Reveilled

So What? If two people believe a couple is the best environment to raise a child in, then they should raise the damn child themselves, not tell me how to do it, or force me to give them tax breaks or benefits. Also, if most people believe children are raised better in a heterosexual parent home, is this sufficient reason to limit the benefits and tax breaks to only heterosexual couples? Being married to someone doesn't necessarily mean you will spend the rest of your life with someone. By the same token, you could spend the rest of your life with someone even if you didn't have a bit of paper that made you legally married. Why does the bit of paper matter? If I whisper my vows to a girl when we are alone on a mountainside, should that have less meaning than if I say them in a church or a registry office? Well, that's a completely different argument to the one about kids. And I don't see how that argument doesn't apply to single people with no children. They;ll have more money to spend which creates jobs, so why not give the tax break to everyone? I don't see how that answers the argument that since they'll do it anyway, they don't need tax breaks to encourage them to do it. But the institution of marriage probably predates the institution of organised government, as well as the institution of taxation, and you still haven't explained why legislation of marriage is necessary for people to form lifelong couples, nor why if the legislation is removed, people will all of a sudden stop doing it. From your link: Percentage of the Single and College Educated who were movers: 75.0% Percentage of the Married and College Educated who were movers: 72.3% Percentage of the Single non-College Educated who were movers: 63.2% Percentage of the Married non-College Educated who were movers: 60.9% Now, is it just me or do those number seem surprisingly similar? If anything, I'd say that supports my argument that married couples are likely to move. Not only that, the figures show that married couples are more likely to immigrate, than singles are. Should we then give tax breaks and special priveliges only to singles to encourage them to stay in their country? Also from this data we see that almost everyone here is moving around within the United States. Since wherever they go within the States they will still be taxed by the federal government, their moving does not affect federal taxation much at all. Thus, I fail to see how something such as marriage would be a federal issue on the basis of taxation. At best, marriage is something you would leave entirely up to the states, and it would be entirely their perogative how to deal with the issue of marriage (not that I'm all too comfortable with that, but I'm far hapier with it than the federal government forcing other states to accept the marriage licences of other states). No, but by the same token I wouldn't like the court to give control over to a person I've been in a long-term relationship with for 50 years. I'd like to have that control myself. I'd like to be able to decide who will have control over me in the event I am unable to do so myself. If I wish that to be the person I have lived with for ten years and choose to call my wife, then I should be able to do that. If I wish that to be my friend Bob despite the fact that I have three children, I should also be able to do that. The government should not take this right away from me and give it only to people who have promised to spend their lives together until they fall out. The ironic thing is that while I am single I actually do have this right, in the form of power of attorney, and the right is taken away from me when I get married. So by the same token, the government should not take this right away from me and give it to my spouse without my consent. Then require all people to get this paperwork, rather than grant the right by marriage. If a man wants his husband or wife to visit outside of hours, make him have the paperwork.

Um, I think you might be a little shocked by the actual plot ... how can I put this humanely; the armies of the Earth come a distinguished, valorous but sadly distant third in the intra-solar system conflict. You might be thinking of HG Wells' The Time Machine for your plot. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, technically, the artilleryman does resort to building an underground society near the end of the story. He just doesn't finish before the actual end of the story.

If two people choose to join forces they tend to do better then if they work alone. many things are likly to happen. Kids the couple most likly will raise which will give the country a population and pay for your SS medicare in the future. They also will be the people incharge of the country to makes sure iit exsist in the future. the kids will also be needed to join are military to help protect us from threats that might come when we're to old to fight. Well, I have several problems with this assertion: 1. You don't have to be part of a couple to have a child. 2. You do not have to be married to be a couple. 3. You gain the legal benefits of marriage even if you have no children. Since having marriage will not necessarily lead to children, legislated marriage places a burden on the taxpayer for no forseeable gain here. 4. If two people intend to have children together, they will form a couple regardless of whether or not they have a bit of paper that makes them legally married. Thus legislation of marriage is uneeded. 5. People have been getting married and having children for as long as human civilisation has existed. What makes the government think that it actually needs to legislate marriage in order for people to get married? First off, could you prove the assertion that couples are less likely to move? Second, I would ask you how the legislation of marriage affects this. People will form couples regardless of whether the state makes marriage an offical status. No. If the government gives a break to one couple, then there are two options: either take the break away from that one couple, as no one is entitled to that break, or give that break to absolutely every law-abiding citizen regardless of their sexuality, gender, skin colour or status in a relationship. Consider, for instance, hospital visitation rights. As it is, aside from Blood relatives only your spouse can be with you outside of visitation hours, correct? So, gays wish to be able to marry in order that their partner can stay with them out of visiting hours if they are hospitalised. What I ask you is why the hell gay couples deserve this but not some old childless widower with no one he cares about left alive but his lifelong best friend? Why does a gay woman deserve to have her wife with her, but a girl can't have her boyfriend of three years with her? Giving the break to all couples is not the solution (aside from the fact that you're not advocating giving the break to all couples, since unmarried couples are still being discriminated against). You either give it to everyone regardless of their marital status, or you don't give it to anyone. You don't advocate giving some rights to whites and others to blacks. You don't advocate giving some rights to straights and some to gays. Isn't it just as discriminatory to advocate giving some rights to couples and others to singles?

