News Stories

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by GenjiChan

No I don't mean that. What made you thought of that?

I'm just wondering what will happen next in the marriage system of the world like in the coming future... I was just exaggerating..

Keep in mind that your comment is the official stance of the anti-gay marriage faction. I don't know if you were truly exaggerating or not, but I do know plenty of other people use that as their main argument against gay marriage.

[Xefi]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

3.2mil after lawyers cut.

still A LOT of money. hell, trap me in there for 5 days of starvation. i'll take the money
now please. man, it's almost like this dood just won a lottery. talking about turning misfortune into $! unbelivable...

what would you do with all of those money? lol. i dont even need to ask. :P

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Xefi

@Xellos: still A LOT of money. hell, trap me in there for 5 days of starvation. i'll take the money
now please. man, it's almost like this dood just won a lottery. talking about turning misfortune into $! unbelivable...

what would you do with all of those money? lol. i dont even need to ask. :P

the question should what would my wife do with the money...I am married now.

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Keep in mind that your comment is the official stance of the anti-gay marriage faction. I don't know if you were truly exaggerating or not, but I do know plenty of other people use that as their main argument against gay marriage.

I'll be honest. I have nothing against being gay ( being attracted to the opposite sex).... I'm just against gay marriage. You may ask me why oh why I do so... I just don't like what would happen if it becomes TOO legal....

What about the young children? How can we knowledge adults makes them no misunderstood if they see two homos kissing in public. I still believe gays will not stop on wanting gay marriage, a lot more demand will arise, I'm sure of it.

Also, today, some hetero couples get married if they feel like it.... Same will likely happen among homosexuals.. Marriage is supposed to be a serious sacred matter.... approving all of this will not make it better... The same way I'm against divorce.

Just my opinion, you could hate me but I'll never hate you.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by GenjiChan

I'll be honest. I have nothing against being gay ( being attracted to the opposite sex).... I'm just against gay marriage. You may ask me why oh why I do so... I just don't like what would happen if it becomes TOO legal....

In other words, slippery slope argument.

What about the young children?

What about them?

How can we knowledge adults makes them no misunderstood if they see two homos kissing in public.

What's to misunderstand? How is that different from seeing heterosexuals kissing in public? I'm curious, what special knowledge did you acquire as an adult? That doesn't sound unfairly prejudiced?

I still believe gays will not stop on wanting gay marriage, a lot more demand will arise, I'm sure of it.

Why should they stop until they're treated like heteros?

Also, today, some hetero couples get married if they feel like it.... Same will likely happen among homosexuals..

So why shouldn't homosexuals have the right to be as irresponsible as heterosexuals? At least they're less likely to have children caught in their mistakes.

Marriage is supposed to be a serious sacred matter....

Supposed by whom? Marriage is largely a civil matter. Religions can sort themselves out.

approving all of this will not make it better... The same way I'm against divorce.

So you're for forcing people to stay together even when it makes them both unhappy? Or when the relationship is abusive?

What you should be against is young people getting married. Wait until they're 30, when they've settled down a bit. Divorce rates drop. But there's no point in being against gay marriage, unless you're against all marriages (no marriage, no divorce. And heh, maybe if people had to risk jail to have a clandestine wedding, only people who really want to tie the knot would do it.)

Just my opinion, you could hate me but I'll never hate you.

Oh, please don't play the victim.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Xefi

comments: really now...if you use the words "with friends" in your product, you'll get sued by Zynga!

Trademark law isn't that absurd, but this case raises some interesting boundary issues. The product in question appears to be a smartphone app to enable hookups. So it shares "being an app" in common with Zynga's products, but it is not a game. Allowing Zynga to own "with friends" in the context of smartphone games seems like a reasonable trademark policy, but allowing Zynga to claim trademark rights in any app that uses the phrase "with friends" is, I think, much less defensible.

There's nothing in US trademark law as far as I know that would prohibit you from opening a network of onsen and creating the trademark "Bathing with Friends" (unless it's already in use for this purpose of course!). Anyone interested in this idea might want to own the bathingwithfriends.com domain. It's available:

Seiji@home$ whois bathingwithfriends.com
No match for "BATHINGWITHFRIENDS.COM".

