Professor Peedston

Godspeed You! Black Emperor - "Motherfucker = Redeemer"

bah. over the summer i had to be at work at 7 and i usually didn't end up leaving until 4. :P

*shrugs* beats the hell out of me. all i know is hope "lost in translation" wins a lot of crap because that was the only really good movie i've seen in the past year. i don't even know who's nominated for anything. should i mention i've only seen about 5 or 6 movies that came out in the last year, and two of those were matrix sequels? :lol: when are the oscars anyway?

Stevie Wonder - "Ebony Eyes"

hehe, well that's usually how mine are. tuesdays don't start until 11. and i only have one class on friday, and it starts at 10. :D

when i was in high school classes started at 7:30. :stunned:

oh man, that's true... stupid water.

well the test didn't start until 8, but i had to allow time to bathe and travel and such. 8 is still much too early to think about complicated math, though. :snore:

refreshing enough to quench your thirst and heavy enough to whack the radio something fierce. what can't it do?

it is?

i had to get up at 7 for a physics test. :dozey: :snore: :snore: :snore:

THROW SOMETHING AT IT!

the till death do us part thing has to do with the fact that i think you're interpreting it too literally. if a marriage can only be between a man and a woman because that's what the dictionary or the bible or whatever says, then what's to say that we can't interpret the "till death do us part" thing literally and make divorces illegal too? obviously, that's a ridiculous idea, and that's been outdated for centuries, but at one point, that's how it was. and i think that gay marriages will ultimately be the same way. and yes, if you look up "marriage" in a dictionary right now, you will see "a union between husband and wife," but i think the dictionary is outdated, and that if you look it up in 100 years, you won't see that distinction. (and i still think that the dictionary definition is something completely separate and distinct from the government definition, so it doesn't matter)

oh man i'd LOVE to see elton john live... anyway, as far as the collaborations go, i've got the faultline album that chris does a couple songs on and i think those two songs are probably better than anything on rush of blood. :stunned:

but this thread was started to talk about government issues. in my mind, what you or i or anybody else perceives as the "true" definition of marriage is completely irrelevent. you may not believe in same sex marriages, but that doesn't give anybody the right to discriminate against gays. (besides, a TRUE marriage also lasts "until death do us part," right?)

and if you look at the US constitution right now, there is nothing specifying a marriage as between a man and a woman, which is what Bush is proposing right now (he wouldn't have to propose it if it already said it, right?)

did you read what i said? the definition of voting, IN THE EYES OF THE GOVERNMENT, DID NOT always apply to everyone. it's only that way now because the constitution was changed.

:dozey:

and yes i know it's different because there's no religious connotation to voting, but i think a big problem is that people can't seem to separate the religious practice of marriage from being legally married in the eyes of the government.

back when only white men could vote, you had to be white and a man to vote. if they somehow managed to change it so that blacks, women, etc., could also vote without allowing children and animals or whatever else to vote, you don't think they could do the same for marriage?

no, the idea that religion somehow has a place in politics. i'm not accusing anybody here of doing this, but this whole thing reminds me of how people i know will look at arabic countries and talk about how the islamic religion is too closely integrated with the government, then five minutes later reject same sex marriages on the basis that it offends their christian ideals. as for the whole "majority rules" thing, should the majority still rule if the majority supports something that's essentially unconstitutional? "marriage" may be a religious concept, but the fact remains that it's also a government institution, and if the government will let married people have benefits like tax breaks and insurance breaks, etc etc, it is WRONG to deny that to ANYBODY.

yeah, that's another thing that always bugs me.

are you sure it's not every coldplay song ever? :P

and once again richard beat me to the punch. :lol:

i think that same sex marriages should be, in the eyes of the government, the same as marriages between a man and a woman. as long as there are government benefits attached to marriage, it's just as unconstitutional to deny same sex couples of that right as it is to deny, say, blacks or hispanics that right. and don't give me this "civil union" crap either, remember "blacks only" water fountains and restaurants? basically the same thing. seperate but equal = unconstitutional