Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 3,690 posts (4,307 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 16 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.
How is the negative energy affinity monster ability (Bestiary 2, page 299) supposed to work?
The intent of this ability is that the creature is healed by negative energy (like an undead) and harmed by positive energy (like an undead); this is automatic and has nothing to do with the intent of the target or the energy-wielder. However, as written, the ability is a bit confusing because of the phrase “reacts to,” which doesn’t have a clear definition. This ability will be changed in the next printing of Bestiary 2.
Update: Page 299—In the description of the Negative Energy Affinity ability, replace the current entry with the following:
Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature is alive, but is treated as undead for all effects that affect undead differently than living creatures, such as cure spells and channeled energy. Format: negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.
Just for he record, follow that thread and notice that the FAQ is actually wrong, or rather the portion on Negative Energy Affenity is still up in the air.
It really has nothing to do with Paladin's, Lay on Hands being or not being Positive Energy.
Pathfinder is fairly close to 3.5, but does not include a great deal of those options. If by options you mean Feats, Prestige Classes, and things like that, (though for home games, it isn't to difficult to convert over). If you mean as far as making things up, story, and fluff options, it's about the same.
Depending on what exactly you mean, Paizo is actually going to be a little more fuzzy, as they left a lot of things open to interpritation. So, honestly, it may not be the game for you. But, at the same time, as other have pointed out, the Beginers set and the PDF's are free to very cheap, so at least give it a look.
You can also check out This for free. The PRD has practically the entire rules set up, minus some flavor and world specifics.
Here is link to a thread I started way beack when the rules first came out, sort of highlighting a lot of the little changes that are easy to miss.
I think they are asking if you can, for example Be a Cleriof Iori 2, and then Multiclass into Cleric of Iomedae 3. Or better example, Urban Druid 5/Druid 2.
You are correct, you can not do this, though I'm not sure where it says this.
However, even if you could, all your variant classes would revert to the same thing, and you can not take two variants (archtype?) that alter the same thing.
Actually, I woull specifically not add Silence. Outsiders tend to have no spellcasting, but many abilities that are either Spell-Like, or debuffs. Casting Silence is going to be only a hinderence, especially for your dual caster, (even if you have Silent Spell).
Poisons, Diseases, infernal wounds, and all the nasty little things Demons and Devils do can cripple you, expecially since you are split between an Arcane (betterat offense) and Cleric (defense and taking away debuffs).
Maybe so, but there is a question on whether Pharasma would even grant spells to a Dhampir.
I'd vote no.
That's about as logical as saying Urgathoa will only grant spells to female undead PC's or that only Half-Orcs (monsters) can have Lamashtu as a patron deity.
With a few exceptions, (already noted) honestly the same spells are still great options (the only really) even against Demons, who Cleric should be better at.
The issue is, most Outsiders that you would probably need to worry about have SR that is fairly good, so many of your spells are not going to work anyway. Not reliably, anyway. Secondly, they have fantastic Saves, particularly in the Fort and Will department.
In other words, you want to look at offensive spells that do not have a Save or SR, and certainly not both. Yah, a lot of those, right. Or at least are not negated on a Save, which most likely they will always make (unless they are mooks).
Protection From/Magic Circle Against Evil
Holy Word
Holy Sword (possibly)
Holy Smite
Blessings of Fervor (APG 4th)
Invisibilty Purge
Dispel Magic
Dispel Evil
Dimensional Anchor
Forbiddence
Word of Recall
I gave you lists of reasons. You didn't agree with them, but that doesn't change the fact that they are there, just like there are religious reasons you also don't agree with.
A "qualifying person" lived with you in the home for more than half the year (except for temporary absences, such as school). However, if the "qualifying person" is your dependent parent, he or she does not have to live with you. See Special rule for parent , later, under Qualifying Person." IRS
So in other words I was right. An "unmarried" person, like a homosexual couple (currently), or a bunch of people living together as rooom mates. If they can proove that they lived together on the last day of the year, that oneof them is NOT also a dependant of the other, and that the one claiming head of household does infact pay more, the can claim Head of Household.
Head of Household Status: I'm pretty sure that a single individual can claim Head of Household for over other individuals living in that household (legally) without any form of relation between them, so long as they pay the majority of the living expenses and the like, and can prove it.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
False, your statement is incorrect with the current tax code. Pop on over to IRS.gov and look it up.
Head of Household:
You may be able to file as head of household if you meet all the following requirements.
1.)You are unmarried or “considered unmarried” on the last day of the year.
2.)You paid more than half the cost of keeping up a home for the year.
3.)A “qualifying person” lived with you in the home for more than half the year (except for temporary absences, such as school). However, if the “qualifying person” is your dependent parent, he or she does not have to live with you. See Special rule for parent , later, under Qualifying Person."
