LOCKEZ'S PROFILE

Well, if the benefits document has no requirements, then why does it exist? Presumably they're giving you benefits for something. If that something is "whatever you want it to be" then they should just give everyone the benefits by default.

I'm not even aware of any straight people that are against the idea of civil unions instead of marriages for gay people, is that seriously a thing anyone has a problem with? I mostly avoid paying attention to current politics so maybe it is something they've been arguing about. I mean I guess there are theoretically people out there who think all gays should be in jail, but they're all in nursing homes so who cares

author=Feldschlacht IV

author=LockeZ
Also, in your first example, I'll note that the protestors being derisive of the KKK were being as bad as the KKK. The KKK was actually doing a peaceful demonstration for a change, and everyone started bullying and mocking them, doing exactly what I thought you were trying to prevent people from doing to women. Two wrongs don't make a right. Stopping the KKK through hate speech and intimidation tactics is at least as bad as leaving them alone. Probably worse, in fact - now you've got five thousand people using hate speech and intimidation tactics instead of just fifty.

There is a difference between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Consequences of Free Speech. Are you high? Are you really suggesting that people should be able to say what they want without having to take accountability for what they've said? Part of being an adult is realizing 'Hey, I can say this thing, but that also means I'll have to accept the results, good or bad, of what I've said.'

Well, that paragraph was a seperate, unrelated argument, it had nothing to do with free speech. I was basically saying that, even if you don't agree with the free speech argument, here's a second argument to consider: you're doing exactly what they're doing except you've got a hundred times as many people doing it, so you haven't improved society. Wouldn't it have been better to leave the KKK alone in that case?

The problem is, what does marriage mean? It means extremely different things in different religions. To some people it's about love; to some people it's not. To some people it's about sex; to some people it's not. To some people it's about starting a family; to some people it's not. To some people it's a lifelong commitment; to some people it's not. To some people it's between two people; to some people it's not.

There must be a common thread, though, right? No, there's not. In fact the only thing in common between Islamic marriage, Christian marriage and Atheist marriage is that they can't be done with only one person. Yet, the government calls them all the same thing.

This is the source of all the confusion, really. Gay rights people are like "Our love is just as real as yours!" but Christians are like "But marriage isn't about love. You'll be happier if you love the person you're married to, but marriage simply means getting God's approval to make babies." They're using the same word, but they're not talking about the same thing.

(To be honest I'm not sure exactly what marriage does mean to gay people, nor even to atheists. It clearly doesn't mean "getting God's approval to make babies," though, which as a Christian is the only definition I ever learned. A gaytheist should clarify their view for me; I'm interested.)

Since marriage is a religious union, it should be up to the church marrying you what to allow or disallow. The government shouldn't get involved. This doesn't mean "recognize gay marriage" though. It means "don't recognize marriage." Because outside the context of a specific religion, the word doesn't mean anything.

However, removing government recognition of marriage isn't going to happen in the US; it would require rewriting SO MANY LAWS, including tax laws and sexual consent laws and medical laws and inheritance laws and custody laws and alimony laws and all sorts of other shit. And a lot of those are state laws, but the enforcement of federal crimes and federal taxes depends on every state having at least semi-similar laws regarding them (similar enough that marriage at least has to exist in every state, anyway), so every single state would need to agree to do it at the same time. So that's basically not happening ever. So instead we get endless pissing contests about whose definition should be the unofficial basis for the marriage license forms. I don't foresee a resolution in my lifetime.

It's not just a level. It appears to be the entire game. In the "related links" on youtube are several other levels later in the game.

Square Enix has been pretty brutal about stopping Chrono Trigger fan projects, but if they seriously put it on their own facebook page, it seems like they have learned their lesson. I mean, let's be serious: this doesn't detract from any real future FF7 remakes. It's made with sock puppets. It just creates hype and recognition for them.