These "These [Did anyone else read it as|In Soviet Russia|X is deader than BSD] jokes are getting old" whines are getting increasingly more tedious. If you don't like them, add a -6 modifier to Funny mods and you'll be rid of them for good.
I happen to not mind the "Did anyone else read it as", but they have gotten increasingly unfunny.
Got it all wrong. You've gotta be the tophat, and buy out all the purple and light blue properties. They are cheap to buy, cheap to build on, and you make a hell of a lot more money bleeding for fellow players as they try to avoid "skid row" than you ever will going for the throat.
You need a least 1 out of red/green/yellow to get you through some lean slum lord times.
And then, of course, the vast number of women who are abused by men, and go on to... have other abusive relationships with men. In fact, given the relative numbers of gay to straight women, there are likely more straight women that have been abused than gay women. I guess they're just so confused, they don't even know to be gay.
Thanks. You've really opened my eyes.
Age is a large factor I've noticed. I don't really do tons of scientific work on people I consider friends, but the next time we are all drunk, I'll see if I can determine anything else for you.
There are also (rare) people that have a neurological design that regardless of age never develops to the point of having lust-type urges at all; even hormone therapy doesn't make a difference. Love is for us is related to an interest in touching in general (normally we don't want to touch people), and sex is just another way to give/receive pleasure to the one person we've bonded with. In our case it's *really* not about procreation, especially if we are lucky enough to pair up with another of our design.
and I support whatever endeavor will bring you happiness, and wish you the best of luck.
But obviously (with no intention to insult you.) it is not a wanted effect to not have lust-type urges.
It's nothing to be fearful of, but it's not something you want.
I hope the best for you, but you have just illustrated my point exactly.
We're supposed to be a secular nation, ergo, no one should be married (as a legal word). All present marriages should be civil unions. "Marriage" should be left back to religion.
Great... then if we want civil unions for both, that's fine.
I don't disagree with that statement at all.
and yet, the issue is that you're pathetically close-minded.
So where is the essential difference? Unless I'm missing something else here, its the whole disgusting gay sex thingy.. but you don't have a problem with that.
It's not the disgusting gay sex thingy at all.
It's that the majority of people that are gay have been physically/sexually abused.
Majority harsh? Ask every gay friend you have. Come up with a percentage.
I've known over 50 people that are gay in my life time, with a current 15 that I would consider friends in the social element, and 2 that I would consider close friends.
All have been sexually abused.
Maybe it's just every gay person I've ever met. Maybe that invalidates my point.
I have no problem with anyone being gay. I have a problem when the concept is that we should choose to be gay, or that being gay is a choice. A 50/50 decision from straight or gay.
This isn't what it is. This will be my last message on the topic. Mostly because I need to get some actual work done, and this takes much longer than my normal slashdot replies.
Don't mean to offened anyone that is gay. If you're not gay however, take as much offense as you like. It's cute.:)
Meanwhile, if marriage is significant because of babies, then why do we provide 1. tax incentives 2. inheritance incentives 3. additional medical rights 4. legal incentives (privilege against forced court testimony) and 5. anything else I'm forgetting to married couples?
Okay.. we give all that to gay couples via Civil Union... We all live happily.... wait.. there's still a problem?
You don't just want the rights of marriage?
You want for everyone in the world to say, Yes.. Mr Gay Person.. Your love with Chuck is just like My love with Sarah.
That is the goal of the Gay movement. I think that is wrong. That is what I have a problem with.
I do not however have a problem with Chuck fucking Phil. This to me is fine. Perfectly normal, and okay.
So, you are also against marriage of people past childbearing age?
Obviously no. This is just an attempt to make my side of the arugement sound silly by going off the deep end. Continue.
What about infertile couples.
They can still marry.
Shall we ensure that they cannot marry?
Of course not.
If I get a vasectomy is it the same as a divorce? Does a marriage licensce require a note on reproductive health from your doctor and a guarantee that you won't choose to remain childless?
Are you done?
Oh, and you might be surprised to learn that procreation is actually possible without marriage (I learned that one the hard way.)...
So it does basically come down to not wanting to extend rights to faggots.
No. It doesn't come down to that at all. All rights of marriage will be happily given to "faggots." Civil Union, ta da.
So what is the problem here?
For anyone that says why should they call it marriage, it doesn't matter as long as they have the same legal rights as a married couple, well, you can't have it both ways.
Umm.. yes you can. Why can you not?
