Ginger_Warrior

As much as I'm arguing there's no difference between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples, you may also assume that I see no difference in unmarried heterosexual couples and married heterosexual couples when in both cases, the spouses are living together in a committed relationship. I don't think it's fair to suggest that homosexuals are asking for special treatment by themselves. Whether you want to face reality or not, family life in the 21st Century is changing, perhaps more rapidly now than it ever has done in human history. The husband is no longer necessarily the highest earner. Homosexuality is now generally tolerated across society. It isn't seen as unusual for a child to be born to an unmarried couple, or even a single parent. Marriage is a great social institution, but it is one that is changing. Sticking your head in the sand and denying stark reality is not a progressive way of looking at this issue.

Because in the 21st Century, being in one of the top schools in the country is synonymous with chess, clearly...

By all means, commit to one another. Their motive isn't marriage, it's equality, which means tax incentives. And yet, strangely, despite being prompted to on several occasions, you have yet to provide a single fair and reasonable argument as to why homosexuals and heterosexuals shouldn't be entitled to the same tax incentives as each other.

You know that's a pro setup when you look at the ring slot.

How exactly does one shower in the basement of a glass house?

In my vast experience of public transport (no one in my family has ever owned or even been able to drive a car), it tends to be a 75:25 split between those who do remove bags from seats and those who don't, and if you ask the latter, they'll usually get all huffy, but this is pretty obvious body language of them knowing they're in the wrong. I think the issue with public transport and not sitting next to people is that it's an invasion of personal space, which for fairly obvious reasons, we don't appreciate total strangers doing to us. I've noticed people don't usually sit directly in front or behind other people either, but usually leave a row of seats in between.

I wasn't formally taught any economic theory at school (I did this weird thing called "reading books") but feel free to continue in your incorrect assumptions.

Let's say a homosexual couple get married and decide to adopt. Hasn't that mutual dedication resulted in the full-time care of a child?

You're missing the point of marriage. How?

Not necessarily, no. As said, it's the assumption that freedom is always better for society that I was really disputing, especially if you're going to use economic half-truths as a means of justifying said assumption. I can think of several free economies right now that, for next decade at least, really won't be anything to write home about on prosperity and growth. I'm fully in support for equality in the status of homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages. I also think that, furthermore, to weave the idea of children into that equation is a complete denial of 21st century family life. A significant proportion of children in the western world do not live with two parents in blissful wedlock. Additionally, we have state structures in place to accommodate for children, and those structures are well defined from marriage. I don't particularly see the sense in suggesting the inability of homosexual couples to conceive is a factor in determining how equal the two marriages really are.

Not to derail the thread, but I'll take a huge objection to this statement. The most productive economies throughout history have been War Economies which typically tend to be anything but "free". Although they make far more from the produce they do sell, capitalist economies have to produce far more than they consume in order to sustain themselves, therefore leading a massive sink of resources. Creativity is another issue (although I'm not quite sure how you scientifically measure an economy's creativity). Perhaps moreover, while I'm somewhat supportive of democratic enfranchisement and social freedom, I'm challenging the assumption that a free economy/society always = better.

This isn't really a thread on marriage itself, but rather marriage equality instead.

What's everyone's thoughts on the idea of going to festivals on your own? A friend told me about her experiences of it, and I just wanted to hear other people's.

If you're wanting more encouragement to play Advance Wars, then please allow me to provide it. Advance Wars: Days of Ruin (Dark Conflict in Europe and Australia) is honestly one of the best DS games I ever played. The intelligent AI more than makes up for its lack of multiplayer support in terms of sheer challenge.

Complicated question: Is PvmDG an extension of EoE? On its recruitment page, it's mentioned that PvmDG was born "from an old DG clan". Their home world is 119. Most of its members are known EoE members. Furthermore, where's the distinction between the two?

Does the "it's not the government's business" argument fall flat, when you also argue in the separation of church and state as a founding principle on which the declaration of independence for your nation was made? It just seems strange you would argue that religion has no place in government affairs and the law, and then use objections from mostly religious organisations to prevent free marriage for homosexual couples.

I hug colleagues at work sometimes. Doesn't mean I wanna bone 'em. Just saying...

Because I have to wake at 05:00 for early shifts (07:00 to 15:00) at my vocational placement, I tend to divide my sleep into two sessions on those days, grabbing about four or five hours before the shift and a couple hours after. For the most part, it works in the sense that my sleeping pattern is flexible enough to accommodate late shifts (13:00 to 21:00) as well. On the other hand, it tends to mean I'm unusually sleepy from 05:00 to around 10:00. What Randox says about quality and sleep deprivation is true. We all have skills which come more naturally and less naturally to us, and in my experience it tends to be latter that suffers most when tired; the skills which require more concentration to use effectively, but are no longer able to. My organisational skills fly out the window when tired, and I'm noticeably less communicative (even aloof sometimes) with colleagues and friends.

I'd suggest that if something such as that would stop you from even interacting with someone, then it's probably you who is the pretentious idiot, not them, and you're probably doing them a massive favour by taking the decision not to talk to them out of their hands.

I'm reasonably sure he's referring to the WASD keys as arrow keys, being used to control player movement in a manner congruous to a control stick with a home console controller. So W and S to move forwards and backwards, A and D to strafe left and right.

What's with all this nickname bollocks?

It's not often I genuinely lol at TIF posts these days!

The only thing more annoying than that, is the way devices now tell you precisely at what time the other person read the message.

There are times when events in the news test your faith in humanity. For example: Harry Styles Fans Queue To Buy Merchandise At Leeds Pop-Up Store

That's only because you're anxious. I'm sure you can think of something to say, even if it's asking questions to get to know them. You don't have to come across as sophisticated or incredible, just be interested in them and confident enough to hold down a conversation. When you think about it, pretty much everyone you meet in life will have some common interest with you, even if it's as trivial as what TV shows you watch or the last time you went to the pictures, and you'll eventually discover one. Then you can start talking less in terms of 'you' and 'me'; and more in terms of 'we'. As a general rule, the one thing people love talking about, more than anything else, is themselves.