I don't think Nintendogs is out in the US yet. Those as far as it being a "killer app", in the only store I've seen a display about it in the manager laughed and mocked it when I asked him about it. I'm not thinking it's going to sell to well out here.
I'll agree w/ you that the DS doesn't have a killer app yet. WarioWare was fun, yet short, SM64 was fun too, yet a remake, and nothing else I've seen really looks worth it yet, though there's a lot of games coming out that look really really good. Metriod Hunters, Final Fantasy 3, Lost in Blue, Lunar 3, Sonic Rush, etc. Which is much better than the PSP, where I've seen *no* games that interest me.
I have both a DS and an SP, and I really don't think the DS is much, if at all, less durable than the SP. Nintendo tends to make some pretty durable things. The Gamecube at the game store I worked at fell off the shelf so many freaking times and it still kept working fine, while the PS2s broke when you looked at them funny. The DS is built of the same stuff as the SP, so I don't see why it would be less durable.
You apparantly have forgotten the NES, Original Gameboy, SNES, Playstation, and Dreamcast. Each time a system ruled a market segment without challengers, that system was white.
I have all of those system, and none of them are still white today. I'ld much prefer a black system (or even purple or whatever), though I don't really care what a system looks like. They could design it to look like a giant turd, and if it has good games, I'll buy it.
Anyone who's old enough to play GTA is old enough to see whatever sex scenes the hackers can find on it. Though I'ld have to ask anyone who bothers to hack it why they didn't spend that time looking for real porn.
Maybe GTA should be rated AO. But I really don't think anyone gives enough of a shit about the difference between M and AO (17 and 18). Yeah, some stores say they won't sell AO games, but that's just because there's no AO game as popular as GTA. So all giving GTA an AO rating will do is put AO games in stores. Actually, that would be a pretty funny outcome to Media and the Family's bitching.
Doesn't the DMCA (as interpreted in court) prohibit U.S. residents from ripping and format-shifting DVD videos encoded with CSS, which includes well over 90 percent of commercial DVD video releases?
US residents don't care. Actually, I'm not even sure if that is illegal, but if it is, I can't see anyone caring. It's not like the feds are going to brake down your door and arrest you as you transfer your movies to memory card. Well, not yet anyways.
I tried Donkey Conga the other day in some game store. I couldn't figure it out at all. Granted, it was already past the tutorial, but still, it would have be nice it it was even somewhat intuitive. I don't think newbies would like it very much.
They do take it into account. However, they put in in the "Software Load" column (all software), and they don't put it in the "Software Shipped" column (non-pirated software). So, it's quite obvious they are counting opensource as pirated.
If you want your kids to be poor. If you don't go to university immediately after high school, you most likely never will.
Everyone told me that after high school, so I went straight to university, despite knowing very well I wasn't ready for it at all, making it the biggest mistake I've ever made. I failed out within the first year, spending plenty of money and gaining plently of debt. Oh, and the really ironic thing is that I turned down a job to go that was actually better than any job I've had since. So I would have been richer if I hadn't gone to school right away.
Also, I'm back in school now. As the sibling poster said, minimum wage jobs are a great motivator for going back to school.
This is just requiring an enforcement of the ratings.
TFA and all the other FAs I googled about this say nothing about enforcing the ratings that are already there. So, I'm assuming that this bill, like every other state that has passed (and overturned) bills restricting video games is just making up its own criteria, completely ignoring the fact that there is a ratings board that has been rating games for almost 15 years and might know something about which games are appropriate for kids and which games they should be restricted from. I'll be happy if I'm wrong, but this looks like just another muddled mess for gaining votes and wasting taxpayer money.
Why is everyone in such an uproar when such a simple and reasonable solution exists?
Because they're not taking the simple and reasonable solution. They seem to be ignoring the fact that there is a competent ratings board that has been rating games for about 15 years now and almost every single game out there has a rating on it. Instead, they have to make up their own rules. Washington had one (that fortunetely was struck down) that restricted games with violence against police officers, which would cover even some E-rated games (while excluding M-rated games with rape, amoung other things)making it a nightmare to work at a game store and figure out what you can and cannot sell, and not preventing kids from getting bad games anyways. Not to mention the cost to taxpayers to get it overtuned, which it probably will be. So that's why I'm not real fond of these kinds of laws.
