12 Reasons Same-Sex Marriage will Ruin Society
-
Sad. Homosexuals and supporters believe that by accepting gays as being normal they are some how more enlightened or more sophisticated then those who are opposed to Homosexuality. Almost as if being gay is a new step for society. Homosexuality isn't anywhere close to being a new idea and a certain previous society that choose to recognize the Homosexual lifestyle as an acceptable alternative were completely destroyed. It will happen again. My code isn't buggy. Those are all fleatures.
Adam Wimsatt wrote: Homosexuality isn't anywhere close to being a new idea i don't know anyone who thinks it is. Adam Wimsatt wrote: a certain previous society that choose to recognize the Homosexual lifestyle as an acceptable alternative were completely destroyed. certain societies that chose to become Christian societies were also destroyed. certain societies that chose to speak Latin were also destroyed. Adam Wimsatt wrote: It will happen again. everything will happen again. nothing is forever. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Some items made some good points, but others were so hyperbolized the argument was misrepresented. Reason #9 stood out to me because the anti-gay-marriage crowd seems to have an argument that the pro-gay-marriage crowd has had problems with. The argument goes something like this, if we allow gay marriage based on equal protection of rights then we have to allow plural marriages as well. Or maybe this is a moot argument?
Brian Gideon wrote: The argument goes something like this, if we allow gay marriage based on equal protection of rights then we have to allow plural marriages as well. Or maybe this is a moot argument? I think it's a moot point - the two are largely independant. Comparing straight and gay marriages, all we're changing is the gender of one party - which isn't particularly problematic in purely legislative terms. When dealing with an n-pluralistic marriage, we have (n2 - n)/2 consents to marriage (as you have to have all people agreeing to marry all the others, to be fair about it). This (obviously) makes things such as divorce and property laws (etc) considerably more complicated, something that gay marriages don't do. You'd also have to factor in the various economic aspects - an employer might reasonably provide healthcare costs for a worker and their (single) spouse and any children, but providing it for an arbitrary number of spouses? So for the time being, while I can accept that a pluralistic marriage where all parties agree to be married to each other is not an unreasonable thing to want, the legal problems that arises from allowing it are considerably greater than those raised from just allowing arbitrary 2-people marriages. So is it just to deny marriages to gay people now on the grounds that people inclined to a pluralistic marriage might want the same right, even though there's actually no real link between them and their legal requirements?
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
Adam Wimsatt wrote: Homosexuality isn't anywhere close to being a new idea i don't know anyone who thinks it is. Adam Wimsatt wrote: a certain previous society that choose to recognize the Homosexual lifestyle as an acceptable alternative were completely destroyed. certain societies that chose to become Christian societies were also destroyed. certain societies that chose to speak Latin were also destroyed. Adam Wimsatt wrote: It will happen again. everything will happen again. nothing is forever. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Do I see an apprentice trollslayer in the room ? :laugh: That reminds me - your union fees, payable in swiss chocolate.. Elaine (coniving fluffy tigress) The tigress is here :-D
-
Do I see an apprentice trollslayer in the room ? :laugh: That reminds me - your union fees, payable in swiss chocolate.. Elaine (coniving fluffy tigress) The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: payable in swiss chocolate i could live off Lindt milk-chocolate. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Sad. Homosexuals and supporters believe that by accepting gays as being normal they are some how more enlightened or more sophisticated then those who are opposed to Homosexuality. Almost as if being gay is a new step for society. Homosexuality isn't anywhere close to being a new idea and a certain previous society that choose to recognize the Homosexual lifestyle as an acceptable alternative were completely destroyed. It will happen again. My code isn't buggy. Those are all fleatures.
