I highly recommend C.S. Lewis -- something other than the Narnia Chronicles.
Even Narnia was pretty impressive although not really theology or anything.
I read the series as a kid and then as an adult I heard C.S. Lewis referred to as a Christian philosopher or somesuch and I was all WTF?!? that guy who wrote those great totally non-religious kids books? When did he get religion. That's when it hit me. Oh yeah....
The victim is protected, and anybody who marries the "poor girl" gets Islamic karma boost.
Isn't Saudi Arabia under Sharia law? While one of my friend's was living there, a 14 year old girl was gang raped. She was sentenced to death by stoning. The group of men got minor sentences if anything. My friend told me that was typical in such cases there.
Yes, I should have been more specific with my "they".
It is patently wrong to state that religion plays no part in the laws of our country. The fundamental basis for our law is common law which gets its entire philosophical outlook from the Judeo-Christian ethic.
No, it is, however, patently wrong to state idiotic lies that you heard from some kook without actually looking into the issue. Here is a long detailed well researched and well documented essay on this topic. Do your god damned duty as a citizen and make an attempt to know what the fuck you are talking about.
Ridiculous examples are meant to illustrate a point.
The point that you are too fucking stupid to be able to tell the difference between two healthy, happy consenting adults and bestiality? Yes, you proved your point.
It's not your constitution. There is no bigotry in it, and there wouldn't be even if there was a marriage amendment. Hopefully it never comes to that, because this is ultimately a states' rights issue.
In point of fact, it is my constitution. That doesn't have any bearing on the fact that it is yours as well. In fact there is bigotry in it. Try reading it rather than spouting nonsense you hear from some shitbag with an agenda.
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)
Slaves are not even a full human. Indians aren't even human at all.
It's right there.
Thankfully, we have progressed over time to actually try to live up to the ideals that were set for us and so amended it to *remove* bigotry from it. That's why people like you make me sick. You are trying to reverse the course of progress.
And damn. If an amendment based entirely on bigotry was put into the constitution then there would be no bigotry in it.?!? Wow, you might want to take a basic logic class.
Hopefully it never comes to that, because this is ultimately a states' rights issue.
If you and those like you would just grow the fuck up and quit thinking your idiotic baseless immorality should be shoved down people's throats then it would not even be an issue. Tell that state's rights business to the dipshits who voted for Bush. I'm sickened by the fact that so many states decided to turn against our ideals, but outside of my own state it isn't my business. Too bad the bigots pushing this immoral shit are too cowardly to deal with that.
The fact that it is going beyond that is what pushes my button. Freedom means *everybody* gets to be free. It takes courage to live that way. We have a legion of cowards assaulting it.
Wow, that clarified it for me. Good examples of how.
Exactly. There is no justification for it. I'm glad we agree. What is the issue then?
Oh yeah, they appear to be pushing pretty hard from where I'm standing. They're pushing an assumed right to marriage on everyone else who doesn't agree. They're pushing the morality of "If you don't like what I'm doing, you must be a religious hatemonger bigot discriminator cock man oppressor."
No assumption necessary. *all* rights are presumed from the start. Why don't you go read the constitution rather than spouting idiotic nonsense?
Provide some reason that they *don't* have it. Exactly. Rights aren't specifically granted. You have every right provided you don't infringe those of others. In specific cases but only when extreme need is demonstrated some can be explicitly excluded, but that is *always* a dangerous course to go down. Why the fuck do you think that there is a desire for fucking constitutional amendment?!?
It's not a question of "if you don't like what I'm doing" It's a question
I think this means it is time for a half-jaws, half-free willy environmentalists movie. in the spirit of free willy, michael jackson will obviously be chosen for the theme.
It would only be worth watching if Michael Jackson gets eaten by your bizarre "human" animal hybrid. Heck, put it before the opening credits and I can bail and do something else for the rest of the evening;-)
Why is it immoral? Must you continue to assert that religion is the evil culprit in this and those people must see it your way?
It's immoral because it is a visious mean spirited act of aggression against innocent people who mereley want to live their lives. It provides no benefit to anybody and causes harm to others out of spite. Religion *is* the evil culprit in this. It has nothing to do with me or my assertions. It's possible that there are a few non religious people here and there who agree with the idea, but it is driven primarily by religious people for religious reasons which have no place whatsoever in the laws of this country. That is, in fact, one of the fundamental defining principles of this country. Many people clearly don't see it my way. I don't care what they think. I care when they are actively campaigning to put their hatred into the constitution of my country.
I never said they are the same. I said why do you feel that you get to draw the line and choose when something is not the same?
No, you just gave them as examples of "similar" things when there is nothing similar about them. Again. I'm not the one trying to redraw lines. The people I am decrying are. They are doing it solely because they hate other people merely because of how they were born. That is sickening.
I never said I had any credentials. But I do think that society has the authority until someone proves that it is an *immoral* stance.
When "society" chooses to exercise its "authority" in order to activelyt restrict the rights of a select group based on no reasonable basis whatsoever, then as a decent human being, I feel it to be my moral duty to speak out about it.
Think it through. Pick some innate characteristic of yourself. Say "society" decides that they don't like people with that characteristic. They decide that they want to arbitrarily restrict your choice of actions based solely upon that arbitrary criterion. Are you honeslty claiming that you would be perfectly ok with that? I doubt it.