Why is this so difficult? Don't sell M or A rated games to minors.
If that's what the law said, I'ld be ok with that. But it's not.
If they care so much about it, they'll make their own ratings board which will re-rate games according to their backwards-ass standards.
Who's "they"? Are you talking about the politicians? We have a good ratings system in place, why on earth would anyone want to replace it with people who can't even understand that games are media?
All this bill does, if I read it correctly, is create penalties for any store that sells games beyond a certain threshold (sexualy or violently, or both if you like it like that) to minors.
However, as I understand, the bill does not explain how violent or sexual is too much.
Frome the article: The measure approved Thursday would require store owners to determine which games are too violent or sexually explicit for anyone under 18. Anyone selling them to a minor could be fined.
So who's making the decisions about what's too violent/sexual? Does the store owner determine what's inappropriate, but if (s)he sells it anyways, (s)he gets fined? No, that doesn't make any sense. Does the store owner decide what to sell, but then a parent disagrees with his decision and then he gets fined? Well, that would suck.
The reason I hate these restrictions is because they are invariably too vague and invariably done by people who have no clue (video games aren't media, they're stimulations, what?). If they just legally enforced the ESRB, I'ld be ok with that, though I'm sure if they can, since ESRB is a private organization. But people who don't play video games making up random restrictions? I'll pass.
Office and Photoshop are developed for made for Business.
Office is not just for business. Students at all levels *need* an office suite, and probably everyone who owns a computer needs at least a word processing program. Of course there are options like OpenOffice and AbiWord, which I use, but not everyone knows about them/knows how to use them. It would make much more sense then to tell people about F/OSS alternatives rather than just tell them they don't need an office program.
Now I know from personal experience, that some software companies realize that for some people you can't get them to pay, no matter how cheap or what you do you are still not going to get some people to put up some money, and they will always find a way to get your software for free. THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT THEIR CUSTOMERS..... Most software companies would love to be in the hands of everyone who is learning a trade such as Graphic Arts, Accounting, and Design. Because they know once they graduate and go to work (i.e. make money), those people are going to want the same software they learned from, and will be future customers.
So then whats the problem, if pirates either will never spend money but will always be able to find the product for free, or are students who will be future customers if only they can try it first? All the "bad" pirates are doing is getting it in the hands of the "good" pirates, and since you're not going to stop the "bad" pirates, why waste money trying? You're missing the third category, the people who would buy the product, except they can get it for free instead. The problem with that group is that if you scare them away from pirating, they might very well just move to F/OSS, and I'm sure MS (and Adobe, etc) would rather there software get pirated than see F/OSS gain marketshare.
>>>IN some states they get benefits and recognition in plans due to plans at companies.
I think companies should be able to give benefits however they see fit.
>>>">>>I also did not say that cultures were marriages between one man and one woman.
Did you forget a word here? This doesn't make sense to me." - No I was more accurate in saying it was between one man and more than one women. I do not restrict myself to a specifically Christian Centric view.
Actually, what I originally said was "one man and at least one woman".
>>>-- Moving to Canada may be a good bet, they have a 5 year wait on citizenship, and the process is not quite as easy as you think.
Did I ever say it was easy? Why are you assuming what I think?
>> If you would like to lobby your government to get the laws _changed_ then by all means. This is a country by the people and for the people. Trying to force it as a rights issue begins to shift it into the Judical system, when it is not a rights issue.
I do lobby my goverment. I sign every petition, participate in every rally, and vote pro-gay rights at every election day. I'm not trying to force it as a rights issue; it already is a rights issue. How would you feel if someone told you that you couldn't marry the one you love? Don't you feel that you have a right to marriage and you'ld be rather upset if someone said you couldn't? I would, and that's why I support gay marriage.