So in other words I was right. An "unmarried" person, like a homosexual couple (currently), or a bunch of people living together as rooom mates. If they can proove that they lived together on the last day of the year, that oneof them is NOT also a dependant of the other, and that the one claiming head of household does infact pay more, the can claim Head of Household.
Child Tax Credit::
Beckett wrote:
This is something that the same sex couple could do. The idea is that it is automatic for straight marriages, is false? Otherwise we could all get a tax break for someone else's kids. This one is also different state to state, I believe, and I could be wrong.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Do you have children? Do you claim any dependents?
Yes x2.
Tax on Gain from the Sale of the Taxpayer's Principal Residence::
Beckett wrote:
Can't say much on this. Seems legit, but also seems pretty corner case. Though I will point out that neither can a child or anyone else.
Corner case? How is this a corner case? Do you know how many families sell their primary/only homes every year? Corner case or no, you again admit this is not equitable, correct?
I do think this is a corner case, (but I could be wrong), and I also DO agree this one is unequal/unfair.
Which is of course why no one on the gay marriage side is arguing for "allowing just anyone to be identified as a partner". That's a straw man. Of course, any loopholes that would exist if gay marriage was allowed are equally allowed now, you just have to pick a partner of the opposite sex.
This is actually more of an argument against the position that you should be able to duplicate all the existing benefits of marriage with existing laws and contracts. Having a status called "marriage" means you have to take the whole package, not just the tax benefits. Laws against bigamy also prevent you from practicing your tax scam with multiple people. Your partner also gets legal claims on you that you might not want if you were just planning a tax scam.
Will gay people get married just for the legal benefits? Sure, some will. Do people do so now? Yes. Some do. Is there any reason to expect a vast boom in such marriages? No.
I'm also not getting your point here at all.What part of I think htis ios misleading = any of what you <both> said?
thejeff wrote:
And same sex couples can also have the same issues regarding kids and dependents. Why shouldn't they be handled the same way as opposite sex couples?
Because in the cases where there is a biological child, in a heterosexual marriage, the non-biological "parent" doesn't automatically get all these rights either. You are confussig things here. A homosexual (non-biological) parent has the same options to either adopt and/or have an option for legal guardianship POA for a non-biological child. Also note, biological father's have lost a lot of these rights as well, where mothers make the choices for them.
This is not a same sex only issue. There are also similar issues with bliateral adoption of a non-biological child. Straight couples, married or not, have all the same issues that homosexual couples do trying to adopt a child, and I would say a few things harder as the potentual to have a biological child can causes issues.
thejeff wrote:
Most of your other objections break down to either "I don't think such benefits should be legal or required anyway" or "There are some exceptions to such rules now so why not screw gays over too."
I don't think so, and that isn't my intention, (with an exception or two). I'm actually trying to say that the percieved rights or benefits that are being denied are either very misrepresented or actually are something that homosexual couples can get/have/recieve.
I'm curious, do you think that your quid pro quo example isn't already happening every single day to gay people in America?
Oh I'm sure it does. And with every other minority or majority group, too. That doesn't at all mean it's ok to do it more, and that also doens't mean it's ok to act that way. I'm not okay with it towards gays, or straights, or anyone.
Here are myunderstandings of it. I may be wrong, and I'm also certain that different states handle this differently, (which I completely agree with), so it may be different in some places, or not.
An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples
There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. [1] Because the Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage" as only a legal union between one man and one woman, same-sex couples - even if legally married in their state - will not be considered spouses for purposes of federal law.
The following is a summary of several categories of federal laws contingent upon marital status.
Social Security:
Social Security provides the sole means of support for some elderly Americans. All working Americans contribute to this program through payroll tax, and receive payments upon retirement. Surviving spouses of working Americans are eligible to receive Social Security payments. A surviving spouse caring for a deceased employee’s minor child is also eligible for an additional support payment. Surviving spouse and surviving parent benefits are denied to gay and lesbian Americans because they cannot marry. Thus, a lesbian couple who contributes an equal amount to Social Security over their lifetime as a married couple would receive drastically unequal benefits, as set forth below.
Family Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits
Family #1: Married husband and wife, both are biological parents of the child
Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits
Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits
Family #2: Same-sex couple, deceased worker was the biological parent or adoptive of the child
Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits
Not Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits
Family #3: Same-sex couple, deceased worker was not the biological parent nor able to adopt child through second-parent adoption
Not Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits
Not Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits
I might be wrong, but I’m pretty sure this is one that specifically can be signed over via POA and the like.
Tax:
According to the GAO report, as of 1997 there were 179 tax provisions that took marital status into account. The following is a limited sample of such tax provisions.
Tax on Employer-Provided Health Benefits to Domestic Partners
In growing numbers, both public and private employers across the country have made the business decision to provide domestic partner benefits in order to promoted fairness and equality in the workplace. For example, as of August 2003, 198 (almost forty percent) of the Fortune 500 companies and 173 state and local governments nationwide provide health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of their employees. Federal tax law has not kept up with corporate and governmental who take advantage of it are taxed inequitably.