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by GenjiChan

I'll be honest. I have nothing against being gay ( being attracted to the opposite sex).... I'm just against gay marriage. You may ask me why oh why I do so... I just don't like what would happen if it becomes TOO legal....

What about the young children? How can we knowledge adults makes them no misunderstood if they see two homos kissing in public. I still believe gays will not stop on wanting gay marriage, a lot more demand will arise, I'm sure of it.

Also, today, some hetero couples get married if they feel like it.... Same will likely happen among homosexuals.. Marriage is supposed to be a serious sacred matter.... approving all of this will not make it better... The same way I'm against divorce.

Just my opinion, you could hate me but I'll never hate you.

Hate? Why should I hate you? Did you think you did something you know deserves hatred?

And what is "too legal"? No code words here, we want clarification. Gay people deserve the same rights you do, they can demand anything they deserve, no more and no less.

Marriage? Serious sacred matter? Marriage was never sacred, I already explained it in the previous post. It is about selling your child for power and influence. It was NEVER sacred.

Let's be blunt here. You ARE treating gay people as your inferior. We can't stop you, but don't expect to act high and mighty like it somehow makes you special.

[AnimeFan188]

SFO Officials Make Citizen Arrests Of Internet Rideshare Drivers:

"In the past month, San Francisco International Airport officials have been citing and
arresting drivers from mobile-app enabled rideshare companies that pick up and drop
off passengers, an airport spokesman said.

Airport spokesman Doug Yakel said there have been seven citizen arrests issued
to “various offenders” since July 10.

The airport had issued cease and desist letters to several rideshare companies,
including Lyft, Sidecar and Uber, in April."

"Taxi drivers are holding a noon rally at San Francisco City Hall Tuesday to “keep taxis
regulated and safe” and are calling for the end of ridesharing services.

The taxi group, comprised of members from the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association
and the United Taxicab Workers of San Francisco, are demanding that city officials and
regulatory agencies consider rideshare companies as illegal taxi services."

See:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...net-rideshare/

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Trademark law isn't that absurd, but this case raises some interesting boundary issues. The product in question appears to be a smartphone app to enable hookups. So it shares "being an app" in common with Zynga's products, but it is not a game. Allowing Zynga to own "with friends" in the context of smartphone games seems like a reasonable trademark policy, but allowing Zynga to claim trademark rights in any app that uses the phrase "with friends" is, I think, much less defensible.

There's nothing in US trademark law as far as I know that would prohibit you from opening a network of onsen and creating the trademark "Bathing with Friends" (unless it's already in use for this purpose of course!). Anyone interested in this idea might want to own the bathingwithfriends.com domain. It's available:

Seiji@home$ whois bathingwithfriends.com
No match for "BATHINGWITHFRIENDS.COM".

So what if after you do that, you make an app to handle reservations and stuff? Can you call it the Bathing With Friends(tm) app?

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Marriage? Serious sacred matter? Marriage was never sacred, I already explained it in the previous post. It is about selling your child for power and influence. It was NEVER sacred.

Selling your child for power and influence is a sacred matter. Or used to be. Remember that time Abraham nearly killed his son? Ah, good times.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Xefi

still A LOT of money. hell, trap me in there for 5 days of starvation. i'll take the money
now please. man, it's almost like this dood just won a lottery. talking about turning misfortune into $! unbelivable...

what would you do with all of those money? lol. i dont even need to ask. :P

Are you mad?

It is no food or WATER. He had to drink his own urine and eat feces to stay alive. To put it in prospective, his kidney has failed and will require medical attention for the rest of his life. He got PTSD (you know, the kind that can unhinge a U.S Vet to shoot his wife and children if left untreated), and other health complications.

Remember, they could have waited till day 20 or worse, and you would have a boy who died in slow agony.

Of course, if he did, Obama and like wouldn't say a word, cause a Asian guy don't quite look like his son.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

So what if after you do that, you make an app to handle reservations and stuff? Can you call it the Bathing With Friends(tm) app?

I'm not an attorney, and trademark law is especially opaque compared to patents and copyrights. Still I suspect that if you first started the business, trademarked the name and registered the domain, then later released an app called "Bathing with Friends" you'd be in the clear. That is, unless the court decides to let Zynga own "with friends" as it pertains to any app at all.