As long as it's not one of your characteristics you're fine with it. Great. Real nice guy you are.
With exceptions, most Americans hold a more traditional view, one that you consider immoral.
That is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I consider them immoral hatemongers, but I really don't give a shit about it. Scumbags have existed throughout history and will continue to do so for the forseeable future. I am not proposing restricting their rights becasue I disagree with their immorality. That is a fundamental difference between myself and those people. They are the ones initiating agggression against my fellow citizens.
Whatever. What is agressive about deciding that a historical, traditional pact should stay as it is? Nothing. Decide whatever you want. Keep bigotry out of my constitution. That's what I have a problem with.
I agree that gays in relationships should have all the social rights bestowed by governments (taxes, health benefits, powers of attorney). Beyond that, the federal government should not _assert_ that people have to recognize gay marriages as legit.
The social right that you stated are the only things that marriage means as far as the government is concerned. Had anybody ever suggested forcing your church to perform *any* marriages, gay straight, or bestial? Of course not. It's the churches and their members who are trying to shove their ignorant hatemongering into our laws.
The fact is you can't tell me that changing a historical precedent such as marriage in a fundamental way is not harmful.
In fact I can. What harm could it possibly cause? None. Exactly. That isn't even the point. It isn't the gays pushing their morals on other people.
I'm saying that the collective knowledge and history of humanity has settled on this for a long time.
Now correct me if I'm wrong ( I'd like to submit this as an entry in the most useless phrase on/. 2006 contest) but don't they regularly stone to death rape *victims*. I don't think the number of pregnant teenagers actually backs up your point.
You didn't misunderstand, you attacked my position with purposely obtuse statements in an effort to cover up the fact your position is ridiculously ignorant.
No, I misunderstood. It happens sometimes. I never even expressed a "position", nor did I attack yours in any way. I asked questions because I was...you guessed it.... ignorant of your intended meaning.
Jesus, you haven't made it available, you just brought one instance to a location where it wasn't available.
So you're using a specific definition and flying off the handle because I wasn't aware of exactly what you meant?!? I mean damn, I understand when people get mad that other people say things like "So you said....." where they fill in the blank with something else, but I'd have to say that this is the first time I've seen somebody get so pissed when all I was doing was trying to figure out what your point was and get this. Without having expressed any opinion on it either positive or negative, because I wasn't even sure what your point was.
The term distribution rights is not ambiguous. It has been nitpicked and dragged through the courts in every country with an established legal system and the capacity for international commerce.
Ahhh, see, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have any knowledge of specific details of international commerce regarding specific types of products.
Seriously, Beavis, you might want to get back on your meds. Not everybody is out to get you.
In the first case, you shouldn't bitch about someone taking a moral stance on an issue on the basis that they are being discriminatory.
I'm not bitching about anything of the sort since nothing of the sort is happenning. People are taking an *immoral* stance of discriminiation based purely on religious based bigotry. There is no moral basis for their stance. That's the fundamental problem with it.
Do you think you should be able to marry anything you love?
You have proven yourself to be typical of the type of asshat who holds that position. Oh no, gays are the same as baby raping pedophiles and bestialitists. That's entirely dishonest.
The simple fact is that there is no justification for the state to jump into a personal relationship of this nature except in particular circumstances where there is a real danger. For example, having sex with your sister often leads to severely deformed babies.
Two men or two women marrying each other has no negative effects on anybody, except for bigots who get their panties in a bunch, but that is entirely their problem.
Fundamental difference.
Why does society have to toe your line?
Again, you have a fundamental problem with your reasoning. I'm not asking society to toe anything. All I'm asking it to do is not act in an aggreessive manner against people who are merely minding their own business and not doing any sort of harm whatsoever to others or to society.
Show me the credentials that give you the right to decide on your whims what is morally acceptable for society?
Show me yours that give you the right to decide what isn't. You're the one trying to force things on people, not me. Quit pretending it's otherwise.
On the other hand, you don't believe that there is a real objective concept of right and wrong, and that everyone gets to decide this on their own, without respect to society. There's no arguing with you in that case. The best thing to do is treat your views as irrelevant.
Obviously if it disagrees with you it's irrelevant. Your logic is truly dizzying. The fact is that some things cause harm to others. Murder, rape, robbery. This is the job of government to prevent. Things that cause no harm to anybody are not the place of the government and they sure as hell are none of *your* fucking business.
Truth be told, I'd be willing to listen to why you think society should be forced to accept gay marriage, if you did not prance about wagging your finger at everyone with an air of self-righteousnes and superiority.
No, no, no. You're the one trying to discriminate with no valid reasons. You're the one who needs to justify imposing your will on other people. You'll note that the whole issue revolves around *anti* gay marriage proposals. It's the people who are in no way involved with the actual issue that are trying to force their bigotry into the laws.
You're either a hypocrite, or dishonest and manipulative in your arguments. Probably both.
None of the above. Hate based legislation has no place in a free society. That's my point.
Nobody but freaks, rednecks and zealots want to prohibit you from loving people of the same sex.
If you say so. Apparently, they constitute over 50% of the US population.
And they don't want their children's minds scrambled any more than they already are by the mainstreaming of homosexuality - it's a needless further muddying of the human predicament.