As policymakers have put an increasing emphasis on delivering health coverage through the tax code and as the cost of healthcare has once again begun to skyrocket, the current inequities in the tax code have placed a burden on the employers who provide healthcare coverage to domestic partners and on the employees who depend upon these benefits to provide security for their families.
1. Burden on Employees
Employers who provide health benefits to their employees typically pay a portion of the premium – if not the entire premium. Currently, the Code provides that the employer’s contribution of the premium for health insurance for an employee’s spouse is excluded from the employee’s taxable income. An employer’s contribution for the domestic partner’s coverage, however, is included in the employee’s taxable income as a fringe benefit.
2. Burden on Employers
An employer’s payroll tax liability is calculated based on their employees’ taxable incomes. When contributions for domestic partner benefits are included in employees’ incomes, employers pay higher payroll taxes. This provision also places an administrative burden on employers by requiring them to identify those employees utilizing their benefits for a partner rather than a spouse. Employers must then calculate the portion of their contribution that is attributable to the partner, and create and maintain a separate payroll function for these employees’ income tax withholding and payroll tax. Thus, the employers are penalized for making a sound business decision that contributes to stability in the workforce.
This is very misleading, and the other side of this is, that by allowing just anyone to be identified as a partner, this opens the door to so much BS fraudulent claims. Just like in the military the various marriages of convenience. This is also misleading in that many of the “tax provisions” are to either mitigate some of the issues that marriage itself stipulates with combining incomes, combining of one parties children and dependents from previous marriages, and things that are either only there because they are there for the married couple in the first place or only actually used under stipulation, for example if you have kids.
Inequitable Treatment of Children Raised in LGBT Households:
Recent data shows that at least 1 million children are being raised by same-sex couples in the United States. The Code contains competing definitions of “child.” Certain provisions of the Code defining child penalize for the marital status of their parents and caregivers.
1. Earned Income Tax Credit:
Eligibility for the earned income tax credit (EITC) is based in part upon the number of “qualifying” children in the taxpayer’s household. See 26 USC § 32. The definition of qualifying child under this provision includes only a child who is the taxpayer’s (a) biological child or descendent; (b) stepchild of the taxpayer; or (c) adopted child. Certain children of lesbian and gay couples are disadvantaged by this provision. For exampled, a taxpayer and their partner domestic are jointly raising the partner’s biological child. The taxpayer works full-time and the child’s legal parent stays home to care for the child. The state in which the taxpayer resides does not permit them to adopt through second-parent adoption or to marry the partner and become the child’s step-parent. This working family is therefore ineligible for an adjustment of the EITC, and therefore has decreased the resources to devote to the child’s care.
We would need to completely change the child support structure first. As it stands, the second unnamed biological parent is paying the children’s tax portions, too, and so what it seems to be implying is that the non-biological parent would be reaping the rewards of someone else pay. For a heterosexual couple, once remarried, this wouldn’t be the issue, either, mind you.
2. Head of Household Status:
Heads of household, as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 2, are eligible for an increased standard deduction that, among other things, provides taxpayers with increased funds to care for their dependents. The “limitations” section of this provision explicitly denies the benefit of head-of-household status to taxpayers supporting non-biological, non-adopted children. Thus, a gay or lesbian taxpayer who supports his or her partner’s child (and who is ineligible to adopt the child) has fewer post-tax dollars with which to support the child.
I’m pretty sure that a single individual can claim Head of Household for over other individuals living in that household (legally) without any form of relation between them, so long as they pay the majority of the living expenses and the like, and can prove it.[/spoiler]
3. Child Tax Credit:
Taxpayers meeting income eligibility requirements are entitled to a credit against tax for qualifying children in their households. This provision limits the child tax credit to children who meet the relationship test set fourth in the earned income tax provisions, § 32(c)(3)(B). As set forth above, § 32 does not include children of a taxpayer’s domestic partner if the children are not related to the taxpayer biologically or through adoption.
All three of these inequities have the effect of penalizing families who choose to have one parent in the work force and the other caring for the children full-time. In addition, they disadvantage such couples and their children by limiting the choice of which parent will be a full-time caregiver. Although similarly situated married couples may choose which parent will fulfill that role without consequence, lesbian and gay couples, as well as other unmarried couples, face negative tax consequences for the same decision.
This is something that the same sex couple could do. The idea is that it is automatic for straight marriages, is false? Otherwise we could all get a tax break for someone else’s kids. This one is also different state to state, I believe, and I could be wrong.
Tax on Gain from the Sale of the Taxpayer’s Principal Residence:
Under Internal Revenue Code §121, a single taxpayer may exclude up to $250,000 of profit due to the sale of his or her personal principal residence from taxable income. Married couples filing jointly may exclude up to $500,000 on the sale of their home. Lesbian and gay couples, who are not permitted to marry or to file jointly, are therefore taxed on all gain above $250,000, creating a large tax penalty compared to similarly situated married couples.