>>>Homosexuals are not an ethnic minority. So arguments based on classifying yourself as an ethnic minority seems a bit odd to me.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone classify gays as an ethnic minority. I certainly didn't classify them as an ethnic minority, so I don't know why you brought it up.
>>>Homosexuals are a social minority, but there are thousands of those. democrats are a social minority (if the 2004 electon is an example). Pedophiles are a social minority, Gamers are a social minority, slashdot users are a social minority, etc... They all have something in common, a choice about lifestyle they choose to participate in. Social minorities are fluid and you can move in and out of them at will.
Being gay is nothing like being a slashdot user. You can't move in and out of being gay at will. I'm not even sure it's possible to change your sexual orientation at all. (Assuming you're straight..) What would it take for you to start only being attracted to the same gender and not be attracted at all to the opposite gender? Imagine (assuming you're a guy..) a hot girl walks past and you don't even notice her and check out her boyfriend instead. What's the likelyhood of you reversing your orientation like that? Probably not nearly as likely as you switching forums or political parties.
>>>Ethnic minority status is relatively static. I hope I have shown the difference here.
As I said before, no, gays are not an ethnic minority. However, you have shown me that they cannot be catagorized as a social minority either.
>>>You do have opportunites to change the laws, and this is through lobbying. Homosexuals are, politically, a special interest group, and they get what they want through lobbying and laws. Even the civil rights movement went the law route vs the judicial route. They had a congressional act to work from to work against a set of laws at the state level based on interestate commerce.
Sometimes lobbying is what's best, sometimes going through judical channels is better. The Gay Rights movement does plenty of lobbying, which should make you happy to know, but some of the issues need to be addressed through the courts. Interracial marriage was won through the courts, I imagine gay marriage will also be.
>>>Ok, I would argue that providing incentive before they have children is a bad idea, and only providing the fact that IF they have children then they get the benefits.
Which incentives specifically are you talking about?
>>>Your argument of "love" is moot, yes you love your fiance, and you may marry him and never have children then, oh well, you get the bennys without meeting the intended goals.
We're planning on adopting children, so we'll be raising children just like anyone else, including gay families in Oregon and whereever else gay adoption is legal. If marriage is to help people raise children, why shouldn't we (and anyone else who adopts, gay or straight) get the same benefits as those who give birth to children?
>>>Like I said, this is something that can be fixed, and you can lobby your congress to remove benefits for couples without children, I have absolutely no problem with this and encourage you to do so if you beleive in equality on this situation.
Why would I do that? Actually, what benefits do childless marriages get? If the two make about the same amount of money (which is likely without kids) they actually get less back in taxes than if they weren't married! All the other tax benefits for children actually require children! Pensions and Social Security are usually gotten well after the children are grown up, so they're not for the kids. Health insurance and other employee benefits are the choice of the employer, and many of them give benefits to domestic partners without a thought about kids, so I guess those aren't just for kids. The other benefits of marriage are things like hospital visitations, medical decisions, inheritance, etc, and why would you want to take those away from people without kids? What benefits are childless married couples getting from marriage that you think they shouldn't have?
>>>I also did not say that cultures were marriages between one man and one woman.
Did you forget a word here? This doesn't make sense to me.
>>>As to your point on Slavery, individuals worked hard and worked through a very national system of civil war to get it removed. If you feel that you can muster up the required number of combat troops to accomplish the goal in the same way, then by all means do so. Please give warning though so that some of us not invested in either side of the issue can re-locate to Canada during the conflict.
I find it ironic that you list Canada as a neutral place to go, considering they have already legalized gay marriage. Hey, didn't they also get rid of slavery without a bloody war? Hmm, your relocation idea sounds pretty good.
>>>Your argument toward the end of giving the same rights to gay couples as straight is not what would be accomplished through a civil partnership.
That's why I don't support civil unions/partnerships/whatever. It's simpler, better and makes more sense just to make gay marriage legal.
So go ahead and say they have screwed up morals if you like, but do NOT claim that they are against equal-rights, because that's not how they see it.