I have one rule in life, as long as something doesn't infringe on my rights then people can live their lives how they choose or how nature made them. Why shouldn't homosexuals have the same rights as you and me. If we have to put up with the hell that is marriage, why shouldn't they ;-) This is the 21st century, it's time to update your thinking. Michael But you know when the truth is told, That you can get what you want or you can just get old, Your're going to kick off before you even get halfway through. When will you realise... Vienna waits for you? - "The Stranger," Billy Joel
-
Brian Gideon wrote: if we allow gay marriage based on equal protection of rights then we have to allow plural marriages as well. that's a slippery-slope argument ( a logical fallacy ) the government can draw the line anywhere it wants to. it can make an amendment that says "marriage = unrelated man and woman", it can make an amendment that says "marriage = two unrelated people", it could make a law that says "marriage = three people". all of those amendments exclude someone, but that doesn't matter, because if it's in the constitution, it's the law of the land. an amendment can't be declared unconstitutional (by definition) and overturned like a "normal" law. an amendment can be repealed by another constitutional amendment, of course, but that's not something that happens automatically. think about the voting age; it was lowered to 18 in the early 70's. the slippery slope argument would say that since nothing magical happens on your 18th birthday with respect to your mental ability to cast a vote, there's no reason we shouldn't lower it to the day before your 18th birthday - another day on which nothing magical happens, so why not make it two days before, etc.. all the way to infancy. but we don't do that - we chose 18 as the age at which people should be allowed to vote and we put it in the constitution. the only way 17 year olds could get the vote is by amending the constitution. and if the Congress and the States wanted to, they could raise the age to 21 or 25, or make it available only to men, or to only white men, or to white male land owners. but we don't, and we don't have to - nothing forces us to move the voting age either way. short version: the reason there's no slippery slope here is that the constitution is final, and nothing compells the constitution to change itself. it can only be changed by the conscious actions of Congress and the States. if society doesn't want polygamists to marry, they won't be allowed to. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
I have one rule in life, as long as something doesn't infringe on my rights then people can live their lives how they choose or how nature made them. Why shouldn't homosexuals have the same rights as you and me. If we have to put up with the hell that is marriage, why shouldn't they ;-) This is the 21st century, it's time to update your thinking. Michael But you know when the truth is told, That you can get what you want or you can just get old, Your're going to kick off before you even get halfway through. When will you realise... Vienna waits for you? - "The Stranger," Billy Joel
Michael P Butler wrote: If we have to put up with the hell that is marriage, why shouldn't they Always makes me wonder why they want it. Don't they realize what a prison/torture it is :)
-
I have one rule in life, as long as something doesn't infringe on my rights then people can live their lives how they choose or how nature made them. Why shouldn't homosexuals have the same rights as you and me. If we have to put up with the hell that is marriage, why shouldn't they ;-) This is the 21st century, it's time to update your thinking. Michael But you know when the truth is told, That you can get what you want or you can just get old, Your're going to kick off before you even get halfway through. When will you realise... Vienna waits for you? - "The Stranger," Billy Joel
Michael P Butler wrote: I have one rule in life, as long as something doesn't infringe on my rights then people can live their lives how they choose or how nature made them. Nature has made it possible for females to get pregnant at age 13. Although a marriage between a male and a female of this age doesn't infringe on my rights I still think the government is justified in forbidding these types of marriages despite its prevelance in early societies.
-
Adam Wimsatt wrote: and a certain previous society that choose to recognize the Homosexual lifestyle as an acceptable alternative were completely destroyed So which society was that then? And was accepting homosexuality as an alternative the cause of their demise? I find that unlikely to say the least.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
Ian Darling wrote: So which society was that then? And was accepting homosexuality as an alternative the cause of their demise? I find that unlikely to say the least. Sodom from the Bible. The city was destroyed because of unrighteousness, sins which included Homosexuality. My code isn't buggy. Those are all fleatures.
-
Ian Darling wrote: So which society was that then? And was accepting homosexuality as an alternative the cause of their demise? I find that unlikely to say the least. Sodom from the Bible. The city was destroyed because of unrighteousness, sins which included Homosexuality. My code isn't buggy. Those are all fleatures.