I suspect that the type of app involved in the suit may be an issue as well. Zynga might claim the use of "with friends" for an app designed to arrange sexual encounters injures the "good will" that Zynga has built up in the trademark phrase "with friends." They might have a weaker claim against a travel agency called "Journeys with Friends."

The concept of "dilution" might apply to my onsen example as well. One issue is apparently how famous a trademark is. Certainly "with friends" is a much less famous trademark than, say, "Pepsi." How "famous" it needs to be, I have no idea.

[GreyZone]

About that "homosexual marriage" discussion:
It is sad how people's brains switch off when they start talking about this topic.

The "homosexual marriage supporters" try to push the discussion toward "equality and personal freedom" (but you cannot force someone who is intent on preventing homosexual marriage to accept it. Everyone has the freedom of speech after all), but more often than not try to evade the problem that the economic benefits that marriage includes are supposed to make it more "family friendly", but unless the homosexual couple actually adopts children, that economic boost is pointless. The present low birthrates (in europe for example) also are not helping their case (though a lot of heterosexual couples don't want to "make kids" either, while of course still wanting to "make love"). A lot of supporters also seem to like straw man arguments and double standards.

The "homosexual marriage opposition" has the problem that a lot of them only use religious arguments, which makes a discussion at best "difficult", at worst impossible. Even if they want to force homosexuals to not be homosexuals... they cannot (at least not those homosexuals that have lived their whole life with their sexuality and have come into terms with it). Also their approch is very unproductive for their own cause. If you say "you are forbidden to be homosexual", then people with a rebellious personality, or "hipsters" may become homosexual, just to go against the rules. I really don't understand why they don't use a more subtle approch, trying to use carefully applied conditioning, be it by advertisment, works of fiction, or other means.

If it was me this matter could be easily solved: Legalize homosexual marriage, but also reform the marriage laws, so that any economic benefits from marriage only applies if you have children.
That way the homosexual people who just want to marry for symbolism would be happy, while the amount of homosexual marriages wouldn't be too high as those homosexual couples who only wanted to earn the economic benefit would lose their interest in marriage. The reform would also motivate heterosexual couples to get kids. Families without kids usually can concentrate on their career, which should balance out theeir missing benefits for not having kids.

But it seems the thoughts of governments are not even close to this.... which is sad... really, really sad...

I am of course not talking about the people on THIS forum here, as most people here seem to be very resonable, but the ocean of the internet? yea...

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

The "homosexual marriage supporters" try to push the discussion toward "equality and personal freedom" (but you cannot force someone who is intent on preventing homosexual marriage to accept it. Everyone has the freedom of speech after all),

Their freedom of speech is irrelevant to the discussion. They can have whatever opinion they like about gay marriage, and say it as loudly as they like. That doesn't mean they have anything to do with two other men or women walking into a court house and signing a piece of paper before a judge.

Equality means treating everybody fairly under the law, even if not everybody thinks that should be the case.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

(though a lot of heterosexual couples don't want to "make kids" either, while of course still wanting to "make love")

This is actually the biggest reason the whole "marriage is about having kids!" argument is a bunch of hogwash. The state does not seek to penalize heterosexual couples for not having children, nor do they mandate it as a condition of allowing them to have a marriage license. There is no logical reason to try to apply this reproductive standard to homosexuals, not unless you're also going to try to have it applied to heterosexual partnerships where one of the couple is infertile (damned greedy bastards trying to take advantage of our breeding rights!).

Originally Posted by GreyZone

If it was me this matter could be easily solved: Legalize homosexual marriage, but also reform the marriage laws, so that any economic benefits from marriage only applies if you have children.

That isn't going to fly. Not when it means telling every single childless widow living off their deceased husbands pension that they can stop being moochers.


It's not something any politician is going to come out trying to support, and from a moral perspective, I don't see why they should.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

That isn't going to fly. Not when it means telling every single childless widow living off their deceased husbands pension that they can stop being moochers.

OK, I revise that: Push any former "marriage benefit" into "taking care of children" benefit, while turning "marriage" completely into a symbolic ritual (The churches would be likely opposed to that though). That way simply "having kids" would be the important attribute and not the marriage. This way couples who are not able to "make kids" (be it due to the couple being homosexual or due to infertility) would be also either motivated to adopt kids, or to don't think about kids and simply care about their career without unrightly getting money, that they do not deserve.