Yeah, and every racist I've ever met has told me they aren't racist. Just because they don't see themselves as racist (or against equal rights) doesn't mean they aren't.
>>>What basis do you have that Marriage revolves solely around love? That you marry someone BECAUSE you love them?
Well, I'm marrying my fiance BECAUSE I love him. I love him so much that I want to spend the rest of my life with him, and I wish the gay people I know who are spending their lives with the ones they love could marry too.
Marriage was, at some points in history, mostly for children. However, if marriage today was solely for the purpose of having children, then infertile people wouldn't be allowed to marry just like gays aren't. Do you think that infertile people shouldn't be allowed to marry? What about people who choose not to have children? My fiance and I have decided not to have biological kids, but to adopt children. If we were a gay couple; (at least in Oregon) then we could adopt just the same, and our marriage would have the same social benefit of raising kids as it will with us as a straight couple. I really don't see children as a strong arguement against gay marriage, unless you want to argue against straight marriages for couples who can't or won't have children.
As far marriage being one man and at least one woman in most cultures throughout history, well, most of those cultures also thought of the wife as property. I don't really want to follow their example for marriage, do you?
At one point, slavery was almost as universal as straight marriage. "That's the way it's always been" isn't a good arguement.
Some people think civil unions are a good comprimise, but if you want to give gay couples the same rights as straight married couples, wouldn't it just be simpler just to let them get married?
>>>The idea is to abandon the idea of marriage as being between two people who love each other
Why? I'ld hate to see a marriage between two people who didn't love eachother.
Slashdot Mirror
So, parents who buy their kids GTA should be arrested?
I don't think Nintendogs is out in the US yet. Those as far as it being a "killer app", in the only store I've seen a display about it in the manager laughed and mocked it when I asked him about it. I'm not thinking it's going to sell to well out here.
I'll agree w/ you that the DS doesn't have a killer app yet. WarioWare was fun, yet short, SM64 was fun too, yet a remake, and nothing else I've seen really looks worth it yet, though there's a lot of games coming out that look really really good. Metriod Hunters, Final Fantasy 3, Lost in Blue, Lunar 3, Sonic Rush, etc. Which is much better than the PSP, where I've seen *no* games that interest me.
I have both a DS and an SP, and I really don't think the DS is much, if at all, less durable than the SP. Nintendo tends to make some pretty durable things. The Gamecube at the game store I worked at fell off the shelf so many freaking times and it still kept working fine, while the PS2s broke when you looked at them funny. The DS is built of the same stuff as the SP, so I don't see why it would be less durable.
You apparantly have forgotten the NES, Original Gameboy, SNES, Playstation, and Dreamcast. Each time a system ruled a market segment without challengers, that system was white.
I have all of those system, and none of them are still white today. I'ld much prefer a black system (or even purple or whatever), though I don't really care what a system looks like. They could design it to look like a giant turd, and if it has good games, I'll buy it.
Anyone who's old enough to play GTA is old enough to see whatever sex scenes the hackers can find on it. Though I'ld have to ask anyone who bothers to hack it why they didn't spend that time looking for real porn.
Maybe GTA should be rated AO. But I really don't think anyone gives enough of a shit about the difference between M and AO (17 and 18). Yeah, some stores say they won't sell AO games, but that's just because there's no AO game as popular as GTA. So all giving GTA an AO rating will do is put AO games in stores. Actually, that would be a pretty funny outcome to Media and the Family's bitching.
Doesn't the DMCA (as interpreted in court) prohibit U.S. residents from ripping and format-shifting DVD videos encoded with CSS, which includes well over 90 percent of commercial DVD video releases?
US residents don't care. Actually, I'm not even sure if that is illegal, but if it is, I can't see anyone caring. It's not like the feds are going to brake down your door and arrest you as you transfer your movies to memory card. Well, not yet anyways.
I tried Donkey Conga the other day in some game store. I couldn't figure it out at all. Granted, it was already past the tutorial, but still, it would have be nice it it was even somewhat intuitive. I don't think newbies would like it very much.