Because this isn't about marriage, it's about legitimizing gays?
Either the semantics does make a difference or it doesn't. If it doesn't then why make such a big deal about it yourself?
It does make a difference. Because this isn't about marriage at all.
I never said it was. Are you trolling for fun, or is this your standard conversational tactic?
I disagree. I feel as though it is a condition that is unwanted. If it happens, that is fine, but it should be something avoided.
Since there is so much resistance by a vocal minority, it's an uphill battle. If we just had a national election (unrigged thank you), that actually counted up every vote, I'll bet a resolution to legitimize homosexuality would pass easily.
and I disagree entirely. I feel it would fail easily.
There are plenty of people from all walks of life who follow the live and let live approach, as long as they aren't being manipulated by the media and special interests like the Bush administration, they will make the right choice.
I follow a live and let live approach. This has NOTHING to do with being manipulated by the media and special interests, and the fact you brought that up makes me question your agenda.
This is a simple concept. I do not want my child to be gay. Ask every person in the U.S. if they want their child to be gay.
More than 80% will say no (yes I'm guessing).
We do not want to legitimize something we do not want.
This has nothing to do with allowing someone who is gay to live, to be gay, etc.
It is not marriage. Simple. This is not about holding back rights, or anything else.
This is only about a gay man's want to feel like his love is exactly the same as a man who loves a woman. It is not.
What needs to be delt with here is a gay man's issues with needed to feel the same was as a man does towards a woman. Or any number of similar quandrys.
Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. While procreation is certainly important to the survival of humanity, it has no bearing on the validitiy of the love between two people.
Marriage does have to do with procreation.
Love is nothing if not about procreation.
Validity of love is an interesting term. So it is an attempt is to make love as valid as love between a man and a woman.
That's the arguement. No need to continue on about anything else.
Let's just talk about it, and finish it. It has NOTHING to do with marriage, and EVERYTHING to do about if the love between a Man and a Man is as VALID as the love between a man and a woman.
If it's the same thing. If it means the same thing. If it feels the same. etc.
The problem with the whole "legal union" thing is that there would still be a separation in everyone's mind about "legal union" vs. "marriage". The goal here is to take away any distinction at all levels between homosexual and heterosexual commited relationships. There is no difference and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply a stick in the mud. If you were to completely remove gender from the human race and just talk about our minds, this would not be an issue.
No. The problem is this.
Gay's say that people in marriages get benefits they cannot.
So, a legal union is created to thus make that arguement invalid. Okay, you can have the same benefits.
But Gay's do not want the benefits. They want to legitimize their lifestyle in whatever way possible.
You don't want gays to be allowed to have marriages but you want them to be allowed to get the same benefits and the same deal if they have legal unions? So you're getting all worked up over semantics? Over a word?
Pardon my language, but please tell me what the fucking difference would be then? I believe Shakespeare put it best when he said "a rose by any other name would still smell so sweet".
Yes, over a word.
The whole concept of this ideal, legal unions, is that gay couples can still enjoy the benefits of marriage, but cannot actually get married.
Because marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Because they can procreate, and make babies, and if no one had ever done this, we would not exist.
This is valuable in society, and life. We need to make babies....
I'm totally against gay marriage, and gay unions, but am otherwise quite liberal so you can discount anything I say basis on my inferior beliefs.
I tried this when I lived in Indiana to little success. My lack of college education seemed much more important than what I knew, could do, or had done.
Now I'm very happy with a wonderful job where I learn a lot. I would have rather had this in Indiana.
Just because I didn't purchase their products BECAUSE they gouged the price, does not mean I am any less entitled to the money, which is now the EFF's.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that kind of what mp3's end up doing? I don't watch television anymore unless I download the show.
I listen to old radio programs on mp3.
I download everything when I want it, deleting it a couple days later. This is as much on demand as I've ever wanted. It's great.
I know... it might actually last longer than a minute, *gasp*
These "These [Did anyone else read it as|In Soviet Russia|X is deader than BSD] jokes are getting old" whines are getting increasingly more tedious. If you don't like them, add a -6 modifier to Funny mods and you'll be rid of them for good.
I happen to not mind the "Did anyone else read it as", but they have gotten increasingly unfunny.
Got it all wrong. You've gotta be the tophat, and buy out all the purple and light blue properties. They are cheap to buy, cheap to build on, and you make a hell of a lot more money bleeding for fellow players as they try to avoid "skid row" than you ever will going for the throat.