If this were the case, then none of them would be voting Republican since it is their economic policies that are leading to the mainstreaming of homosexuality, as well as rampant consumerism and "sex sells". They are the ones voting *for* exactly what you are claiming that they don't want and then turning around and trying to outlaw what they voted for. That's a pretty pathetic "moral standard" pick out a minority group you dislike and punish them for the results of *your* actions. This kind of blatant hypocricy on the part of the religious right is the primary cause of the deep divide in this country.
You're a vanishingly small minority, get used to it, don't slam your sexual preferences down our throats by forcing us to change our ways and traditions.
Hmmmm... Let's see. I'm a straight man married to a straight woman (not even a little bi curse it all). So I'm in a vanishingly small minority LOL. I'm certainly not doing anything with my sexual preferences around you.
I assume of course you meant to say that gay people are slamming their preferences down your throat (heh) That's certainly ridiculous. Religious wackos are the only ones trying to shove anything anywhere in this situation. Nobody is trying to make you change your ways or traditions. Point me to where anybody has suggested making your church perform a marriage between anybody they don't want to. Oh right. You are completely incapable of coming up with any such thing. All you have to do is stay the fuck out of other people's business and the whole issue disappears.
Marriage is only an economic construct for YOU, BTW! For you to say that marriage has always been a simple financial situation is completely false.
No, for me it's different, but I'm living in the one time in history that has been the case. I actually (believe it or not) got to make my own decision about who I decided to marry. I picked a woman who I love and who makes me happy. It's not really that odd here and now, but over the course of history it's pretty much unknown. It's a very recent development. Marriage has been about economics for the vast majority of human history. Go ahead, prove me wrong;-)
We try to preserve the sanctity of an age-old practice that has occurred in nearly every culture for millennia and all of a sudden we're reactionary monsters? What a nutty twist of logic and reality.
Making up nonsense like "preserve the sanctity" to push a discriminatory agenda makes you dishonest and a downright rotten person.
Marriage has been solely an economic institution until very recently. There is nothing "sanctified" about it unless you choose to add it in. You have no rights whatsoever to attempt that for anybody but yourself.
It's such an assinine argument. Bigots like yourself whine about "defending the institution" and idiotic crap like that without ever presenting a single argument as to how it's under any sort of attack. When the entire basis of your argument is your dislike for how another chooses to live their life, then the idea that you would know an actual moral if it bit you on the ass is completely laughable.
what I find incredibly fascinating is the "life" question, where liberals will go to the mat for every woman who wants to abort a child, but they'll scream from the rooftops if you try to execute a murderer. Yeah, that's right, kill the innocent and save the guilty!! You people stand logic squarely on its head.
For your argument to even approach sanity, you would need to prove that a lump of cells is a person. Your argument is that *you* know far better than any of the people involved what is right for them in every situation. You don't givve a flying fuck if you make life worse for the mother and the child as long as you can punish them for having sex.
Further, if you want to try and assert any sort of morality in the issue, then you would have to actually support issues that would help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Inevitably, right wing wackos attempt to eliminate sex education, and knowledge of and access to birth control. Your own policies inevitably lead to more unwanted pregnancies and then you want to eliminate the measure of last resort in order to establish dominance over other people's lives. This inevitably leads to a cycle of poverty thereby increasing the original problem which you claim to be against.
So, sorry, but until you zealots get a *consistent* moral philosophy your arguments will continue to be laughable.
So, in fact it is the religious right that stands logic, morality, human rights, and basic human decency squarely on their heads.
The primary driving force behind the "moral decay of society" is unrestrained liberalism.
Social liberalisation is inevitably driven by capitalism. This is not Liberalism. It's built into the system, not by anyones design, but due to the nature of the capitalist system. After all, them faggots and niggers have money too, sex sells, and driving rampant consumption *is* a way to build sales.
Also, as a straight man, I can only marry a female. A gay man can only marry a female. Same rights = !descrimination.
You can marry anyone you love. A gay person can not. So, they do not have the same rights. That is horrendously discriminatory since it is you through the power of the state telling another person who it is ok for them to love.
According to the exit polls in the 2004 election, the number 1 reason people voted for Bush was "moral values". Kerry and Bush are both supposedly Christians, they both have the same stated moral values with one exception. Kerry didn't support gay marriage but felt it was up to the states to decide. Good solid Republican position (WTF?!?) Bush didn't support gay marriage and further supported amending the Constitution for the first time in history to specifically discriminate against a specific group of people. Totally immoral position.
So by their own words, large numbers of Republicans feel that it is not only moral, but *the* overriding moral issue in the election to actively work against 2 people loving each other.
This is completely backed up by the mass of gay hatred bills passed by various states.
Yet, their great morals don't seem to extend to anything that is generally considered moral behavior such as lying, using a tragedy as an excuse to start a war that was only waiting for some justification no matter how unrelated, living off of the forced charity of others while condemning that very thing (Check which states actually pay taxes) etc. etc. etc.
Add in the fact that the primary driving force behind the "moral decay of society" is unrestrained capitalism which is the Republican party's big "thing". You see that the so called "moral voters" consistently vote against the very thing they claim to stand for, and it's quite clear that my sig is a simple statement of fact.
first google result for convervative = resistant to change;
guess what? many of the thigns did not change, we still had a government, and such. were things different? absolutly, was a lot the same? absolutly.
Cool, random redefinition of terms in the middle of the discussion making your point entirely irrelevant to what we were talking about.
OK then, please show me where bush has intentltionly lied, cite a few half way decent sites.