Probably not.
They do take it into account. However, they put in in the "Software Load" column (all software), and they don't put it in the "Software Shipped" column (non-pirated software). So, it's quite obvious they are counting opensource as pirated.
Go get Firefox.
And by the same token, all those machines with more than a usual amount of software installed, all of which is bought and paid for, are under-counted.
You're both right. Which is why this "study" or whatever they call it is completely, utterly, 100% useless.
If you want your kids to be poor. If you don't go to university immediately after high school, you most likely never will.
Everyone told me that after high school, so I went straight to university, despite knowing very well I wasn't ready for it at all, making it the biggest mistake I've ever made. I failed out within the first year, spending plenty of money and gaining plently of debt. Oh, and the really ironic thing is that I turned down a job to go that was actually better than any job I've had since. So I would have been richer if I hadn't gone to school right away.
Also, I'm back in school now. As the sibling poster said, minimum wage jobs are a great motivator for going back to school.
This is just requiring an enforcement of the ratings.
TFA and all the other FAs I googled about this say nothing about enforcing the ratings that are already there. So, I'm assuming that this bill, like every other state that has passed (and overturned) bills restricting video games is just making up its own criteria, completely ignoring the fact that there is a ratings board that has been rating games for almost 15 years and might know something about which games are appropriate for kids and which games they should be restricted from. I'll be happy if I'm wrong, but this looks like just another muddled mess for gaining votes and wasting taxpayer money.
Why is everyone in such an uproar when such a simple and reasonable solution exists?
Because they're not taking the simple and reasonable solution. They seem to be ignoring the fact that there is a competent ratings board that has been rating games for about 15 years now and almost every single game out there has a rating on it. Instead, they have to make up their own rules. Washington had one (that fortunetely was struck down) that restricted games with violence against police officers, which would cover even some E-rated games (while excluding M-rated games with rape, amoung other things)making it a nightmare to work at a game store and figure out what you can and cannot sell, and not preventing kids from getting bad games anyways. Not to mention the cost to taxpayers to get it overtuned, which it probably will be. So that's why I'm not real fond of these kinds of laws.
Frankly most places have a rating system for movies, books, and magazines. Why not for video games?
They do have a ratings system for video games!
Why is this so difficult? Don't sell M or A rated games to minors.
If that's what the law said, I'ld be ok with that. But it's not.
If they care so much about it, they'll make their own ratings board which will re-rate games according to their backwards-ass standards.
Who's "they"? Are you talking about the politicians? We have a good ratings system in place, why on earth would anyone want to replace it with people who can't even understand that games are media?
All this bill does, if I read it correctly, is create penalties for any store that sells games beyond a certain threshold (sexualy or violently, or both if you like it like that) to minors.
However, as I understand, the bill does not explain how violent or sexual is too much.
Frome the article:
The measure approved Thursday would require store owners to determine which games are too violent or sexually explicit for anyone under 18. Anyone selling them to a minor could be fined.
So who's making the decisions about what's too violent/sexual? Does the store owner determine what's inappropriate, but if (s)he sells it anyways, (s)he gets fined? No, that doesn't make any sense. Does the store owner decide what to sell, but then a parent disagrees with his decision and then he gets fined? Well, that would suck.
The reason I hate these restrictions is because they are invariably too vague and invariably done by people who have no clue (video games aren't media, they're stimulations, what?). If they just legally enforced the ESRB, I'ld be ok with that, though I'm sure if they can, since ESRB is a private organization. But people who don't play video games making up random restrictions? I'll pass.
Office and Photoshop are developed for made for Business.
.... Most software companies would love to be in the hands of everyone who is learning a trade such as Graphic Arts, Accounting, and Design. Because they know once they graduate and go to work (i.e. make money), those people are going to want the same software they learned from, and will be future customers.
