Politically Correct is Beautiful by AnthonyT

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Polygamy still exist today, but the construct of 1 man + 1 woman marriage certainly existed further back than " 100 years" as, you claim. Seems to me there being some book, w/ a story of a man and a woman, living in some garden somewhere?

Might be you've heard of it, hmmm? I'm just pointing out that this isn't some new fangled idea, dreamed up by Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, so it's ok to like it. Really, it's ok !

So you're going with "the Bible told me so" as the basis for your entire belief system?

Dude, I thought you were smarter than that. Hell, I could've sworn you said you were an atheist. Maybe you've repented...

By the way, in that alleged "garden"... who "married" that couple? I don't recall there being anyone around to perform the service, except for maybe the serpent.

Besides, even though Anthony might have written "100 years", you should CLEARLY know what he meant, right? I mean, you're not going to be a stickler for details NOW, are you?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 11:30 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I recently received an email from a thoughtful fellow of strong faith whom I respect on this board. I wanted to post my reply here, because it may further illuminate my position on both the Bible and this issue.

-=-=-=-

I appreciate your position and your strong faith. I share a strong faith, but not as strong a conviction in the source material. I believe that Jesus came to Earth, sent by God, to save us all. I believe that this salvation is unprejudiced, and that sinners of all types can expect forgiveness merely by asking for it.

I also believe that by intention or accident, human beings have been corrupting their Holy Bible since it was first written. That you can walk into a library today and find twenty subtly different versions of the text is telling. In ages past, it was worse. Before these books were assembled into a single volume, vast tracts of it were discarded for both legitimate and political purposes. I am not entirely secure in what the Bible might have originally said. I hope and pray that its central theme is intact. I consider that central theme to be one of redemption. I cling to this interpretation, to use recent political phraseology, and have faith that it is the correct 'Final Answer.'

Even if we accept what the Bible of today says at face value, we are confronted (especially in the Old Testament) with a panoply of horrors difficult to process or justify. God seems to demand actions and perform actions that mirror the worst genocides and crimes against humanity of the 20th century. If these things occurred as written, I must have faith that they were done for good reasons. I must also pray for enlightenment on those reasons, but must also accept that He is not required to answer to me. I will admit freely that many of these things are troubling to me.

In the end, though, if we go Old Testament, then we are stoning our neighbors to death for a variety of misdeeds. If we go New Testament, we are forgiving everyone. I go New Testament whenever I am strong enough to do so.

But in terms of Marriage, there are two ways to view it. Either it is a secular matter, in which case logic should prevail. (There is no good reason to reject marriage.) Or it is a matter of God, in which case God will decide. We shall each of us die and face the Lord. If Gay Marriage is wrong, I leave it to Him to judge. I do this because God has instructed that I leave this matter to Him.

Judge Not. And so I shan't. Let them marry, whosoever wishes it. It is between them and their mates, and between them and God, not between them and I.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 11:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

So... Is the Separate but Equal argument wrong? Does it indicate negative prejudice?

Of course it's wrong, your own example is flawed. Nobody is asking Gays to drink out of a separate fountain or anything like that. It's more like if a Gay bar decides to name the fountain in their place the "Gay Fountain" and I sue in order to get them to call it the "Straight Fountain". It's simply a name, meant to acknowledge the fact that it's a Gay Bar. They have expressed no indication that they would prohibit me from drinking out of it. You might have an argument if they named it the "Gays Only Fountain". Are you saying it is bigotry to call the women's restroom something different than the men's. That is were this is designed to go, where it is illegal to even suggest that there's a difference between man/woman, Gay/Straight.

I am through with this subject, I have already said more than once that I favor Gay legal unions. But of course, that's not enough for the politically correct. I must not only accept them, but must agree that they are good, and not only that, equivalently as good as traditional marriage, with no evidence to support it, and the evidence that does exist showing possibly otherwise.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 11:52 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I said the construct of 1 man + 1 woman, dude. It's an old story, told , yes ... IN THE BIBLE, as it was intended by those who wrote it ( men ) to reflect their views on how best to run society. I'm not saying " the bible says it, i believe it ", but simply using it as an example of just how old the 1 man + 1 woman , as a couple so as to perpetuate the species idea has been around.

If nothing else, it shows , historically, the IDEA of marriage goes back to long before Jerry Falwell.

Try not to paint it as something it isn't.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 12:00 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I do not ask that you approve of them. Nor that you declare them good. Nor that you value their merits highly. You may in fact shake your head at them and name them despicable if you wish. I will of course think you prejudiced in that case, but thoughts on that matter likely mean little more to you than the temperature on Mars this morning.

What I do ask you to do, as a rational and fair human being, is to acknowledge their right to get married if they so wish it.

Or, if you so approve of the 'Union' language, it would be less rational but more fair to discard the marriage moniker completely, and give everyone civil unions.

What is NOT fair is to deny them marriage and offer them civil unions instead, while declaring voiciferously that they are legally identical and convey the same rights.