Estate Tax
Internal Revenue Code § 2056 exempts amounts transferred to a surviving spouse from the decedent’s taxable estate. For same-sex couples who are legally barred from marriage, this exemption is not available, creating an inequity in taxation.
Taxation of Retirement Savings
Under current law, when a retirement plan participant dies, plan benefits must be distributed in a lump sum or remain in the plan to be distributed in accordance with the minimum distribution requirements of § 401(a)(9). This problem does not exist if the beneficiary is the deceased participant’s surviving spouse, because the surviving spouse may transfer plan benefits to an IRA or a retirement plan in which he or she is a participant. This entitlement is valuable because (a) it allows the surviving spouse to defer taxation of the proceeds, often until the survivor is in a lower tax bracket; and (b) it protects the surviving spouse from being forced to withdraw from an investment program when its value is depressed. Because gay and lesbian couples are treated as strangers under federal tax and pension law, they cannot transfer plan benefits without incurring significant penalties, and do not have the flexibility to withdraw funds when they choose. The example below demonstrates this inequity:
Michelle and Sarah have been in a committed relationship for over 10 years. They have registered as domestic partners under the laws of the District of Columbia. Throughout their relationship, they have taken every legal step available to formalize their relationship and protect themselves, legally and financially as domestic partners. Michelle participated in her employer’s 401(k) retirement plans, naming Sarah as the primary beneficiary. Sarah purchased an individual retirement account (IRA). While driving to her job, Michelle is killed in a car accident. Sarah does not have the option to transfer Michelle’s 401(k) funds into her existing IRA because, under current law, only a “spouse” may roll over 401(k) and inherited IRA plans upon the death of a plan participant. Sarah must then take the entire proceeds of the inherited 401(k) in a lump sum and pay taxes on them immediately at a much higher rate, rather than rolling it over into her own name tax free as a surviving spouse can do.
Can’t say much on this. Seems legit, but also seems pretty corner case. Though I will point out that neither can a child or anyone else.
Family and Medical Leave :
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees family and medical leave to employees to care for parents, children or spouses. As currently interpreted, this law does not provide leave to care for a domestic partner or the domestic partner’s family member. Family and medical leave should be a benefit for all American workers.
I would say it should be completely up to the companies to allow or not who they agree is an acceptable, and heterosexual couples can have this same issue. NOTE that it doesn’t say that it is illegal to do so, it says that it is not required, and nor should it/can it be.
Immigration Law:
Currently, U.S. immigration law does not allow lesbian and gay citizens or permanent residents to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate. Approximately 75% of the one million green cards or immigrant visas issued each year are granted to family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. However, those excluded from the definition, under current immigration law of family, are not eligible to immigrate as family. Such ineligible person include (but are not limited to) same-sex partners and unmarried heterosexual couples.
Each year, current law forces thousands of lesbian and gay couples to separate or live in constant fear of deportation. In some cases, partners of lesbian and gays face prosecution by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), hefty fines and deportation and U.S. citizens are sometimes left with no other choice but to migrate with their partner to a nation whose immigration laws recognize their relationship. This creates a tremendous hardship, not only for those involved, but for their friends and family, and leads to a drain of talent and productivity for our country.
Fifteen countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom recognize lesbian and gay couples for the purposes of immigration.
Misleading. Heterosexual marrages, and in fact being a legal and biological parent does not automatically grant immigration rights or citizenship. There are cases where a married biological parent is either removed from or barred from reentering the country, fined, and also forced the pair to either split or migrate to the other partners country, just the same.
Employee Benefits for Federal Workers:
According to the GAO Report, marital status affects over 270 provisions dealing with current and retired federal employees, members of the Armed Forces, elected officials, and judges. Most significantly, under current law, domestic partners of federal employees are excluded from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Although married couples are eligible for reimbursement for expenses incurred by a domestic partner are not reimbursable. As of August 2003, nine states and the District of Columbia and 322 local governments offer health benefits to the domestic partners of their public employees, while the nation’s largest employer – the federal government – does not.
I, . . . can not say something here.
Continued Health Coverage (COBRA):
Federal law requires employers to give their former employees the opportunity to continue their employer-provided health insurance coverage by paying a premium (the requirement was part of the consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985; hence the common name COBRA). An increasing number of employers, including 198 of the Fortune 500, now offer their employees domestic partner benefits. Although this trend is encouraging, the Federal COBRA law does not require employers to provide domestic partners the continued coverage guaranteed to married couples. Under 29 U.S.C. § 1167, an employer is only required to offer continuation coverage to the employee and to “qualified beneficiaries,” defined as the employee’s spouse and dependent children, regardless of whether the employee’s original benefits plan covered other beneficiaries. Because of the narrow definition of “spouse” under federal law, employees are not guaranteed continued coverage for their domestic partners.