Office is not just for business. Students at all levels *need* an office suite, and probably everyone who owns a computer needs at least a word processing program. Of course there are options like OpenOffice and AbiWord, which I use, but not everyone knows about them/knows how to use them. It would make much more sense then to tell people about F/OSS alternatives rather than just tell them they don't need an office program.
Now I know from personal experience, that some software companies realize that for some people you can't get them to pay, no matter how cheap or what you do you are still not going to get some people to put up some money, and they will always find a way to get your software for free. THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT THEIR CUSTOMERS.
So then whats the problem, if pirates either will never spend money but will always be able to find the product for free, or are students who will be future customers if only they can try it first? All the "bad" pirates are doing is getting it in the hands of the "good" pirates, and since you're not going to stop the "bad" pirates, why waste money trying? You're missing the third category, the people who would buy the product, except they can get it for free instead. The problem with that group is that if you scare them away from pirating, they might very well just move to F/OSS, and I'm sure MS (and Adobe, etc) would rather there software get pirated than see F/OSS gain marketshare.
>>>IN some states they get benefits and recognition in plans due to plans at companies.
I think companies should be able to give benefits however they see fit.
>>>">>>I also did not say that cultures were marriages between one man and one woman. Did you forget a word here? This doesn't make sense to me." - No I was more accurate in saying it was between one man and more than one women. I do not restrict myself to a specifically Christian Centric view.
Actually, what I originally said was "one man and at least one woman".
>>>-- Moving to Canada may be a good bet, they have a 5 year wait on citizenship, and the process is not quite as easy as you think.
Did I ever say it was easy? Why are you assuming what I think?
>> If you would like to lobby your government to get the laws _changed_ then by all means. This is a country by the people and for the people. Trying to force it as a rights issue begins to shift it into the Judical system, when it is not a rights issue.
I do lobby my goverment. I sign every petition, participate in every rally, and vote pro-gay rights at every election day. I'm not trying to force it as a rights issue; it already is a rights issue. How would you feel if someone told you that you couldn't marry the one you love? Don't you feel that you have a right to marriage and you'ld be rather upset if someone said you couldn't? I would, and that's why I support gay marriage.
>>>Homosexuals are not an ethnic minority. So arguments based on classifying yourself as an ethnic minority seems a bit odd to me.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone classify gays as an ethnic minority. I certainly didn't classify them as an ethnic minority, so I don't know why you brought it up.
>>>Homosexuals are a social minority, but there are thousands of those. democrats are a social minority (if the 2004 electon is an example). Pedophiles are a social minority, Gamers are a social minority, slashdot users are a social minority, etc... They all have something in common, a choice about lifestyle they choose to participate in. Social minorities are fluid and you can move in and out of them at will.
Being gay is nothing like being a slashdot user. You can't move in and out of being gay at will. I'm not even sure it's possible to change your sexual orientation at all. (Assuming you're straight..) What would it take for you to start only being attracted to the same gender and not be attracted at all to the opposite gender? Imagine (assuming you're a guy..) a hot girl walks past and you don't even notice her and check out her boyfriend instead. What's the likelyhood of you reversing your orientation like that? Probably not nearly as likely as you switching forums or political parties.
>>>Ethnic minority status is relatively static. I hope I have shown the difference here.
As I said before, no, gays are not an ethnic minority. However, you have shown me that they cannot be catagorized as a social minority either.
>>>You do have opportunites to change the laws, and this is through lobbying. Homosexuals are, politically, a special interest group, and they get what they want through lobbying and laws. Even the civil rights movement went the law route vs the judicial route. They had a congressional act to work from to work against a set of laws at the state level based on interestate commerce.
Sometimes lobbying is what's best, sometimes going through judical channels is better. The Gay Rights movement does plenty of lobbying, which should make you happy to know, but some of the issues need to be addressed through the courts. Interracial marriage was won through the courts, I imagine gay marriage will also be.
>>> Do you feel that being against affirmative action is racist?
Depends on your reasons for being against it.
>>>Similarly, if thinking that homosexuality is immoral makes me a "homosex-ist" or whatever it's called, then fine, I am.
Glad you admit it.