The only problem here is that children could be turned into "money farms"... and of course I don't see any chance this would happen due to conservatism and lobbyism.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

The present low birthrates (in europe for example) also are not helping their case,

The low birthrates in developed nation has everything to do with the high cost of raising children and lack of economic benefit it brings (unlike in the old days when you can put your kids to work in farms/factories), not homosexual coupls

If it was me this matter could be easily solved: Legalize homosexual marriage, but also reform the marriage laws, so that any economic benefits from marriage only applies if you have children.

That's the way to fix things! stopping discrimination against one subsect of people by continuing to discriminate against them along with a few more people!

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

OK, I revise that: Push any former "marriage benefit" into "taking care of children" benefit, while turning "marriage" completely into a symbolic ritual (The churches would be likely opposed to that though). That way simply "having kids" would be the important attribute and not the marriage. This way couples who are not able to "make kids" (be it due to the couple being homosexual or due to infertility) would be also either motivated to adopt kids, or to don't think about kids and simply care about their career without unrightly getting money, that they do not deserve.

I'm still looking for the part of this that involves the politician implementing this not walking up to some childless widow and kicking her in the chest.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

The only problem here is that children could be turned into "money farms"... and of course I don't see any chance this would happen due to conservatism and lobbyism.

That actually sounds like a huge bloody problem.

Originally Posted by kyp275

That's the way to fix things! stopping discrimination against one subsect of people by continuing to discriminate against them along with a few more people!

It makes sense in a twisted kinda way.

"But doing that would fuck this minority over!!!"
"Hmmm, you're right. Lets make it fair and fuck EVERYBODY over!"
"...or we could just extend the same benefits to the minority"
"Nope. We gotta FUCK OVER PEOPLE!"

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by kyp275

That's the way to fix things! stopping discrimination against one subsect of people by continuing to discriminate against them along with a few more people!

and who exactly would be discriminated against by such a change in law?

[Roger Rambo]

Gaze upon this man with his barren, childless whore. Gaze upon them with disgust as they miserly scheme to hide away their tax monies under the vaunted blanket of their *marriage*. DESPISE THEM!

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

and who exactly would be discriminated against by such a change in law?

Oh, I don't know, any and everyone who doesn't want/can't have kids for one reason or another?

You do realize benefits extends beyond the purely financial (some of which can actually be more of a penalty than benefit), but also legally right?



"Oh, your husband of 50 years just passed away and you guys never had any children? well, too bad for you! *yoinks half the house the hubby left behind*"

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

I'm still looking for the part of this that involves the politician implementing this not walking up to some childless widow and kicking her in the chest.

I didn't notice that one word before, my bad. Well now it makes sense.
However that is only in effect because of the "traditional family model". The widow did not get any education because she relied on her husband for that and now she is in a problematic situation. Then how about the government helping out? I don't know how it is in the US or in other European countries, but there are not TOO many of such cases like you descibed it, in Germany, as far as I know. It shouldn't be too much for the government to cover for. Also it is not much different from today.

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

That actually sounds like a huge bloody problem.

But contrary to the exploit in law that we have right now, which is possible for any heterosexual couple, the exploit after the law change I proposed would involve criminality, which makes it a risk, which again means that a lot of potential people doing that would be scared off.

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

It makes sense in a twisted kinda way.

"But doing that would fuck this minority over!!!"
"Hmmm, you're right. Lets make it fair and fuck EVERYBODY over!"
"...or we could just extend the same benefits to the minority"
"Nope. We gotta FUCK OVER PEOPLE!"

Except that then the ones who don't find a mating partner are the ones who don't receive any benefits... Which is already in effect today.


With a couple without kids, we have the situation that both can go to work and I don't see how with both working they wouldn't have enough money unless of course they are not able to find decent jobs, but that problem is not exclusive to this group of people. Of course if the "traditional role system" of the wife staying home is more important than anything else... then I also don't know what to say.

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Gaze upon this man with his barren, childless whore. Gaze upon them with disgust as they miserly scheme to hide away their tax monies under the vaunted blanket of their *marriage*. DESPISE THEM!

We are in the age of equality, so women have the same obligation to go to work as men, unless you believe in double standards... although in Germany you could possibly get more money from NOT WORKING, than by having a low paid job. I am serious! Here a lot of people don't go to work because they get more money by doing nothing!