Jackson if you filled the coke cans with wine.
Oh wait, wrong 'coke'.
"For example, what happens when a ball of soft putty drops on a surface? It definitely doesn't produce an apparent splash."
You just dropped it. Too slow.
Throw the putty ball fast enough and I bet it will splash.
"Yes, Battlestar Galactica is better but I've seen them all now and the next series won't be here anytime soon."
Ok then heres something to keep you occupied;
Watch BSG over again only this time try shaking your head in such a way that the picture appears stable.
" All children should be made into leather gloves."
All *human* children.