Pardon me while I pick myself up - I just fell out of my chair laughing. So literal interpretation of the Bible is your source for historical information, is it? I'm sure you'll tell us all how we've been here a total of five thousand years, and that dinosaur bones are an elaborate practical joke. Or is it a test of faith? I forget. :laugh::laugh:
-
http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/gaymarriage.html[^] (A note for those against gay marriage rights - this an extremely serious and important document, the arguments of which appear to be infallible and must be used whenever possible) (A note for everyone else: shhhhh ;))
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
Actually, I think the proper solution is to require heterosexual couples to enter into Civil Unions. To many marriages are anything but civil... Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
Brian Gideon wrote: if we allow gay marriage based on equal protection of rights then we have to allow plural marriages as well. that's a slippery-slope argument ( a logical fallacy ) the government can draw the line anywhere it wants to. it can make an amendment that says "marriage = unrelated man and woman", it can make an amendment that says "marriage = two unrelated people", it could make a law that says "marriage = three people". all of those amendments exclude someone, but that doesn't matter, because if it's in the constitution, it's the law of the land. an amendment can't be declared unconstitutional (by definition) and overturned like a "normal" law. an amendment can be repealed by another constitutional amendment, of course, but that's not something that happens automatically. think about the voting age; it was lowered to 18 in the early 70's. the slippery slope argument would say that since nothing magical happens on your 18th birthday with respect to your mental ability to cast a vote, there's no reason we shouldn't lower it to the day before your 18th birthday - another day on which nothing magical happens, so why not make it two days before, etc.. all the way to infancy. but we don't do that - we chose 18 as the age at which people should be allowed to vote and we put it in the constitution. the only way 17 year olds could get the vote is by amending the constitution. and if the Congress and the States wanted to, they could raise the age to 21 or 25, or make it available only to men, or to only white men, or to white male land owners. but we don't, and we don't have to - nothing forces us to move the voting age either way. short version: the reason there's no slippery slope here is that the constitution is final, and nothing compells the constitution to change itself. it can only be changed by the conscious actions of Congress and the States. if society doesn't want polygamists to marry, they won't be allowed to. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
I was thinking about this yesterday. One of my coworkers was arguing that gays are like blacks and women - i.e. deprived of rights. In the spirit of equal rights (like we've done for women and blacks), we need to give gays the right to marry. Like women and blacks, gays were born that way. They have no choice, so we shouldn't deny them rights because of who they are. Well, no one wants to be the oppressor. I was a little uncomfortable with the argument, though. I like to have reasons for the ideas I support, not emotional appeals. I began to wonder "If people who are into beastiality and pedophilia are born that way, and they want to marry their dog or a young child, on what logical basis do we deny them that right?" For some people, the answer is "it's icky", which is pretty much the same argument for denying gays the right to marry. I came to the conclusion that consent is the critical factor. Animals and young children cannot give consent. Two adult homosexuals can give consent. Everyone already agrees in the idea of consent, so that draws a clear line to allow gay marriage, but not beastiality marriages or child marriages. But, then I began to wonder, "On what logical priniciple do we prevent polygamy?" I really have no answer because the consent argument doesn't prevent polygamy. I agree with Brian, then. Sure, the government can make any law that it wants - i.e. it can prevent polygamy but allow gay marriage - but on what principle does it do that? One solution is to say "polygamy is okay, too". But, now you've just agreed with the conservative's view of the slippery slope. Another solution might be to say, "limiting a marriage to two heterosexuals is as arbitrary as limiting it to two people and we're just going to draw an arbitrary line allowing gay marriage but not polygamy". Unfortunately, you're admitting that accepting gay marriage but not polygamy is arbitrary - putting you in pretty much the same category as the conservatives who want to draw that line elsewhere - i.e. preventing gay marriage. In that case, you allow gay marriage but not polygamy for purely emotional reasons (or practical reasons, as Ian pointed out), but not for principled reasons and not for "civil rights reasons". All of this destroys the gay-marriage backer's argument that "we're enlightened because we're giving rights to people who have been denied the right to marry". I'm not actually opposed to gay marriage myself. If it were put to a vote, I'd say, "sure". But, I'm not sure on what basis I
-
Ian Darling wrote: So which society was that then? And was accepting homosexuality as an alternative the cause of their demise? I find that unlikely to say the least. Sodom from the Bible. The city was destroyed because of unrighteousness, sins which included Homosexuality. My code isn't buggy. Those are all fleatures.