Uhhh geee. How about the State of the union where he swore up and down that Saddam has massive quantities of WMDs and all that nonsense when the CIA told him not to because it was half ass at best. How about "You're doing a heck of a job".
Dude, the list goes on and on from the merely stupid to the entriely malicious. How about you do your duty as a citizen and inform yourself.
once again, british and other said they had WMDs or are you saying something else.
Actually most countries said he didn't anymore. That's what the inspectors said. Keep playing that tired old myth that there was massive support for that belief. The support was minimal and largely cooerced. Of course, the simple fact that the invasion of Iraq was the number one priority of this administration since before they were even "elected"couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. No, they even stated that they couldn't pull it off unless some "Pearl Harbor" type event happened. So you have people who stated flat out that they wanted to invade, but they needed justification. 9/11 happens and Bam! it's all about Iraq. No, that actually makes sense. You must be right. Magically he became a massive threat all of a sudden. Damn people like you who treat political parties like sports teams and root for theirs no matter what are a deep sickness in a society.
I mean if you can't even be bothered to to the most cursory research into what you're feebly attempting to defend, then why make yourself look ignorant. Just admit that you neither know nor care what your government does in your name with your money and be done.
I don't see how disallowing gay people from being married is against the constitution.
Nor do you see how I said that, but you'll pretend like you do anyhow.
The wire taps might be illegal but the government is fully capable and allowed to spy on us according to the constitution.
4th amendment asshat. It's a fundamental violation.
FOIA i don't see how that's doing anything you would be against
Because you can't have a free society without a transparent government. Damn dude, these arguments are so old that they were made in the drawing of the constitution. Hot tip. your side lost. That's why we're even able to discuss this right now.
torture hmm i'm not sure how that's a violation of the constitution, is it wrong, but then i think the use of the word torture is in teh cases i've heard about hardly even applicable.
What a cowardly little prick you are. Ohhh ok it's bad, but it isn't really torture well... as long as your side is doing it. Another hot tip: That's a key indicator to moral people that they're on the wrong side. No telling about you sociopaths though.
I'm in a similar situation, but it's not a particular price point that's my cutoff. I just don't play that many games. This means that when I feel like getting a new one, there are a lot I've never played that I can easily know whether they're generally considered "good" or "bad" and they're at about that price or less.
I just got a brand new computer, so I picked up a few games recently, all a bit older. I can play all of them at max settings totally smoothly.
Maybe they're not as totally awesome as the latest thing, but they're new to me and almost nobody who bought them new had as good an experience as I do since my hardware is ahead of the game curve considering that I am behind the curve with the games I am playing.
'm kind of thinking that this type of system might actualy lend to abuse more redily then a clear monopoly because of the apearance of it being an open market.
See also "Cartel". My admittedly possibly incorrect understanding is that a cartel is essentially an oligopoly where the few players are *actively* colluding.
You dumb shit. WHERE DID I SAY THAT? You can't because I never said that. You can misinterpret my statements all you want and take them all as personal attacks on your delicate sensibilities, but your full of shit.
Damn, Beavis, settle down. Perhaps I misunderstood what exactly your point was, which is why I was asking for clarification.
The point was distro channels and how they allow you to affect DISTRIBUTION you fucking twit. DISTRIBUTION, in this context, is control over where something is made available. How the hell you mistake exercising those rights with forcibly coming into a country and taking away your property is beyond me.
Simple, you say you are allowed to control where something is made available, and I gave an example of making it available. Are you just referring to which retail outlets are allowed to sell it or something?
See the word SHOWN in there, yeah - that's why it relates to distribution you fucking clown. Now please quote me on where I said SEEN. Oh, I guess I didn't. That means I was talking about legal controls granted to me by my position as the original content creator.
Seeing and showing are two sides of the same coin. You can't see something that ain't shown. If I have something, I can show it to whoever I want and you are irrelevant to that.
Again, are you just referring to public displays or something?
If you're going to use ambiguous terms to make an argument, you might consider not flying off the handle when your statements aren't clear and somebody politely asks for clarification.
Would give you the right to choose whether or not to sell it in a particular country.
Again, I ask, what gives you the right to say that I can't come to your country (or whatever country you choose to sell it in), purchase it and returnto my country where you won't sell it.
Think it through. You're arguing that you are allowed to go into any country in the world and take my property away. Which has SFA to do with distribution rights. In fact, the only thing even related to rights is your assertion that you have more rights in every country in the world than everybody else in the world.
When you think your point through it just falls apart.
If I create a video and I don't want it shown somewhere, then I should have the right to dictate that.
What exactly gives you that right? You certainly have the right not to release it at all, but what is it that gives you the right to say that due to where somebody is that they are not allowed to see it?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the real irony is that the book is terrible (yes I have read it).
I haven't, but I read Angels and Demons. Was it worse than that? If so....Damn.
I highly recommend C.S. Lewis -- something other than the Narnia Chronicles.
Even Narnia was pretty impressive although not really theology or anything.
I read the series as a kid and then as an adult I heard C.S. Lewis referred to as a Christian philosopher or somesuch and I was all WTF?!? that guy who wrote those great totally non-religious kids books? When did he get religion. That's when it hit me. Oh yeah....
You can't sell a tax to the public unless it punishes the rich.
You misspelled "unless it expects those who receive the most benefit from our society to pay the most for those benefits.
Well I am off to work hard & earn a living.