You need a least 1 out of red/green/yellow to get you through some lean slum lord times.
But overall I agree.
And then, of course, the vast number of women who are abused by men, and go on to... have other abusive relationships with men. In fact, given the relative numbers of gay to straight women, there are likely more straight women that have been abused than gay women. I guess they're just so confused, they don't even know to be gay.
Thanks. You've really opened my eyes.
Age is a large factor I've noticed. I don't really do tons of scientific work on people I consider friends, but the next time we are all drunk, I'll see if I can determine anything else for you.
Thanks for the kind hearted discussion.
There are also (rare) people that have a neurological design that regardless of age never develops to the point of having lust-type urges at all; even hormone therapy doesn't make a difference. Love is for us is related to an interest in touching in general (normally we don't want to touch people), and sex is just another way to give/receive pleasure to the one person we've bonded with. In our case it's *really* not about procreation, especially if we are lucky enough to pair up with another of our design.
and I support whatever endeavor will bring you happiness, and wish you the best of luck.
But obviously (with no intention to insult you.) it is not a wanted effect to not have lust-type urges.
It's nothing to be fearful of, but it's not something you want.
I hope the best for you, but you have just illustrated my point exactly.
Interesting post. Thanks for making it.
We're supposed to be a secular nation, ergo, no one should be married (as a legal word). All present marriages should be civil unions. "Marriage" should be left back to religion.
Great... then if we want civil unions for both, that's fine.
I don't disagree with that statement at all.
and yet, the issue is that you're pathetically close-minded.
But I agree with you. Are you closed minded too?
Eh, I'm in Arizona so I could see how it would happen.
It's close enough to photoshop that instead of spending the time to crack it, i'll just use gimp instead.
It's helping people stay legal.
So where is the essential difference? Unless I'm missing something else here, its the whole disgusting gay sex thingy.. but you don't have a problem with that.
:)
It's not the disgusting gay sex thingy at all.
It's that the majority of people that are gay have been physically/sexually abused.
Majority harsh? Ask every gay friend you have. Come up with a percentage.
I've known over 50 people that are gay in my life time, with a current 15 that I would consider friends in the social element, and 2 that I would consider close friends.
All have been sexually abused.
Maybe it's just every gay person I've ever met. Maybe that invalidates my point.
I have no problem with anyone being gay. I have a problem when the concept is that we should choose to be gay, or that being gay is a choice. A 50/50 decision from straight or gay.
This isn't what it is. This will be my last message on the topic. Mostly because I need to get some actual work done, and this takes much longer than my normal slashdot replies.
Don't mean to offened anyone that is gay. If you're not gay however, take as much offense as you like. It's cute.
And this post is where it ends. The troll above doesn't want to discuss why he feels that homosexuality should not be legitimized
I went to lunch. Calm down.
Meanwhile, if marriage is significant because of babies, then why do we provide 1. tax incentives 2. inheritance incentives 3. additional medical rights 4. legal incentives (privilege against forced court testimony) and 5. anything else I'm forgetting to married couples?
.. We all live happily.... wait.. there's still a problem?
Okay.. we give all that to gay couples via Civil Union.
You don't just want the rights of marriage?
You want for everyone in the world to say, Yes.. Mr Gay Person.. Your love with Chuck is just like My love with Sarah.
That is the goal of the Gay movement. I think that is wrong. That is what I have a problem with.
I do not however have a problem with Chuck fucking Phil. This to me is fine. Perfectly normal, and okay.
Understand?
So, you are also against marriage of people past childbearing age?
...
Obviously no. This is just an attempt to make my side of the arugement sound silly by going off the deep end. Continue.
What about infertile couples.
They can still marry.
Shall we ensure that they cannot marry?
Of course not.
If I get a vasectomy is it the same as a divorce? Does a marriage licensce require a note on reproductive health from your doctor and a guarantee that you won't choose to remain childless?
Are you done?
Oh, and you might be surprised to learn that procreation is actually possible without marriage (I learned that one the hard way.)
So it does basically come down to not wanting to extend rights to faggots.
No. It doesn't come down to that at all. All rights of marriage will be happily given to "faggots." Civil Union, ta da.
So what is the problem here?
For anyone that says why should they call it marriage, it doesn't matter as long as they have the same legal rights as a married couple, well, you can't have it both ways.
Umm.. yes you can. Why can you not?