Adam Wimsatt wrote: Sodom from the Bible. The city was destroyed because of unrighteousness, sins which included Homosexuality Ahh, so it was destroyed because of unrighteousness. Which included more than just homosexuality. Going by how unrighteous they were according to scripture, they probably would have been destroyed anyway, just for being drunken, philandering, violent and having really bad body odour. You do realise that a sizable part of the Law as described in Scripture is actually just a public health guide designed to protect the health of people of the time. And stories of fear to keep the population under control are a well known form of propoganda (just look at todays news media) Being promiscuous (and possibly homosexual as well) in that era was quite possibly dangerous to health, rather than it is now, in an age of vastly improved hygiene, medical knowledge, condoms and awareness of STDs. So it's much more likely that if there was a Sodom (as opposed to some form of semi-historical myth), and it was destroyed, it was more likely through some form of STD or other epidemic illness spreading through the population than from a vengeful God. And even if you could find real archaeological and other historical evidence which might support the Sodom account you've presented here, it doesn't automatically follow that we should ban gay marriage. Our society in the West may have strong Judeo-Christian roots, but it doesn't mean we're beholden to them. If vengeful destruction from a God I do not acknowledge the existence of is the price of accepting gay marriages, then I consider that a reasonable price to pay for keeping to my own moral and ethical beliefs.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
I was thinking about this yesterday. One of my coworkers was arguing that gays are like blacks and women - i.e. deprived of rights. In the spirit of equal rights (like we've done for women and blacks), we need to give gays the right to marry. Like women and blacks, gays were born that way. They have no choice, so we shouldn't deny them rights because of who they are. Well, no one wants to be the oppressor. I was a little uncomfortable with the argument, though. I like to have reasons for the ideas I support, not emotional appeals. I began to wonder "If people who are into beastiality and pedophilia are born that way, and they want to marry their dog or a young child, on what logical basis do we deny them that right?" For some people, the answer is "it's icky", which is pretty much the same argument for denying gays the right to marry. I came to the conclusion that consent is the critical factor. Animals and young children cannot give consent. Two adult homosexuals can give consent. Everyone already agrees in the idea of consent, so that draws a clear line to allow gay marriage, but not beastiality marriages or child marriages. But, then I began to wonder, "On what logical priniciple do we prevent polygamy?" I really have no answer because the consent argument doesn't prevent polygamy. I agree with Brian, then. Sure, the government can make any law that it wants - i.e. it can prevent polygamy but allow gay marriage - but on what principle does it do that? One solution is to say "polygamy is okay, too". But, now you've just agreed with the conservative's view of the slippery slope. Another solution might be to say, "limiting a marriage to two heterosexuals is as arbitrary as limiting it to two people and we're just going to draw an arbitrary line allowing gay marriage but not polygamy". Unfortunately, you're admitting that accepting gay marriage but not polygamy is arbitrary - putting you in pretty much the same category as the conservatives who want to draw that line elsewhere - i.e. preventing gay marriage. In that case, you allow gay marriage but not polygamy for purely emotional reasons (or practical reasons, as Ian pointed out), but not for principled reasons and not for "civil rights reasons". All of this destroys the gay-marriage backer's argument that "we're enlightened because we're giving rights to people who have been denied the right to marry". I'm not actually opposed to gay marriage myself. If it were put to a vote, I'd say, "sure". But, I'm not sure on what basis I
Brit wrote: In that case, you allow gay marriage but not polygamy for purely emotional reasons (or practical reasons, as Ian pointed out) :-D Brit wrote: but not for principled reasons and not for "civil rights reasons". I personally don't have a problem with polygamy/polyandry/or a combination of them, however as you've pointed out - it has to be consensual amongst all parties to have a legal binding to all the other parties. It's sufficiently problematic from a legislative point of view as well that holding back gay marriage on the grounds that you have to resolve the issues around pluralistic marriage is wrong. They are different kettles of fish (or kettles of spouses, as the case may be :-)) To argue using a "racial" example (which might be more easily understood at least, if slightly dubious): If there were laws made by turquiose people, some laws discriminating against green people and some possibly related but different laws discriminating against blue people, and fixing the laws surrounding blue people is more problematic (for some reason) than fixing the laws surrounding green people, you don't hold back fixing the rights of green people because of the issues surrounding blue people that need to be resolved. You fix the green people issues now to increase the social justice and freedom of society, and fix the blue people issues when you're able to do so.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