I don’t see the relevance here. Who can and can not benefit from your health coverage is part of the agreement you make when you set it up, and is (and should be) purely at the company’s discretions, (granted it treats all employees equal under those discretions). Not all insurance companies, offer benefits for spouses (under any definition), or to children. Some offer it to whomever you are willing to cover, and that should be purely up to the company what they wish to offer according to their own means, values, and ability.
Exactly what benefits/rights are being denied a homosexual couple without children that are given to a heterosexual legally married couple without kids, that can't be gotten otherwise?
Here. Many of these cannot be gained unless your state and the Federal government recognizes your union, civil or religious.
Can you give me a brief rundown, It says Access denied?
Ausk smashes the last skeleton in the face, causing its fragile remains to fall tot the ground with a crack. Shortly afterwards, the summoned dog vanishes (1 round, right?)
The threat is over for the moment, your foes defeated. As you begin to clean and stow you weapons, the young girl from much earlier walks into the room, fighting to see anything in the darker areas. Mr Yargos stumbles in afterwards, seemingly trying to find her.
"Gay people shouldn't marry because my imaginary sky fairy said so".
Uh huh.
I understand that among your peer group its ok and fashionable to insult someones religion but in the civilized world its not appropriate.
Hm. Let's re-frame what you said and re-address accordingly:
"I understand that among your peer group its okay and fashionable to [deny certain people the right to marry] but in the civilized world its not appropriate."
Quid pro quo.
Quid pro quo (this for that, I think you mixed it up with something else)
would involve "certain people" being called every insulting name under the book, and expecting the gay community to be absolutely ok with you slandering them harshly.
Then I would be interested in your answer to Finn's question about why childless couples, like my wife and I, should be afforded the economic benefits and not homosexual couples.
And no, we are not waiting on it, we plan on never having children, besides the four-legged kind.
Are you asking me?
Exactly what benefits/rights are being denied a homosexual couple without children that are given to a heterosexual legally married couple without kids, that can't be gotten otherwise?
What does this have to do with religion/faith/the church?
That sword cuts both ways, battle. I'm rather disappointed in you, if you really think allowing gay marriage will lead to the absurdities my link refutes. If I've misunderstood your view, I'm sorry, but from reading this thread, I don't think I have.
I was asked for examples of non-religious arguements and motivations against same sex marriages. Period. Thats it. Like I said, the only one I actually find as an issue is the economic one.
I do however think that there is a much worse issue with people hiding behind the religion is the enemy and cause of all my pain, and the double standards.
What I am argueing, and no other nation has the same economic issues we do, so not relavent, is that our current ENTIRE system could not handle it. Social Security, Family Health benefits, and things of that nature.
Irontruth wrote:
Are you saying that it would cost more to give spousal benefits to same-sex couples than it already costs to do the same for different-sex couples?
Are you asking me if we should charge gays more or something like that?
Irontruth wrote:
Also, Social Security and health care spending need to be reformed no matter what, they are going to make our economy broke whether this is done or not. Why not just account for this added cost when doing those reforms? Again, this argument is for reducing the number of marriages to as few as possible, regardless of the sex of the people involved.
If you asking me if I'd rather get rid of it comletely, worst case scenario, ya, I'd rather that than destroy it completely and screw everyone over. As it stands, every single one of thse financial "rights" is available to same sex partners, through Wills, Power of Attorney's, and through similar things that anyone can get, with the exception sometimes of family healthcare, which is more spcifically grounded in the chilren issue.
The logic is that there are actually nonreligious reasons that people are against same sex marriage. My only concern was that people stopped demonizing religion as the great evil or the goto villian. I was asked to show other reasons. Thanks for taking the time to read them. Oh wait.
Ion Raven wrote:
Children are adopted by single parents, why can't they be adopted by same-sex parents?
Um, same sex partnerships do currently adopts and raise children, not to mention either having children from preexiting heterosexual arangments or through non-sexual fertilization. This isn't really a new thing. My Alliance partner (Thanks Pressman, that was pretty amazing), grew up with two kids adopted by lesbian mother's. These lesbian mother's also patronized the local exchange student, which they are all still friends.
Ion Raven wrote:
I don't like looking at extremely overweight people with their fat hanging out, should I get legislature to enact mandatory wearing of shirts in public (including the beach) if one is over a certain weight?
I'm not saying "no". . . :) J/K
Actully, on a serious side, this IS the law in some places. It's also the law that females can't walk around public topless, and similar things.
The logic is that there are actually nonreligious reasons that people are against same sex marriage. My only concern was that people stopped demonizing religion as the great evil or the goto villian. I was asked to show other reasons. Thanks for taking the time to read them. Oh wait.
In case you missed my response to you in the grand blizzard of posts through here... I read your arguments, and here is my more detailed response to the non-secular "arguments" against homosexual marriage.