Because this isn't about marriage, it's about legitimizing gays?
Either the semantics does make a difference or it doesn't. If it doesn't then why make such a big deal about it yourself?
It does make a difference. Because this isn't about marriage at all.
I never said it was. Are you trolling for fun, or is this your standard conversational tactic?
Their lifestyle SHOULD be legitimized.
I disagree. I feel as though it is a condition that is unwanted. If it happens, that is fine, but it should be something avoided.
Since there is so much resistance by a vocal minority, it's an uphill battle. If we just had a national election (unrigged thank you), that actually counted up every vote, I'll bet a resolution to legitimize homosexuality would pass easily.
and I disagree entirely. I feel it would fail easily.
There are plenty of people from all walks of life who follow the live and let live approach, as long as they aren't being manipulated by the media and special interests like the Bush administration, they will make the right choice.
I follow a live and let live approach. This has NOTHING to do with being manipulated by the media and special interests, and the fact you brought that up makes me question your agenda.
This is a simple concept. I do not want my child to be gay. Ask every person in the U.S. if they want their child to be gay.
More than 80% will say no (yes I'm guessing).
We do not want to legitimize something we do not want.
This has nothing to do with allowing someone who is gay to live, to be gay, etc.
It is not marriage. Simple. This is not about holding back rights, or anything else.
This is only about a gay man's want to feel like his love is exactly the same as a man who loves a woman. It is not.
What needs to be delt with here is a gay man's issues with needed to feel the same was as a man does towards a woman. Or any number of similar quandrys.
Deal with that. That's the issue.
Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. While procreation is certainly important to the survival of humanity, it has no bearing on the validitiy of the love between two people.
Marriage does have to do with procreation.
Love is nothing if not about procreation.
Validity of love is an interesting term. So it is an attempt is to make love as valid as love between a man and a woman.
That's the arguement. No need to continue on about anything else.
Let's just talk about it, and finish it. It has NOTHING to do with marriage, and EVERYTHING to do about if the love between a Man and a Man is as VALID as the love between a man and a woman.
If it's the same thing. If it means the same thing. If it feels the same. etc.
The problem with the whole "legal union" thing is that there would still be a separation in everyone's mind about "legal union" vs. "marriage". The goal here is to take away any distinction at all levels between homosexual and heterosexual commited relationships. There is no difference and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply a stick in the mud. If you were to completely remove gender from the human race and just talk about our minds, this would not be an issue.
No. The problem is this.
Gay's say that people in marriages get benefits they cannot.
So, a legal union is created to thus make that arguement invalid. Okay, you can have the same benefits.
But Gay's do not want the benefits. They want to legitimize their lifestyle in whatever way possible.
It is a fixation that is held.
You don't want gays to be allowed to have marriages but you want them to be allowed to get the same benefits and the same deal if they have legal unions? So you're getting all worked up over semantics? Over a word?
...
Pardon my language, but please tell me what the fucking difference would be then? I believe Shakespeare put it best when he said "a rose by any other name would still smell so sweet".
Yes, over a word.
The whole concept of this ideal, legal unions, is that gay couples can still enjoy the benefits of marriage, but cannot actually get married.
Because marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Because they can procreate, and make babies, and if no one had ever done this, we would not exist.
This is valuable in society, and life. We need to make babies.
I'm totally against gay marriage, and gay unions, but am otherwise quite liberal so you can discount anything I say basis on my inferior beliefs.
if you have to read an entire message to tell that it's spam, the spam has succeeded.
I thought the spam succeeded if I actually sent money to nigeria...
Are you telling me that they profit from me wasting my time? Gasp!
Did the person wielding the mod points even bother to read the whole post?
I don't know, but I surely won't when I meta-moderate it later.
I tried this when I lived in Indiana to little success. My lack of college education seemed much more important than what I knew, could do, or had done.
Now I'm very happy with a wonderful job where I learn a lot. I would have rather had this in Indiana.
Indiana is utterly terrible. The Indianapolis Star is terrible.
:)
Monster has almost nothing.
The only decent place I ever worked at in Indianapolis was Anthem Insurance. Now I work in Phoenix.
Scumbag? I am donating the money to the EFF.
Just because I didn't purchase their products BECAUSE they gouged the price, does not mean I am any less entitled to the money, which is now the EFF's.
Now spam smell like its true name...
Spam will smell like spam? Yum!
and I'm slightly aroused by what the porn industry could do with this.