I was thinking about this yesterday. One of my coworkers was arguing that gays are like blacks and women - i.e. deprived of rights. In the spirit of equal rights (like we've done for women and blacks), we need to give gays the right to marry. Like women and blacks, gays were born that way. They have no choice, so we shouldn't deny them rights because of who they are. Well, no one wants to be the oppressor. I was a little uncomfortable with the argument, though. I like to have reasons for the ideas I support, not emotional appeals. I began to wonder "If people who are into beastiality and pedophilia are born that way, and they want to marry their dog or a young child, on what logical basis do we deny them that right?" For some people, the answer is "it's icky", which is pretty much the same argument for denying gays the right to marry. I came to the conclusion that consent is the critical factor. Animals and young children cannot give consent. Two adult homosexuals can give consent. Everyone already agrees in the idea of consent, so that draws a clear line to allow gay marriage, but not beastiality marriages or child marriages. But, then I began to wonder, "On what logical priniciple do we prevent polygamy?" I really have no answer because the consent argument doesn't prevent polygamy. I agree with Brian, then. Sure, the government can make any law that it wants - i.e. it can prevent polygamy but allow gay marriage - but on what principle does it do that? One solution is to say "polygamy is okay, too". But, now you've just agreed with the conservative's view of the slippery slope. Another solution might be to say, "limiting a marriage to two heterosexuals is as arbitrary as limiting it to two people and we're just going to draw an arbitrary line allowing gay marriage but not polygamy". Unfortunately, you're admitting that accepting gay marriage but not polygamy is arbitrary - putting you in pretty much the same category as the conservatives who want to draw that line elsewhere - i.e. preventing gay marriage. In that case, you allow gay marriage but not polygamy for purely emotional reasons (or practical reasons, as Ian pointed out), but not for principled reasons and not for "civil rights reasons". All of this destroys the gay-marriage backer's argument that "we're enlightened because we're giving rights to people who have been denied the right to marry". I'm not actually opposed to gay marriage myself. If it were put to a vote, I'd say, "sure". But, I'm not sure on what basis I
i totally agree. it's arbitrary, but, there has to be a line somewhere: it could include incestuous couples and polygamists, or just gays and heteros, or just heteros, or just breeding heteros, or just christians, or whatever - all arbitrary choices when you get right down to it. the problem we have right now is that the line was never formally drawn, it was just assumed. but, now we have to put it in writing, and it's going to be an arbitrary choice. i personally think we should draw it to include gays but not polygamists because a gay marriage is closer to the traditional hetero marriage than a polygamous one is: it's two people; so it fits in better with our current society and our current framework of laws and institutions. silly example: every form you fill out has a place for "Spouse", but for only one spouse. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
I was thinking about this yesterday. One of my coworkers was arguing that gays are like blacks and women - i.e. deprived of rights. In the spirit of equal rights (like we've done for women and blacks), we need to give gays the right to marry. Like women and blacks, gays were born that way. They have no choice, so we shouldn't deny them rights because of who they are. Well, no one wants to be the oppressor. I was a little uncomfortable with the argument, though. I like to have reasons for the ideas I support, not emotional appeals. I began to wonder "If people who are into beastiality and pedophilia are born that way, and they want to marry their dog or a young child, on what logical basis do we deny them that right?" For some people, the answer is "it's icky", which is pretty much the same argument for denying gays the right to marry. I came to the conclusion that consent is the critical factor. Animals and young children cannot give consent. Two adult homosexuals can give consent. Everyone already agrees in the idea of consent, so that draws a clear line to allow gay marriage, but not beastiality marriages or child marriages. But, then I began to wonder, "On what