There's that lack of respect for authority that'll get you on Hoover's list. The God-fearin' patriots of the US of A know that then stinking reds -- always the reds! -- were the NME! Redshirts, die! (You'll get a mark for your working out if you put "commies". Shows that your head's in the right place.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hell yeah! Them commie bastards were the enemy all along. Course, back in the first war they were redcoats, rather than redshirts, but we damn well showed 'em! Gawd Bless 'Merica.

However the goverement not choosen to make its self stronger but the country. The goverment is ran by the people for the people and to maintain our freedom and life style the people we choose have to make chooses that will keep the country growing and allow it to protect the people who run it. Nobodies force to go to church past the age of 18. If you are unable to get a job in your town because you don't belong to the local church call the ACLU. Churches also tend to feed the and help the poor another reason its ok not to pay taxes. Beside churchs are not the only ones not payin taxes. http://www.eaa.org/chapters/resources/refe...%20Chapter.html The problem is that the government often takes powers under the guise of protecting our freedom, when in fact it often takes our freedom away. As such I am wary of any attempt on the part of a government to grant itself more powers, even if it is claiming it is doing that to protect our freedoms. I'm a firm believe in the "chains of the constitution" approach to Government. And I still don't see the argument for legislating marriage. How exactly does the government legislating marriage make the country stronger? I don't polygamist could still get married but the goverment would only reward two in that marriage. If you had for males married together then you could have two sets of union. So uneven couples might have problem. but the Civil union was design for two people. I really wouldn't care but things come in small steps. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you using the term "civil union" as a term for the special "sepearte but equal" kind of gay marriage, or as a catch all term for marriages legislated by government? If the former, then what that was designed for is rather irrelevant to a discussion on marriage specifically, I think. If the latter, well, government-legislated marriages were designed to be between a man and a woman, and a change to that is already being advocated.

I have no idea what planet in Star Wars I would live on, but within ten years (and hopefully five) I will be moving to New Hampshire and pursuing American Citizenship. I'm worried that knowing as much as I do about American History will hinder my chances, as one of the mock questions for the test on the US Immigration Board's website did not offer "Great Britain" or a variation thereof as a possible answer to the question of who the USA fought in the revolutionary war.

But when we've already decided the level of strength we wish the government to have in the form of a constitution, should we let it attempt to strengthen itself? And considering the institution of marriage got along just fine before the government began interfering in it, on what basis does the government decide that it has to encourage it? Further, on what basis do you or the government decide that the union of two people is the only proper form of marriage? That strikes me as just as arbitrarily unfair to polygamists as a male-female only rule is to homosexuals. Further to that argument is the fact that you don't need to be married to have children, or to live with someone else in a life-long loving relationship. I am also opposed to this. Shaping morals and forming communities is the business of the communities in question and the individuals that are a part of them. Unless said communities are in some way violating the rights of their members or of others outside the community, the Government has no business interfering with them, and any organisations they set up that are religious in nature should be taxed in the same way that a secular organisation does.

But that's not a right to marriage. That's a right to freely practice your religion without government interference. It is unconstitutional for the government to directly interfere in someone's religious beliefs, and this includes giving them benefits for performing a religious ceremony. Saying that the government rewards one group it has to reward the other is thinking about it in the wrong way. If the government decides to reward one group, the law should be struck down, the government removed from power on the grounds that they unable to stay within the bounds of their mandate, and the benefit removed from the group. To compensate for the government taking power for itself for the ends of one group by forcing more power on the government for the ends of another group, will only end with the Government having too much power over all groups.

Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of the War of the Worlds. It's a double album, with songs, instrumentals, and narration.

Thunderchild and Forever Autumn are two of the saddest songs I've ever heard, in completely different ways. Particularly Thunderchild, which was a brilliant portayal of the crushing of Mankind by the martians. After giving the human onlookers some false hope of a last chance at victory, the thunderchild being destroyed so completely is one of the most powerful and emotional pieces of music I've heard.