>>>Ok, I would argue that providing incentive before they have children is a bad idea, and only providing the fact that IF they have children then they get the benefits.
Which incentives specifically are you talking about?
>>>Your argument of "love" is moot, yes you love your fiance, and you may marry him and never have children then, oh well, you get the bennys without meeting the intended goals.
We're planning on adopting children, so we'll be raising children just like anyone else, including gay families in Oregon and whereever else gay adoption is legal. If marriage is to help people raise children, why shouldn't we (and anyone else who adopts, gay or straight) get the same benefits as those who give birth to children?
>>>Like I said, this is something that can be fixed, and you can lobby your congress to remove benefits for couples without children, I have absolutely no problem with this and encourage you to do so if you beleive in equality on this situation.
Why would I do that? Actually, what benefits do childless marriages get? If the two make about the same amount of money (which is likely without kids) they actually get less back in taxes than if they weren't married! All the other tax benefits for children actually require children! Pensions and Social Security are usually gotten well after the children are grown up, so they're not for the kids. Health insurance and other employee benefits are the choice of the employer, and many of them give benefits to domestic partners without a thought about kids, so I guess those aren't just for kids. The other benefits of marriage are things like hospital visitations, medical decisions, inheritance, etc, and why would you want to take those away from people without kids? What benefits are childless married couples getting from marriage that you think they shouldn't have?
>>>I also did not say that cultures were marriages between one man and one woman.
Did you forget a word here? This doesn't make sense to me.
>>>As to your point on Slavery, individuals worked hard and worked through a very national system of civil war to get it removed. If you feel that you can muster up the required number of combat troops to accomplish the goal in the same way, then by all means do so. Please give warning though so that some of us not invested in either side of the issue can re-locate to Canada during the conflict.
I find it ironic that you list Canada as a neutral place to go, considering they have already legalized gay marriage. Hey, didn't they also get rid of slavery without a bloody war? Hmm, your relocation idea sounds pretty good.
>>>Your argument toward the end of giving the same rights to gay couples as straight is not what would be accomplished through a civil partnership.
That's why I don't support civil unions/partnerships/whatever. It's simpler, better and makes more sense just to make gay marriage legal.
If it is a learned behavior or a mutation then why as a species would you encourage this behavior?
Overpopulation.
So go ahead and say they have screwed up morals if you like, but do NOT claim that they are against equal-rights, because that's not how they see it.
Yeah, and every racist I've ever met has told me they aren't racist. Just because they don't see themselves as racist (or against equal rights) doesn't mean they aren't.
>>>What basis do you have that Marriage revolves solely around love? That you marry someone BECAUSE you love them?
Well, I'm marrying my fiance BECAUSE I love him. I love him so much that I want to spend the rest of my life with him, and I wish the gay people I know who are spending their lives with the ones they love could marry too.
Marriage was, at some points in history, mostly for children. However, if marriage today was solely for the purpose of having children, then infertile people wouldn't be allowed to marry just like gays aren't. Do you think that infertile people shouldn't be allowed to marry? What about people who choose not to have children? My fiance and I have decided not to have biological kids, but to adopt children. If we were a gay couple; (at least in Oregon) then we could adopt just the same, and our marriage would have the same social benefit of raising kids as it will with us as a straight couple. I really don't see children as a strong arguement against gay marriage, unless you want to argue against straight marriages for couples who can't or won't have children.
As far marriage being one man and at least one woman in most cultures throughout history, well, most of those cultures also thought of the wife as property. I don't really want to follow their example for marriage, do you?
At one point, slavery was almost as universal as straight marriage. "That's the way it's always been" isn't a good arguement.
Some people think civil unions are a good comprimise, but if you want to give gay couples the same rights as straight married couples, wouldn't it just be simpler just to let them get married?
>>>The idea is to abandon the idea of marriage as being between two people who love each other
Why? I'ld hate to see a marriage between two people who didn't love eachother.
What's next, a law that protects left handed people?
If people were fired from their jobs for being left-handed, then that would be useful.