Presuming all your evidence presented in support of your goal showing non-religious arguments against "gay marriage" is good (not saying I necessarily accept those arguments, but if I did)--
There's still a major problem that you (and others haven't answered yet)-- which is, that those arguments justify banning marriage, and marriage rights, to all couples unless they have children and are the biological parents of those children.
This is one portion of the various arguements, and your right, it doesn't answer that (excpet one article did, I honestly do not remember which). I also don't agree with it. In fact the only one I actually agree with was that it more than likely will devistate and break our econmic system, nearer the end. I mean it was past all the absurdities (ie people who disagree with you's beliefs and points), but ow well, right.
This is absurd. Explain the logic behind that statement.
The logic is that there are actually nonreligious reasons that people are against same sex marriage. My only concern was that people stopped demonizing religion as the great evil or the goto villian. I was asked to show other reasons. Thanks for taking the time to read them. Oh wait.
No Beckett, I'm not calling you an idiot. But you are talking nonsense.
I'm actually a little disappointe with you. I can understand some people ignoring anything that doesn't fit their agenda or belief. Don't make thhe mistake of thinking I care or am against homosexuals. I was asked to ink other reasons besides the religious "oh so persecutions". Your link is pretty idiotic, and like I said, I'm actually a little disappointed in you.
As for the other quote, I was eplaining what someone else (in the quote was saying) that wasn't being understood. I'd appriciate it if your retract your snark and aim it back at them.
I'm not even going to try to link anyting else, but I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Research tends to indicate that same sex females do present a lot of the issues attributed to same sex parents, with same sex male parents much less so, even proportionally.
Actually no, he/she's being pretty accurate. Marriage is bringing together/combning of two not similar things, not bringing together two similar things. A marriage of peanutbutter and chocolate, not chocolate and cocoa.
EDIT: And just to put it out there, I support civil unions for everyone, but I think the term "marriage" should be reserved for civil unions between a man and a woman. My reason isn't necessarily religious, but . . .
I see gay marriage as a socially bad move. For instance there is the problem of employers being required to provide health insurance for both partners. In some cases this would seem like a good thing, but in reality it would be too large a stress on the institution of family coverage. I believe that suddenly non-traditional couples would pop up everywhere to reap the benefits of such a situation. Under this plan, though I am heterosexual, I could become bound to another female simply to supply or gain those benefits. I also believe that family coverage is largely to support children, which currently most homosexual couples do not have. For those who have left school and moved on to the world of a career, I would ask how hard it would be to provide health care for two people without plans of having young ones. Though a science major, I do not have to prove to anyone the physical limitations posed to homosexual couples trying to have children, so the idea of preparing for an accident would also be irrelevant to them.
That brings me to my next argument. Once allowed to be officially married, homosexual couples will more than likely be able to adopt. I do not doubt the pure love that these couples would show a child, and I do not doubt their pure intentions. I do believe in the natural drive toward wanting to have children. Yet, I also know that it has been shown that children who are deprived of the parenting of one gender have a very strong tendency toward emotional and/or psychological problems. These issues will affect their entire life. In the situation of a homosexual couple, who is trying to prove their validity as able parents, I fear that the children may not be offered the help that they would desperately need. To be honest, I believe that if you look, that you will find that nearly all gay men, that were not victims of abuse, came from an unhealthy parenting situation themselves. A situation of either the lack of one parent or one parent was extremely domineering in the relationship. Amongst others
socio-political:
1.It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an animal could be next).
4. Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless. If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use the statute to open the door. It doesn't matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy, one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Do you remember how two judges in California recently declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? If the decision hadn't been overturned, it would have prevented millions of children from being able to say the pledge every morning, despite the fact that 95+ percent of Americans disagreed with the decision.
Common Good?:
What is best for people? And I believe that the reasons for restricting marriage are, indeed, tied to human well-being and the common good.
In other words, it’s precisely because same-sex marriage is not in the best interests of society that we oppose it.
First, though, let’s be clear about what this issue is not about. This issue is not about whether homosexuals are equal citizens who deserve to be treated with dignity. They are, and they do.
The issue is about the public purpose of marriage. And, if that public purpose of marriage has served us well, can it—or should it—accommodate the desires of those espousing same-sex marriage and same-sex families as the social equivalent of natural marriage? Stuff
Special Treatment:
Advocates often argue that they are being denied a civil right. There are two problems with this. First, laws have already been established defining certain conditions under which people may marry. The would-be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human. In other words, restrictions have always existed. No one has ever been able to marry anyone simply because they loved them.
Gender Stupidity:
Husbands. Federal Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling in August on California's Proposition 8 - that "gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage" - confirmed the view that marriage is foremost about sexual choice, not reproduction. Think there are too few marriageable males now? Stuff part 14
socio-political:
1.It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an animal could be next).
4. Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless. If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use the statute to open the door. It doesn't matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy, one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Do you remember how two judges in California recently declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? If the decision hadn't been overturned, it would have prevented millions of children from being able to say the pledge every morning, despite the fact that 95+ percent of Americans disagreed with the decision.
Common Good?:
What is best for people? And I believe that the reasons for restricting marriage are, indeed, tied to human well-being and the common good.
In other words, it’s precisely because same-sex marriage is not in the best interests of society that we oppose it.
First, though, let’s be clear about what this issue is not about. This issue is not about whether homosexuals are equal citizens who deserve to be treated with dignity. They are, and they do.
The issue is about the public purpose of marriage. And, if that public purpose of marriage has served us well, can it—or should it—accommodate the desires of those espousing same-sex marriage and same-sex families as the social equivalent of natural marriage? Stuff
Special Treatment:
Advocates often argue that they are being denied a civil right. There are two problems with this. First, laws have already been established defining certain conditions under which people may marry. The would-be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human. In other words, restrictions have always existed. No one has ever been able to marry anyone simply because they loved them.
Gender Stupidity:
Husbands. Federal Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling in August on California's Proposition 8 - that "gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage" - confirmed the view that marriage is foremost about sexual choice, not reproduction. Think there are too few marriageable males now? Stuff part 14
blah blah:
More all but religion:
Paul Nathanson, a professor at McGill University in Canada and a practicing homosexual, says that “advocates of gay marriage have made no serious attempt to consider the possible harms, and object to those who want more time to assess the evidence from other periods or other cultures.”
Nathanson is right. In fact, though humanity has not considered homosexual marriage until very recently, there is a culture we can examine for understanding this issue. Scandinavian countries approved same-sex marriage about 10 years ago and the impact on marriage has been devastating.
Since legalization, the out-of-wedlock birthrates and the divorce rates have risen sharply. In Sweden, the divorce rate among gay men is 50 percent higher than the heterosexual divorce rate. For lesbian women, the divorce rate is 170 percent higher. The effect of these divorces is significant. These high rates of divorce lower cultural esteem for marriage. Worse, gay marriage separates marriage from parenting. It says that marriage is about adult desires, not the needs of children. Scandinavians are buying that message, and marriage is in a steep decline, as is child well-being.
Here in the United States we have had experience with two of the things same-sex marriage advocates are asking us to consider. Specifically, a generation ago, we were asked to redefine marriage and family, at least subtly; and to believe that gender does not matter to the family.
Redefining Marriage
More than 30 years ago, Americans created “no-fault divorce” (NFD). This was a redefinition of marriage, an untested social experiment with the family, though much more subtle than what we’re being asked to consider today. The no-fault divorce experiment said marriage should only last as long as one partner wanted it to last, and implicitly said that it was almost exclusively about adult happiness, not child well-being. That was a dramatic shift in thinking, and society has paid the price.
Glenn Stanton, a sociologist and marriage expert, puts it this way: “NFD advocates told us that it was simply love, and not family structure, that made a family. And even though we didn’t have any experience with widespread divorce, NFD advocates assured us it would all work out fine.”
Thirty years of experience with millions of divorced families indicate it wasn’t such good idea.
Every major study since then—and there have been thousands—shows that the divorce experiment hurt children and adults. Badly. Worse than anyone ever imagined.
What we know, beyond any doubt, is that children from single-gender homes are much more likely to commit crimes, go to jail, have children out of wedlock, drop out of school, abuse drugs, experience emotional trouble, commit suicide, and live in poverty. Name the social problem, and it’s tied to family dissolution.
Judith Wallerstein, a University of California–Berkeley professor, has studied children of divorce for 30 years. Looking back on her life’s work and the no-fault divorce experiment, she laments:
“In our rush to improve the lives of adults … we made radical changes in the family without realizing how it would change the experience of growing up. We embarked on a gigantic social experiment without any idea of how the next generation would be affected. If the truth be told, and if we are able to face it, the history of divorce in our society is replete with unwarranted assumptions that adults have made about children simply because such assumptions are congenial to adult needs and wishes.”
The same-sex marriage experiment follows this same path. It asks us to redefine marriage based on huge, unproven assumptions driven largely by the wishes of adults rather than the needs of children.
And, like the no-fault divorce advocates of the ’60s and ’70s, same-sex marriage advocates are telling us that parental gender does not matter for the family and for children.
Does Gender Matter?
But we don’t have to wonder how a one-gender family will impact children. We know from 40 years of experience with the explosive growth of “intentionally fatherless families.”
Thousands of conclusive social science, medical, and psychological investigations published in hundreds of professional journals have shown that: children without fathers are half as likely to do well in and graduate from school; they are more likely to require professional attention for physical or emotional problems; they are at an elevated risk for physical abuse or death; they are less likely to develop empathy for others; they are less confident; and they are more likely to spend time in jail and have children out of wedlock.
All things being equal, children raised apart from their fathers—even if that father is replaced by another loving parent figure—suffer serious declines in every important measure of well-being.
Let us be clear: A good, compassionate and just society always comes to the aid of fatherless or motherless children. But a good, compassionate, and just society never intentionally creates fatherless and motherless children.
Fathers matter as male parents, not just as a second set of unisex hands to chip in with the housework and childrearing.
Child psychologists for 40 years have been telling us how mothers and fathers parent differently, and how healthy child development demands this difference.
• Fathering scholar Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School says dads matter simply because “fathers do not mother.”
• Psychology Today explains, “Fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children.”
• A scientific review of more than 100 published studies on the benefits of child-parent relationships found that “overall, father love appears to be as heavily implicated as mother love in offspring’s psychological well-being and health.”
Very simply, the same-sex family is problematic because same-sex families intentionally deprive a child of either a mother or a father just because adults want it that way.
But this is not about the value of homosexuals as human beings. Indeed, their value is beyond dispute. They are loved by God as we all are.
But if we go the route of same-sex marriage, it means we will be subjecting our children to another state-sanctioned social experiment on the family, fueled largely by adult wishes.
The public purpose of marriage is primarily to take children from childhood to healthy adulthood. Its purpose is legitimate. It is tied to human well-being and the common good … and it thrives when men and women join together to parent children.
Any time we intentionally remove an essential part of humanity from the family—be it male or female—we have a family that will fail to function as society and children need it to. If we allow this shift to occur, we will fail our children and coming generations. [url=http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/the-cultural-argument-against-gay-marriage]
Granted it doesn't say hand, but it does say that if you touch anything, the "held" spell is expelled. So if your going to say he is holding the charge in his mouth, better not have a helmet, in his knee or foot, better not be wearing cloths.
In 3E, there where a few spells and Feats and things that specifically let you hold a second "held" spell in your other hand or similar body part.
Are you not from the UK? I'll give it a try. I'm about to head off, I'm just covering for someone, but I'll give it a try for some link hopefully tonight. Also note, I'm not being sarcastic or condecending. <edit which on a reread isn't what you said> I am justso sick and tired of a.) religion being the big evil on anything and b.) lumping all religion together, especially when it serves a purpose like this.
And he fact that they might have done so for reasons in addition to their religion, that religious that there are relgious people out there en masse who believe the exact opposite, that there are non-religious groups funding the smae or similar things, etc. . . has nothing to do with it? Religion is the old go-to badguy to slander in areas like this. The Bible is filled with so much, anyone can use it to justify just about anything, and atheists do it all the time. The point is your (general you) discrimination and bigatory is no different than all the discrimination and bigatory your accusing.
Paul Watson wrote:
Beckett,
Maybe because the people who supported Prop 8 overwhelmingly used the Bible as their justification? Just a thought, but, you know, they did.
Actually no, I have no idea. This is the first time I (or anyone from Cali I'm deployed with) seems to have heard of Prop 8. Honestly, after reading the majority of this, I', still not entirely clear what exactly happened. It seems like the same thing with the weed Cali tried to/is trying to pull.
Why do you keep blaming religion? "on religious grounds", "So long as you (and everyone else) arguing against allowing 'gay marriage' keep defending that narrow "only between a man and a woman" definition based on religious views. . .", "were driven by groups and organizations motivated by religion-- as best as I can tell, religion taken to the point of fanaticism (and here I do say "most", not "all")", . . .
Blaming everything that one doesn't like on religious descrimination (or counter descrmination as it where) get old fast. It;s almost like your saying people with religious views/motives/beliefs are not entitled to have thier own opinions. . .
Not that it really matters to me now, since I'm going with a Malkavian now, but where did you see this in the Thaumaturgy description? I did not see it on the pages you quoted, but what you said is true of Necromancy listed on pg 160.
I mis read the last line of what I quoted.
"Once the character has achieved the fifth level of her primary path, secondary paths may be increased." combined with other lines
"Once the character has achieved the fifth level of her primary path, secondary paths may be increased to that level."
V20 pages 212 - 213 says after level 2+ in the Primary path, you can take a second path.
2 can't be + or higher than primary path, and you can't take a 3rd path until primary is 5+.
Almost all Tremere take Path of Blood, though ST may allow other.
stuff:
As mentioned before, the first path a character learns
is considered her primary path and increases automatically
as the character advances in the Discipline itself.
Secondary paths may be learned once the character
has acquired two or more dots in her primary path, and
they must be raised separately with experience points.
Furthermore, a character’s rating in her primary path
must always be at least one dot higher than any of her
secondary paths until she has mastered her primary
path. Once the character has achieved the fifth level
of her primary path, secondary paths may be increased
to that level.
It's not a game term, but I didn't want to draw a connection between inflicting negative energy and Inflict Light Wounds, for example, in the sense of "this only applies to Inflict spells <ie "all spells with Inflict in their name">", which Clerics spontaniously channel.
Posts