And thats why I hate MMO's, I need to progress through a larger context/story. Hacking, looting and levelling is meaningless if they only exist for their own purpouse. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Agreed. I've always wanted to like MMORPGs, but I've never been able to see the appeal of running aorund and killing things for no reason. In fact, the only MMORPG I've ever liked was Real Life. There at least, the other players, music and graphics compensated adequately for the lack of a central storyline.

How? How does it trample gays rights? Gays do not have a right to marry. No one has the right to marry. The government not doing things that weren't listed in the constitution was the whole point of the constitution, or at least so thought Thomas Jefferson: "It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights... Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:388 The constitution does list both groups, and it also lists the rights which the federal government is to protect. The federal government should protect these rights. Blacks at the time of the civil rights movement were being denied rights which they were entitled to, so the government stepped in to protect them. The result here of the government stepping in was that straights were given a privilege they were not entitled to. The solution is not to give gays this privilege, the solution is to remove this privilege from straights. The government is currently involved. Since the government should not be involved, the solution is for the government to stop being involved. Instead of seeing the involvement through to the end, they should stop, turn around, and go back the way they came. And what civil rights and freedom of religion issues do you speak of, other than this supposed "right" to get married? I don't see a freedom of religion problem. If a church doesn't want to perform homosexual marriages, it shouldn't have to, and anyone who doesn't like it should either pressure the church into changing its position, or they should leave for another church. Visa-versa for people who don't like it if their church does perform these marriages. No, gays are not treated equally, straights clearly have special treatment in the marriage issue. The difference is that while you are advocating that everyone gets the special treatment, we are advocating that no-one gets the special treatment, and that being married be no more legally binding than being someone's best friend. But a Justice of the Peace should not have the "right" to marry anyone. Anyone at all. Last I checked, JoPs don't do christenings, circumcisions or Bar Mitzvahs, why should they do Weddings? But if the religious leader refuses to marry the two, it does not infringe at all on their civil rights, any more than having Homeless Joe at the bottom of Buchanan Street refuse to perform the ceremony does--or at least it shouldn't--because being married to someone should carry no legal, civil or political meaning whatsoever. But you see, if you remove all those things from marriage, why have marriage controlled by the State at all?

Strange how that always seems to happen, eh? What can I say? I just can't get enough bukkake. Once I saw this interview with the founder of the Body Shop on TV, where she said that many people had written into her claiming that human **** was a brilliant moisturiser. However, she said that she had no plans to begin selling man goo in the Body Shop.

WHy get the backstreet boys when a song like "I like Bukkake" is already available? We really seem to be obsessed with Bukkake on this forum...

My mind is so dirty...

Also, your birthday's one day after mine. Freaky, huh?

That, I don't understand. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's transliterated Japanese. Roughly: "Are you an American Person? I am a Television." :D

Anata wa Amerikajin desu ka? Watashi wa terebijion desu.

Googling "Reveilled" produces 1,970 results, most of them created by people who couldn't spell "revealed" correctly. Of the results, only three relate to me (not including multiple results from the same site), those being my profile here on the Obsidian Forums, my profile on FARK, and a post I made on the Paradox forums concerning a mod I was making for their game Victoria. Also, 1970 is the year in which a cholera outbreak began in eastern slovakia on the day of my birthday. Fascinating.

Ah, but acording to his diaries he was just a misunderstood old chap. Quite friendly really. Grand Moff Tarkin, so misunderstood... "

That's not a slipup per se. Leia remembers the person she beleived to be her mother, just as she believed Bail Organa to be her father. Luke assumes the woman that raised Leia is his mother, and he is mistaken. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Aren't the Organas a bit too hispanic for Leia to not believe she was adopted?

The Obi-Wan thing is from a show in the UK called Dead Ringers, unless I'm mistaken. It's an awesome show, starring Obi-Wan Kenobi, Doctor Who, Tony Blair, Saddam Hussein and George Bush. Five comedic geniuses in one programme. :D

Since the music from that version isn't (as far as I'm aware) in the new film, I do not see how the new film can do anything but suck. You can't have War of the Worlds without the "DUN-DUN-DUN...DUN-DUN-DUN" theme tune. Oh, my new signature is a line from the truly brilliant anime/manga series that is Azumanga Daioh. It refers to a superstition in Japan that the three luckiest things you can see in a dream on New Year's Eve are are a hawk, an eggplant, and Mt. Fuji.

My name is adapted from the name of the album Reveille, by Deerhoof. I needed to come up with a name for an email address, and the album was sitting beside me. But Reveille was taken, and since I dislike emails with numbers in them, I tacked the d on at the end to give me a unique name. My Avatar is a cutsey-anime representation of the Great Race of Yith, a creature of H.P. Lovecraft's creation. My sig is non-existent.

Yeah, I still say the best of all the things he did was when he sat the two students down at a table, put an envelope with