Nah, I think I will have a beer, sit in my recliner and watch Oprah.
Either one is fine. It's only when you actually think and stand up for liberty that they have a problem
Sometimes I just wish I didn't live in a state that makes an ass of itself at least once during a calendar year.
;-)
Might I suggest Puerto Rico?
It's a territory, or possession or some such rather than a state
The victim is protected, and anybody who marries the "poor girl" gets Islamic karma boost.
Isn't Saudi Arabia under Sharia law?
While one of my friend's was living there, a 14 year old girl was gang raped. She was sentenced to death by stoning. The group of men got minor sentences if anything. My friend told me that was typical in such cases there.
Yes, I should have been more specific with my "they".
It is patently wrong to state that religion plays no part in the laws of our country. The fundamental basis for our law is common law which gets its entire philosophical outlook from the Judeo-Christian ethic.
No, it is, however, patently wrong to state idiotic lies that you heard from some kook without actually looking into the issue.
Here is a long detailed well researched and well documented essay on this topic.
Do your god damned duty as a citizen and make an attempt to know what the fuck you are talking about.
Ridiculous examples are meant to illustrate a point.
The point that you are too fucking stupid to be able to tell the difference between two healthy, happy consenting adults and bestiality?
Yes, you proved your point.
It's not your constitution. There is no bigotry in it, and there wouldn't be even if there was a marriage amendment. Hopefully it never comes to that, because this is ultimately a states' rights issue.
In point of fact, it is my constitution. That doesn't have any bearing on the fact that it is yours as well.
In fact there is bigotry in it. Try reading it rather than spouting nonsense you hear from some shitbag with an agenda.
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)
Slaves are not even a full human. Indians aren't even human at all.
It's right there.
Thankfully, we have progressed over time to actually try to live up to the ideals that were set for us and so amended it to *remove* bigotry from it.
That's why people like you make me sick. You are trying to reverse the course of progress.
And damn. If an amendment based entirely on bigotry was put into the constitution then there would be no bigotry in it.?!?
Wow, you might want to take a basic logic class.
Hopefully it never comes to that, because this is ultimately a states' rights issue.
If you and those like you would just grow the fuck up and quit thinking your idiotic baseless immorality should be shoved down people's throats then it would not even be an issue.
Tell that state's rights business to the dipshits who voted for Bush.
I'm sickened by the fact that so many states decided to turn against our ideals, but outside of my own state it isn't my business. Too bad the bigots pushing this immoral shit are too cowardly to deal with that.
The fact that it is going beyond that is what pushes my button.
Freedom means *everybody* gets to be free. It takes courage to live that way. We have a legion of cowards assaulting it.
Wow, that clarified it for me. Good examples of how.
Exactly. There is no justification for it. I'm glad we agree. What is the issue then?
Oh yeah, they appear to be pushing pretty hard from where I'm standing. They're pushing an assumed right to marriage on everyone else who doesn't agree. They're pushing the morality of "If you don't like what I'm doing, you must be a religious hatemonger bigot discriminator cock man oppressor."
No assumption necessary. *all* rights are presumed from the start. Why don't you go read the constitution rather than spouting idiotic nonsense?
Provide some reason that they *don't* have it. Exactly.
Rights aren't specifically granted. You have every right provided you don't infringe those of others. In specific cases but only when extreme need is demonstrated some can be explicitly excluded, but that is *always* a dangerous course to go down.
Why the fuck do you think that there is a desire for fucking constitutional amendment?!?
It's not a question of "if you don't like what I'm doing"
It's a question
I think this means it is time for a half-jaws, half-free willy environmentalists movie. in the spirit of free willy, michael jackson will obviously be chosen for the theme.
;-)
It would only be worth watching if Michael Jackson gets eaten by your bizarre "human" animal hybrid.
Heck, put it before the opening credits and I can bail and do something else for the rest of the evening
Why is it immoral? Must you continue to assert that religion is the evil culprit in this and those people must see it your way?
It's immoral because it is a visious mean spirited act of aggression against innocent people who mereley want to live their lives. It provides no benefit to anybody and causes harm to others out of spite.
Religion *is* the evil culprit in this. It has nothing to do with me or my assertions.
It's possible that there are a few non religious people here and there who agree with the idea, but it is driven primarily by religious people for religious reasons which have no place whatsoever in the laws of this country. That is, in fact, one of the fundamental defining principles of this country.
Many people clearly don't see it my way. I don't care what they think. I care when they are actively campaigning to put their hatred into the constitution of my country.
I never said they are the same. I said why do you feel that you get to draw the line and choose when something is not the same?
No, you just gave them as examples of "similar" things when there is nothing similar about them.
Again. I'm not the one trying to redraw lines. The people I am decrying are.
They are doing it solely because they hate other people merely because of how they were born. That is sickening.
I never said I had any credentials. But I do think that society has the authority until someone proves that it is an *immoral* stance.
When "society" chooses to exercise its "authority" in order to activelyt restrict the rights of a select group based on no reasonable basis whatsoever, then as a decent human being, I feel it to be my moral duty to speak out about it.
Think it through. Pick some innate characteristic of yourself.
Say "society" decides that they don't like people with that characteristic. They decide that they want to arbitrarily restrict your choice of actions based solely upon that arbitrary criterion. Are you honeslty claiming that you would be perfectly ok with that?
I doubt it.
As long as it's not one of your characteristics you're fine with it.
Great. Real nice guy you are.
With exceptions, most Americans hold a more traditional view, one that you consider immoral.
That is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I consider them immoral hatemongers, but I really don't give a shit about it. Scumbags have existed throughout history and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.
I am not proposing restricting their rights becasue I disagree with their immorality.
That is a fundamental difference between myself and those people.
They are the ones initiating agggression against my fellow citizens.
Whatever. What is agressive about deciding that a historical, traditional pact should stay as it is?
Nothing. Decide whatever you want. Keep bigotry out of my constitution. That's what I have a problem with.
I agree that gays in relationships should have all the social rights bestowed by governments (taxes, health benefits, powers of attorney). Beyond that, the federal government should not _assert_ that people have to recognize gay marriages as legit.
The social right that you stated are the only things that marriage means as far as the government is concerned.
Had anybody ever suggested forcing your church to perform *any* marriages, gay straight, or bestial? Of course not.
It's the churches and their members who are trying to shove their ignorant hatemongering into our laws.
The fact is you can't tell me that changing a historical precedent such as marriage in a fundamental way is not harmful.
In fact I can. What harm could it possibly cause? None. Exactly.
That isn't even the point. It isn't the gays pushing their morals on other people.
I'm saying that the collective knowledge and history of humanity has settled on this for a long time.
As a purely enonomic institution.
I only care in that I'm an A
less... pregnant teenagers
/. 2006 contest) but don't they regularly stone to death rape *victims*.
Now correct me if I'm wrong ( I'd like to submit this as an entry in the most useless phrase on
I don't think the number of pregnant teenagers actually backs up your point.
You didn't misunderstand, you attacked my position with purposely obtuse statements in an effort to cover up the fact your position is ridiculously ignorant.
...you guessed it.... ignorant of your intended meaning.
....." where they fill in the blank with something else, but I'd have to say that this is the first time I've seen somebody get so pissed when all I was doing was trying to figure out what your point was and get this. Without having expressed any opinion on it either positive or negative, because I wasn't even sure what your point was.
No, I misunderstood. It happens sometimes. I never even expressed a "position", nor did I attack yours in any way. I asked questions because I was
Jesus, you haven't made it available, you just brought one instance to a location where it wasn't available.
So you're using a specific definition and flying off the handle because I wasn't aware of exactly what you meant?!? I mean damn, I understand when people get mad that other people say things like "So you said
The term distribution rights is not ambiguous. It has been nitpicked and dragged through the courts in every country with an established legal system and the capacity for international commerce.
Ahhh, see, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have any knowledge of specific details of international commerce regarding specific types of products.
Seriously, Beavis, you might want to get back on your meds. Not everybody is out to get you.
In the first case, you shouldn't bitch about someone taking a moral stance on an issue on the basis that they are being discriminatory.
I'm not bitching about anything of the sort since nothing of the sort is happenning.
People are taking an *immoral* stance of discriminiation based purely on religious based bigotry. There is no moral basis for their stance. That's the fundamental problem with it.
Do you think you should be able to marry anything you love?
You have proven yourself to be typical of the type of asshat who holds that position.
Oh no, gays are the same as baby raping pedophiles and bestialitists.
That's entirely dishonest.
The simple fact is that there is no justification for the state to jump into a personal relationship of this nature except in particular circumstances where there is a real danger. For example, having sex with your sister often leads to severely deformed babies.
Two men or two women marrying each other has no negative effects on anybody, except for bigots who get their panties in a bunch, but that is entirely their problem.
Fundamental difference.
Why does society have to toe your line?
Again, you have a fundamental problem with your reasoning.
I'm not asking society to toe anything. All I'm asking it to do is not act in an aggreessive manner against people who are merely minding their own business and not doing any sort of harm whatsoever to others or to society.
Show me the credentials that give you the right to decide on your whims what is morally acceptable for society?
Show me yours that give you the right to decide what isn't. You're the one trying to force things on people, not me. Quit pretending it's otherwise.
On the other hand, you don't believe that there is a real objective concept of right and wrong, and that everyone gets to decide this on their own, without respect to society. There's no arguing with you in that case. The best thing to do is treat your views as irrelevant.
Obviously if it disagrees with you it's irrelevant. Your logic is truly dizzying.
The fact is that some things cause harm to others. Murder, rape, robbery. This is the job of government to prevent.
Things that cause no harm to anybody are not the place of the government and they sure as hell are none of *your* fucking business.
Truth be told, I'd be willing to listen to why you think society should be forced to accept gay marriage, if you did not prance about wagging your finger at everyone with an air of self-righteousnes and superiority.
No, no, no. You're the one trying to discriminate with no valid reasons. You're the one who needs to justify imposing your will on other people. You'll note that the whole issue revolves around *anti* gay marriage proposals.
It's the people who are in no way involved with the actual issue that are trying to force their bigotry into the laws.
You're either a hypocrite, or dishonest and manipulative in your arguments. Probably both.
None of the above.
Hate based legislation has no place in a free society. That's my point.
Nobody but freaks, rednecks and zealots want to prohibit you from loving people of the same sex.
;-)
If you say so. Apparently, they constitute over 50% of the US population.
And they don't want their children's minds scrambled any more than they already are by the mainstreaming of homosexuality - it's a needless further muddying of the human predicament.
If this were the case, then none of them would be voting Republican since it is their economic policies that are leading to the mainstreaming of homosexuality, as well as rampant consumerism and "sex sells".
They are the ones voting *for* exactly what you are claiming that they don't want and then turning around and trying to outlaw what they voted for. That's a pretty pathetic "moral standard" pick out a minority group you dislike and punish them for the results of *your* actions. This kind of blatant hypocricy on the part of the religious right is the primary cause of the deep divide in this country.
You're a vanishingly small minority, get used to it, don't slam your sexual preferences down our throats by forcing us to change our ways and traditions.
Hmmmm... Let's see. I'm a straight man married to a straight woman (not even a little bi curse it all).
So I'm in a vanishingly small minority LOL.
I'm certainly not doing anything with my sexual preferences around you.
I assume of course you meant to say that gay people are slamming their preferences down your throat (heh)
That's certainly ridiculous. Religious wackos are the only ones trying to shove anything anywhere in this situation. Nobody is trying to make you change your ways or traditions.
Point me to where anybody has suggested making your church perform a marriage between anybody they don't want to.
Oh right. You are completely incapable of coming up with any such thing.
All you have to do is stay the fuck out of other people's business and the whole issue disappears.
Marriage is only an economic construct for YOU, BTW! For you to say that marriage has always been a simple financial situation is completely false.
No, for me it's different, but I'm living in the one time in history that has been the case. I actually (believe it or not) got to make my own decision about who I decided to marry. I picked a woman who I love and who makes me happy. It's not really that odd here and now, but over the course of history it's pretty much unknown. It's a very recent development.
Marriage has been about economics for the vast majority of human history. Go ahead, prove me wrong
We try to preserve the sanctity of an age-old practice that has occurred in nearly every culture for millennia and all of a sudden we're reactionary monsters? What a nutty twist of logic and reality.
Making up nonsense like "preserve the sanctity" to push a discriminatory agenda makes you dishonest and a downright rotten person.
Marriage has been solely an economic institution until very recently. There is nothing "sanctified" about it unless you choose to add it in. You have no rights whatsoever to attempt that for anybody but yourself.
It's such an assinine argument. Bigots like yourself whine about "defending the institution" and idiotic crap like that without ever presenting a single argument as to how it's under any sort of attack.
When the entire basis of your argument is your dislike for how another chooses to live their life, then the idea that you would know an actual moral if it bit you on the ass is completely laughable.
what I find incredibly fascinating is the "life" question, where liberals will go to the mat for every woman who wants to abort a child, but they'll scream from the rooftops if you try to execute a murderer. Yeah, that's right, kill the innocent and save the guilty!! You people stand logic squarely on its head.
For your argument to even approach sanity, you would need to prove that a lump of cells is a person. Your argument is that *you* know far better than any of the people involved what is right for them in every situation. You don't givve a flying fuck if you make life worse for the mother and the child as long as you can punish them for having sex.
Further, if you want to try and assert any sort of morality in the issue, then you would have to actually support issues that would help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Inevitably, right wing wackos attempt to eliminate sex education, and knowledge of and access to birth control. Your own policies inevitably lead to more unwanted pregnancies and then you want to eliminate the measure of last resort in order to establish dominance over other people's lives. This inevitably leads to a cycle of poverty thereby increasing the original problem which you claim to be against.
So, sorry, but until you zealots get a *consistent* moral philosophy your arguments will continue to be laughable.
So, in fact it is the religious right that stands logic, morality, human rights, and basic human decency squarely on their heads.
The primary driving force behind the "moral decay of society" is unrestrained liberalism.
Social liberalisation is inevitably driven by capitalism. This is not Liberalism. It's built into the system, not by anyones design, but due to the nature of the capitalist system.
After all, them faggots and niggers have money too, sex sells, and driving rampant consumption *is* a way to build sales.
Also, as a straight man, I can only marry a female. A gay man can only marry a female. Same rights = !descrimination.
You can marry anyone you love. A gay person can not. So, they do not have the same rights. That is horrendously discriminatory since it is you through the power of the state telling another person who it is ok for them to love.
What the hell is your signature supposed to mean?
According to the exit polls in the 2004 election, the number 1 reason people voted for Bush was "moral values".
Kerry and Bush are both supposedly Christians, they both have the same stated moral values with one exception. Kerry didn't support gay marriage but felt it was up to the states to decide. Good solid Republican position (WTF?!?) Bush didn't support gay marriage and further supported amending the Constitution for the first time in history to specifically discriminate against a specific group of people. Totally immoral position.
So by their own words, large numbers of Republicans feel that it is not only moral, but *the* overriding moral issue in the election to actively work against 2 people loving each other.
This is completely backed up by the mass of gay hatred bills passed by various states.
Yet, their great morals don't seem to extend to anything that is generally considered moral behavior such as lying, using a tragedy as an excuse to start a war that was only waiting for some justification no matter how unrelated, living off of the forced charity of others while condemning that very thing (Check which states actually pay taxes) etc. etc. etc.
Add in the fact that the primary driving force behind the "moral decay of society" is unrestrained capitalism which is the Republican party's big "thing". You see that the so called "moral voters" consistently vote against the very thing they claim to stand for, and it's quite clear that my sig is a simple statement of fact.
first google result for convervative = resistant to change;
guess what? many of the thigns did not change, we still had a government, and such. were things different? absolutly, was a lot the same? absolutly.