logical priniciple do we prevent polygamy?" I really have no answer because the consent argument doesn't prevent polygamy. I agree with Brian, then. Sure, the government can make any law that it wants - i.e. it can prevent polygamy but allow gay marriage - but on what principle does it do that? One solution is to say "polygamy is okay, too". But, now you've just agreed with the conservative's view of the slippery slope. Another solution might be to say, "limiting a marriage to two heterosexuals is as arbitrary as limiting it to two people and we're just going to draw an arbitrary line allowing gay marriage but not polygamy". Unfortunately, you're admitting that accepting gay marriage but not polygamy is arbitrary - putting you in pretty much the same category as the conservatives who want to draw that line elsewhere - i.e. preventing gay marriage. In that case, you allow gay marriage but not polygamy for purely emotional reasons (or practical reasons, as Ian pointed out), but not for principled reasons and not for "civil rights reasons". All of this destroys the gay-marriage backer's argument that "we're enlightened because we're giving rights to people who have been denied the right to marry". I'm not actually opposed to gay marriage myself. If it were put to a vote, I'd say, "sure". But, I'm not sure on what basis I
-
Actually, I think the proper solution is to require heterosexual couples to enter into Civil Unions. To many marriages are anything but civil... Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
My take is that a truely secular government should only recognize marriage as a civil union and nothing more. All this banging on about the "sanctity" of marriage is a clear violation of the seperation of church and state (IMHO). The government should have no role in deciding the sanctity of anything. All marriages should be considered civil unions by the government and the church can decide if they are sacred or not. That way homosexual couple can have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples (civil unions) and be recognized by the government to have the same status, but no church is going to be forced to like it or endorse it. People's churches can continue to be the comfortable little bastions of bigotry they've always been and the rest of society can move on.
-
I have one rule in life, as long as something doesn't infringe on my rights then people can live their lives how they choose or how nature made them. Why shouldn't homosexuals have the same rights as you and me. If we have to put up with the hell that is marriage, why shouldn't they ;-) This is the 21st century, it's time to update your thinking. Michael But you know when the truth is told, That you can get what you want or you can just get old, Your're going to kick off before you even get halfway through. When will you realise... Vienna waits for you? - "The Stranger," Billy Joel
Michael P Butler wrote: If we have to put up with the hell that is marriage, why shouldn't they Actually I know a few Gay people who are against same-sex-marriage for that very reason. It's kind of funny. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
Pardon me while I pick myself up - I just fell out of my chair laughing. So literal interpretation of the Bible is your source for historical information, is it? I'm sure you'll tell us all how we've been here a total of five thousand years, and that dinosaur bones are an elaborate practical joke. Or is it a test of faith? I forget. :laugh::laugh:
This is probably surprising to you, but every time there has been hard evidence discovered, it has matched with the history of the Bible. Archeologists have postulated many times that the Bible can't be right about so-and-so (Hittites for example). But later, someone goes and discovers that the Bible was right all along. The theory of evolution is similar. While it is a reason that many people disregard the Bible, it has no facts that clearly indicate its validity. Laughing at the Bible is a dangerous thing to do, when you look at the actual evidence rather than popular opinion. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
This is probably surprising to you, but every time there has been hard evidence discovered, it has matched with the history of the Bible. Archeologists have postulated many times that the Bible can't be right about so-and-so (Hittites for example). But later, someone goes and discovers that the Bible was right all along. The theory of evolution is similar. While it is a reason that many people disregard the Bible, it has no facts that clearly indicate its validity. Laughing at the Bible is a dangerous thing to do, when you look at the actual evidence rather than popular opinion. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.Looks like it's a little lame on that 7 day business... It is also very dangerous to accept everything written in a largely allegorical document, by many authors (some with a political agenda), and translated many times (often by politically motivated translators) as absolute truth. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf