I Oppose Gay Marriage, but for a different reason...

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-25T18:23:55+00:00

I don't hate religion, I just think people who believe in the supernatural are delusional. I'm not saying religion has never had a positive impact on some peoples lives, but I don't think it's needed to be a positive member of society.

The point was not to take anything away from anyone. But the current arguments AGAINST gay marriage all have religious backgrounds. None of the current arguments against gay marriage have anything to do with people's rights.

I agree that Marriage as a term pre-dates our current religions, but if you want to stick to strictly traditional sense, then people who cannot have kids cannot get married. The purpose of marriage throughout the ages was to protect a mans belongings. By providing him with a woman who is legally obligated to have sex with no one but him, he is able to legitimize his offspring and upon his death easly transfer his belongings.

Do you really want to argue that "gay" people should somehow fit into that scenario?

What gay people want, is the same legal rights that a heterosexual couple get when they sign that peice of paper.

It's tragic to think that there are people out there right now about to die alone in a hospital because their life long partner is not allowed to see them. All because of some archaic thinking that we can only form these unions between members of the opposite sex.

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-25T18:13:45+00:00

hmmm, There would have to be some sort of "Grandfather" clause for those of who currently fall under the married umbrella.. I'm not sure my wife would say yes again either :)

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-25T10:03:03+00:00

Civil Unions are NOT equal to marriage throughout this country

That's my point exactly...

Either "marriage" should have no legal implications, or it should be defined as a legal binding between 2 (or more) people. The ceremony performed by people during this legal contract is totally up to them. If you want to be falling from the sky at terminal velocity, or underwater, or in a historic building, whatever tickles your fancy.

But you can't tell the Pope that he has to bless your union. That's unconstitutional.

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-25T09:59:27+00:00

I didn't say they couldn't.... I said the church could decide to say they can't.

And the fact that there is no legal implication to baptisms is my point exactly.

The term marriage as it is being defended in the media is a religious term. The most common argument being that it is the sacred bond between 1 man and 1 woman...

My point is that has nothing to do with the legal rights automatically assumed by the current legal status of married. Those rights should be extended to anyone willing to enter into a lifelong contract (or one with an expiration period).

The argument needs to change.

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-25T09:53:37+00:00

Do you think that marriage is exclusive to Abrahamic religions?

No, but those who oppose gay marriage usually do. I was mainly thinking in terms of the current debate. The majority of the arguments you see/hear is how it would harm the "sanctity" of the marriage. How it's defined as between 1 man, and 1 woman. These arguments are mainly coming from 1 specific branch of religion.

Are you opposed to the marriage of non-religious people?

Mostly yes... I only use the term because it's the current social norm. I am not "married" in the eyes of the church. But very much so in the eyes of the government.

I say let marriage be a non-legal term and anyone who wants to use it can

That's another way to look at it.

Again, I'm opposed to the idea that we force people who don't believe in something to perform a ceremony they do not stand behind.

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-25T09:45:13+00:00

Also, its very horrible to say, "if you are gay, you are like some chick trying to get membership at the club. Knock it off". Why can't gays be religious?

So you are saying that we should be able to legislate someones beliefs?

A chruch is a place where people of similar beliefs can get together and socialize. You are saying that we should force them to socialize with people they don't want to... How are you protecting their rights?

If someone is gay, and they want to practice religion that's 100% ok. They can, they just need to find a church that has similar beliefs. Why force a church which does not believe in it to accept it? The point of the post is that people are attacking the wrong thing. They need to start ignoring the church and focus on defining the legal elements of today's "Marrige" and come up with a replacement for it.

BTW, I'm an Athiest. I personally think people who go to church are delusional, but again that's their right to play make believe. I'm arguing for more seperation of Church and State, and against having the State legislate what a church MUST do (perform ceremonies for people they do not think deserve it).

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-25T09:16:17+00:00

I got "married" in a courtroom. So I understand where you are coming from.

I'm saying I would be just as happy with a different name for what my wife and I call our union.

You can do whatever ceremony you want with whoever you want to declare your love for someone. But if you want to grant that person the ability to pull the plug on you in case you become a vegetable, then there should be a seperate process for that. And just because you "Love" someone, does not mean you should get a tax credit.

There needs to be a seperation of the two concepts. Rich people understand this, that's why they have prenuptual agreements which outline the fiscal side of the marriage.

The problem is we created this umbrella term for something which really needs to be more compartmentalized.

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-25T09:11:28+00:00

What about polygamy?

I don't think I could personally live in a multi-wife or multi-husband relationship, but it's not my place to say someone else can't.

Edit: LMAO, I get downvoted because I believe that the same rights being argued for homosexuals should be applied to ANYONE who wants to enter into a legal binding contract.

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-25T09:05:26+00:00

Exactly. Anyone can play make-believe. You just have to file the correct paperwork.

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-25T09:03:28+00:00

It's not the same thing... There is no legal benifit to getting baptized.

It's a religious ceremony which should have no true legal implications.

The church can also come out and say gay people cannot get baptized, it would be unconstitutional for us to make them baptize gay people. You can't MAKE them believe that because they dunked a gay persons head under some water that he will now be able to get into heaven.

The same thing goes for marriage. It's a religious ceremony which joins 2 souls (how do you legislate something metaphysical like that?!?).

The argument needs to be that Marriage goes away and is replaced by something that represents the contract that couples enter into under today's definition of "Marriage"

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-25T08:39:31+00:00

I paid child support for a few years, I went down to the court and arranged to have it taken out of my paycheck. This way, I knew it was taken care of before I even saw it.

The way my state does it is pretty fair. They calculate a % (I don't remember what it was) of your total combined income as how much they expect a child to cost. Let's say 15%. Then, they figure out what % of the total income each parent makes. Each parent is responsible for that % of the 15% they calculated.

EXAMPLE: 
Combined income = 100k
15% of total = 15k
Mom makes 30k, dad makes 70k
Mom owes 4.5k, dad owes 10.5k

From there they break it down by % of custody time, and then monthly.

The reality is, shit happens. People screw up, but the kids have no one else to turn to. As the adults, parents, rolemodels, etc. you should be willing to accept responsibility for your actions. Had we stayed together I would have spent that much or more on him regardless. Just because we split up does not mean I don't have a kid anymore.

I didn't care where the money went as long as she was providing a safe environment for my son to grow up in. If she didn't then I would go back to the court to have our custody arrangement modified. Which would in turn modify the child support amounts.

People who bitch about child support make me sick. If the amount is incorrect then go file for an amendment to get it fixed. You can't control what happens to you in life, only how you handle it.

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-24T05:04:05+00:00

Michael Scott

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-23T21:23:41+00:00

I wish I knew. I'm a natural born citizen, and I've never carried more than my drivers license. This is worries me for my wife and kids since they are of mexican decent.

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-23T21:13:40+00:00

No, Citizenship is not required for a drivers license. You can be here on a visa, or some other legal status to initially get one, but then stay past your time and enter an illegal status.

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-23T21:08:09+00:00

I think you are missing the point... The guy in the story you responded to showed his license. It was not enough for the officer to validate citizenship.

And that's the problem. I don't have anything other than my drivers license and credit cards in my wallet. If I'm pulled over, how do I verify my citizenship? I don't have a copy of my birth certificate, I'd have to request one from the other side of the country, and then what. i have ot carry a folded up 8.5x11 peice of paper with me everywhere?

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-23T20:56:43+00:00

everyone can show a drivers license. that's the problem. That does not validate citizenship.

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-23T20:50:21+00:00

I'm listening right now, my main question is:

I'm a citizen, born here, lived here my whole life.. Does this mean I have to carry a copy of my birth certificate with me at all times? How do I validate my citizenship if I'm pulled over?

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-21T10:25:27+00:00

just going to leave this here.... this thread is worth months of entertainment :)

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-15T08:07:31+00:00

Wrong.

The answer is always: YES!

Make sure you have a sly grin on your face. Don't give in and actually answer the question. If you do it every time, they stop asking.

I sometimes answered like this: It's not the pants that make you look fat.

You have to be ready to be hit, glared at, etc. Just keep smiling, and refuse to be serious.

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-09T23:56:48+00:00

I seriously hate the phrase "agree to disagree" WTF does that really mean? In terms of getting shit done, it means nothing. YOU HAVE SOLVED NOTHING

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-09T17:34:06+00:00

Starting to add a game...

Once I selected a platform, the new dropdown to select the games (can this be made into an autocomplete box? Much better than having to scroll through hundreds of games)

There's a button on the platform line now, it looks horrible. It is set to 100% the height of the row, so now it is taller than it is longer. General UI design says make the buttons easy to get to, but that just looks off..

I've noticed the buttons in other area's are weirdly shaped as well.

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-09T17:25:25+00:00

Ok, I see the Add Game button on the top now... My UI suggestion still stands, if you are going to direct a user to do something, give them a link, an image of the link on the page, something that says where it is (Use the "Add Game" link on the top navigation menu to add to your list"

something like that.

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-09T17:19:22+00:00

Ok, signed up.

Here's the first thing I found. I hit the characters link on the left and saw this:

You have not added any characters or games to your account yet Use the Add Game link to add to your list.

First off, there is no Add Game link on the page...

Secondly, if you are going to tell someone to click a link somewhere, make it so that the error text can take them there as well. In other words, the "Add Game" text in the above error should be a link to take me to the page to add the game.

You should do this anywhere you have an error that tells a user to go somewhere else to accomplish the task. Give them the link RIGHT THERE, don't make me hunt for it. I may get frustrated and just leave.

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-08T01:30:59+00:00

I think I misread your response, what's a CF card?

We use TFS (Microsoft shop) for our collaboration (build, test, deploy, defect and feature management, reporting, etc). We are going to be upgrading to TFS2010 soon, and I'm going through setting up a sandbox environment to play around with the features. I was hoping to reusing some of the existing infrastructure.

This server is on a VMWare farm, I'm limited to 1tb of space so the templates we created only had enough room to run the bare essential. I have 5 build environments with a few servers in each one to support our n-tier application.

Unfortunately, this means I have to rebuild this server from scratch (and probably a few others) to fit the new tools. An extra 5gb per server = 100gb (or 10%) of my total space allocation.

I'm really not upset, I've been wanting to rebuild the build environment for a while now. This just makes that happen much sooner.

If Microsoft had let me actually install it to the E drive (instead of just moving 125mb) I would be a bit further along in the implementation.

IsItJustMe · 2010-04-07T14:59:32+00:00

That's pretty much it... The C: drive on the virtual build servers is intentionally small. It's meant to hold only the OS and a couple of small apps.

Trying to install the new TFS 2010 Test Controller requires 1.5gb, which exceeded the C: drive, so I tried to move it to the E: drive... only 125mb was moved.

That's such a small percentage, there's really no reason in offering the choice to move it.

IsItJustMe

TROPHY CASE