Cool, random redefinition of terms in the middle of the discussion making your point entirely irrelevant to what we were talking about.
OK then, please show me where bush has intentltionly lied, cite a few half way decent sites.
Uhhh geee. How about the State of the union where he swore up and down that Saddam has massive quantities of WMDs and all that nonsense when the CIA told him not to because it was half ass at best.
How about "You're doing a heck of a job".
Dude, the list goes on and on from the merely stupid to the entriely malicious. How about you do your duty as a citizen and inform yourself.
once again, british and other said they had WMDs or are you saying something else.
Actually most countries said he didn't anymore. That's what the inspectors said.
Keep playing that tired old myth that there was massive support for that belief. The support was minimal and largely cooerced.
Of course, the simple fact that the invasion of Iraq was the number one priority of this administration since before they were even "elected"couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.
No, they even stated that they couldn't pull it off unless some "Pearl Harbor" type event happened.
So you have people who stated flat out that they wanted to invade, but they needed justification. 9/11 happens and Bam! it's all about Iraq.
No, that actually makes sense. You must be right. Magically he became a massive threat all of a sudden. Damn people like you who treat political parties like sports teams and root for theirs no matter what are a deep sickness in a society.
I mean if you can't even be bothered to to the most cursory research into what you're feebly attempting to defend, then why make yourself look ignorant. Just admit that you neither know nor care what your government does in your name with your money and be done.
I don't see how disallowing gay people from being married is against the constitution.
Nor do you see how I said that, but you'll pretend like you do anyhow.
The wire taps might be illegal but the government is fully capable and allowed to spy on us according to the constitution.
4th amendment asshat. It's a fundamental violation.
FOIA i don't see how that's doing anything you would be against
Because you can't have a free society without a transparent government. Damn dude, these arguments are so old that they were made in the drawing of the constitution. Hot tip. your side lost. That's why we're even able to discuss this right now.
torture hmm i'm not sure how that's a violation of the constitution, is it wrong, but then i think the use of the word torture is in teh cases i've heard about hardly even applicable.
What a cowardly little prick you are. Ohhh ok it's bad, but it isn't really torture well... as long as your side is doing it.
Another hot tip: That's a key indicator to moral people that they're on the wrong side. No telling about you sociopaths though.
Really? But it's just 1 AU away from me!
Since when is Australia a unit of measurement?
Shocker #2: Apple uses QuickTime all over its own web site!
The difference is that Apple's site actually even works in links if you choose to go without the pretty pictures.
It's just a basic useability issue.
I will not pay more than $29.99 for any game.
I'm in a similar situation, but it's not a particular price point that's my cutoff.
I just don't play that many games. This means that when I feel like getting a new one, there are a lot I've never played that I can easily know whether they're generally considered "good" or "bad" and they're at about that price or less.
I just got a brand new computer, so I picked up a few games recently, all a bit older. I can play all of them at max settings totally smoothly.
Maybe they're not as totally awesome as the latest thing, but they're new to me and almost nobody who bought them new had as good an experience as I do since my hardware is ahead of the game curve considering that I am behind the curve with the games I am playing.
'm kind of thinking that this type of system might actualy lend to abuse more redily then a clear monopoly because of the apearance of it being an open market.
See also "Cartel". My admittedly possibly incorrect understanding is that a cartel is essentially an oligopoly where the few players are *actively* colluding.
New religious discussion site. No registration.
;-)
I dearly hope for your own sake that all your servers, cables, racks, and heck, your whole data center are made out of asbestos
You dumb shit. WHERE DID I SAY THAT? You can't because I never said that. You can misinterpret my statements all you want and take them all as personal attacks on your delicate sensibilities, but your full of shit.
Damn, Beavis, settle down. Perhaps I misunderstood what exactly your point was, which is why I was asking for clarification.
The point was distro channels and how they allow you to affect DISTRIBUTION you fucking twit. DISTRIBUTION, in this context, is control over where something is made available. How the hell you mistake exercising those rights with forcibly coming into a country and taking away your property is beyond me.
Simple, you say you are allowed to control where something is made available, and I gave an example of making it available.
Are you just referring to which retail outlets are allowed to sell it or something?
See the word SHOWN in there, yeah - that's why it relates to distribution you fucking clown. Now please quote me on where I said SEEN. Oh, I guess I didn't. That means I was talking about legal controls granted to me by my position as the original content creator.
Seeing and showing are two sides of the same coin. You can't see something that ain't shown. If I have something, I can show it to whoever I want and you are irrelevant to that.
Again, are you just referring to public displays or something?
If you're going to use ambiguous terms to make an argument, you might consider not flying off the handle when your statements aren't clear and somebody politely asks for clarification.
Distribution rights.
Would give you the right to choose whether or not to sell it in a particular country.
Again, I ask, what gives you the right to say that I can't come to your country (or whatever country you choose to sell it in), purchase it and returnto my country where you won't sell it.
Think it through. You're arguing that you are allowed to go into any country in the world and take my property away. Which has SFA to do with distribution rights. In fact, the only thing even related to rights is your assertion that you have more rights in every country in the world than everybody else in the world.
When you think your point through it just falls apart.
If I create a video and I don't want it shown somewhere, then I should have the right to dictate that.
What exactly gives you that right?
You certainly have the right not to release it at all, but what is it that gives you the right to say that due to where somebody is that they are not allowed to see it?