Sore Losers
-
:laugh: Reading that, reminded me of the "Chicken Lover" episode of South Park.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
I don't remember seeing that one. But I laughed my ass off yesterday when I saw the one where Randy's on the Wheel of Fortune[^]. I'll have to go find Chicken Lover.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
I don't remember seeing that one. But I laughed my ass off yesterday when I saw the one where Randy's on the Wheel of Fortune[^]. I'll have to go find Chicken Lover.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
Here is the wiki for the episode[^]...
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
The state should provide only civil unions and leave marriage as something for churches to decide.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The state should provide only civil unions and leave marriage as something for churches to decide.
I agree and would even take it one step further. The government's only legitimate involvement in how human beings decide to associate with one another is when there is at least one individual in the relationship financially dependent upon the other(s).
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I have no problem admitting that I am a little bitter over the election. Mostly because I feel like the country as a whole will suffer for his policies. I also recognize that this is all opinion on my part, and that time will tell if he was the better choice. But these people[^]... Proposition 8 has some truely sore losers.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
I have no problem admitting that I am a little bitter over the election.
When you lose fairly, than you should certainly have enough class to accept the results. However, when the results are largely the consequence of one side flagrantly and openly cheating with no attempt at all to even hide the fact that it is cheating, being a sore loser is perfectly legitimate, because frankly you didn't lose fairly.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I have no problem admitting that I am a little bitter over the election.
When you lose fairly, than you should certainly have enough class to accept the results. However, when the results are largely the consequence of one side flagrantly and openly cheating with no attempt at all to even hide the fact that it is cheating, being a sore loser is perfectly legitimate, because frankly you didn't lose fairly.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Exactly.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
We have the "married" and the "unmarried". I think those are already 2 different classes. What we have going on is a redefinition of a thousands of years old institution. Marriage is between a man and a woman and it always has been.
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson
Jason Henderson wrote:
Marriage is between a man and a woman and it always has been.
Actually, there have always been religions where that is not true. Polygamy and polyandry are both quite common. I think you prejudice is showing ;P
-
Rob Graham wrote:
you create an opportunity for inequity in terms of equal protection under the law, and where the opportunity exists the reality will as well
I don't think it necessarily would, but I guess I see the possibility. I don't see anything wrong with seperating them either. Which would amount to changing the text on a marriage license to say "Civil Union".
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
Precisely. Now if we could just convince the others, one more divisive issue would disappear with no puppies harmed.
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
Marriage is between a man and a woman and it always has been.
Actually, there have always been religions where that is not true. Polygamy and polyandry are both quite common. I think you prejudice is showing ;P
I didn't say between 1 man and 1 woman. So there. ;P
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson
-
We have the "married" and the "unmarried". I think those are already 2 different classes. What we have going on is a redefinition of a thousands of years old institution. Marriage is between a man and a woman and it always has been.
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson
-
Tim Craig wrote:
then there are two classes of citizens
You mean two classes of legal unions for citizens. What would be the problem with that?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
I think the whole thing is a silly argument. Like Jon, I think we should drop "marriage" from the legal lexicon, and extend "civil union" with a detailed description of the obligations and privileges of that civil contractual agreement to any two people who wish to enter into it. I limit the concept to two people, because it becomes too complex to fairly administer dissolution if more than two are involved. I doubt if the emotionally invested on either side will ever agree though.
Rob Graham wrote:
I doubt if the emotionally invested on either side will ever agree though.
I suspect that if the governments really went through with it and dropped marriage completely in favor of civil unions, a lot more gays would accept it than the religious fundamentalists. I suspect with many of them, they're not as invested in the marriage part as opposed to the gay part.
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
-
Rob Graham wrote:
I doubt if the emotionally invested on either side will ever agree though.
I suspect that if the governments really went through with it and dropped marriage completely in favor of civil unions, a lot more gays would accept it than the religious fundamentalists. I suspect with many of them, they're not as invested in the marriage part as opposed to the gay part.
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
Tim Craig wrote:
I suspect with many of them, they're not as invested in the marriage part as opposed to the gay part.
You're probably right. And the gay activists are probably more interested in agitating the religious than they are the marriage part. I don't think either side is really being honest about their argument with this issue.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Precisely. Now if we could just convince the others, one more divisive issue would disappear with no puppies harmed.
Ah but where would the fun in that be? A lot of people are in this argument just to argue. But I guess that's true of most arguments.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
I thought they already had civil unions in CA.
It's not about "civil unions," and it's not even about marriage (except in as far as there are people wanting to destroy marriage), and it's certainly not about equal rights (which they've had forever, in any event). It's about special privileges. It's about using governmental compulsion to force everyone else to approve of them.
-
Oakman wrote:
The state should provide only civil unions and leave marriage as something for churches to decide.
I agree and would even take it one step further. The government's only legitimate involvement in how human beings decide to associate with one another is when there is at least one individual in the relationship financially dependent upon the other(s).
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The government's only legitimate involvement in how human beings decide to associate with one another is when there is at least one individual in the relationship financially dependent upon the other(s).
Gee, Stan. You mean like a slave? :laugh:
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I have no problem admitting that I am a little bitter over the election.
When you lose fairly, than you should certainly have enough class to accept the results. However, when the results are largely the consequence of one side flagrantly and openly cheating with no attempt at all to even hide the fact that it is cheating, being a sore loser is perfectly legitimate, because frankly you didn't lose fairly.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I didn't say between 1 man and 1 woman. So there. ;P
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson
Since when did "a man" mean something other than "1 man"? Now you embarrass yourself.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
I suspect with many of them, they're not as invested in the marriage part as opposed to the gay part.
You're probably right. And the gay activists are probably more interested in agitating the religious than they are the marriage part. I don't think either side is really being honest about their argument with this issue.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
I don't think either side is really being honest about their argument with this issue.
I agree.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
I suspect with many of them, they're not as invested in the marriage part as opposed to the gay part.
You're probably right. And the gay activists are probably more interested in agitating the religious than they are the marriage part. I don't think either side is really being honest about their argument with this issue.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
And the gay activists are probably more interested in agitating the religious than they are the marriage part.
So equal rights and fair treatment just don't enter into their thinking? Something like 10% of the population woke up one morning and decided, I think I'll become homosexual to see how stirred up I can make the religious right?
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
-
Ah but where would the fun in that be? A lot of people are in this argument just to argue. But I guess that's true of most arguments.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
If it only impacted things like this forum, I would say argue away. Unfortunately this is one of several issues that distract from addressing problems that may make this one and the other "social issues" like it mute.