Both fountains convey the same water. But you are indeed requesting that they name their fountain something else. Something inoffensive to you. Somehow it seems as though you think they want to usurp your fountain. They do not. They simply wish to share it as your equals.

This is, to me, the difference between political correctedness and justice. Justice demands they be allowed to marry. Political Correctness would demand that you sing a joyful song about it. I don't demand the Joyful song. Not from Miss California, not from you. Tell me what you think, but don't deny people their rights. The two things are not the same.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 12:07 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Auraptor,

The Bible also says that 1 man + many women existed all those ages ago.

And if historical sources are your ballywick, there are sources showing that 1 man + 1 man, and 1 man + many women, and 1 man + many women + servant boys, were all historical norms at one time or another.

What is recent, Auraptor, and peculiar in the wide scope of history, is the narrowing of married life to 1 man + 1 woman.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 12:27 PM

Marriage - A patently ridiculous concept caused by improper government sponsorship of a religion bordering on mental illness causing an artificial limitation of personal relationships in a form that is more often than not unsustainable in practice and detrimental to the mental health and well being of all involved.

ILIC.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 12:40 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
It's simply a name, meant to acknowledge the fact that it's a Gay Bar. They have expressed no indication that they would prohibit me from drinking out of it.

Kirkules: I think what you're saying is that by Gay marriage calling itself a gay bar, that you can still drink from straight marriage/a straight bar.

...I don't know if I'm making any sense.

Okay, but if that is anything remotely like what you're trying to say... Then using the same analogy...

What if there were people who didn't allow gay people to open the bar. Then when other people said it was unconstitutional to not allow this, they changed their minds but said that they needed to call it a gay bar. And what if, after opening the gay bar, the patrons of this bar became harassed, maybe by the police, maybe by certain citizens, maybe by laws restricted when and how they can go into the gay bar, and what is served there?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 12:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Or, if you so approve of the 'Union' language, it would be less rational but more fair to discard the marriage moniker completely, and give everyone civil unions.

That's pretty much what I said previously.

Quote:
Kirkules
That's one of the reasons I believe the term "Marriage" should be totally removed from laws regarding partnership between same sex or traditional couples. Let's give everyone equal rights without pretending that the bond between two of opposite sex is marriage. If they want to invent a new word that describes gay union, that's fine, but let's not change the meaning of existing words just for silly political correctness.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 12:54 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Auraptor,

The Bible also says that 1 man + many women existed all those ages ago.

And if historical sources are your ballywick, there are sources showing that 1 man + 1 man, and 1 man + many women, and 1 man + many women + servant boys, were all historical norms at one time or another.

What is recent, Auraptor, and peculiar in the wide scope of history, is the narrowing of married life to 1 man + 1 woman.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

That the bible 'mentioned' these other things, is hardly relevant. The point I'm making here is, when the Bible was written, all those yrs ago, by men who deemed themselves wise ( or believed themselves under the influence of God™ ), Genesis was first and foremost a basic plan stating on how civilization should be set up. Anyone could have written what ever the hell they wanted to write, but the fact that the fairy tale of Adam and Eve was written out that way was, to show contemporaries and those who'd come later as to what their view of how humans should best live their lives. It's more than just a parable of following God™ and doing what HE says, there's more to it than just the apple and the serpent, and what happens when you disobey the big guy upstairs. It's a commentary on what was going on at the time, and what HAD been going on, and all the B.S. that mankind has done in the past and continues to keep doing today.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 1:02 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Or, if you so approve of the 'Union' language, it would be less rational but more fair to discard the marriage moniker completely, and give everyone civil unions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kirkules:

"That's pretty much what I said previously.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirkules
That's one of the reasons I believe the term "Marriage" should be totally removed from laws regarding partnership between same sex or traditional couples. Let's give everyone equal rights without pretending that the bond between two of opposite sex is marriage. If they want to invent a new word that describes gay union, that's fine, but let's not change the meaning of existing words just for silly political correctness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Kirk,

Not quite. I've added some emphasis to the points where we disagree.

A fairness doctrine would mean that Nobody gets marriage or Everyone gets marriage. No 'separate but equal' terminology and laws. As for 'changing the meaning of words' that is what is happening now, but it is not the homosexual community that is doing it. Previous marriage laws were largely un-specific as to gender. New laws are being created that change the legal definition of marriage to 1 man + 1 woman. And the change is quite silly. However unintentional it may have been, the ambiguous laws were the fair ones.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 1:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

A fairness doctrine would mean that Nobody gets marriage or Everyone gets marriage.

Isn't that what removing the term "marriage" from the law means. I wasn't suggesting that separate terms be used for legal purposes, I'm only saying it shouldn't be "marriage". That would mean in the eyes of the law nobody could get "married", all would get "fill in the blank". Outside of the courtroom anyone who whats to pretend that what they are doing is marriage would be free to do so.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 1:38 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I believe then that I misunderstood you. By removing marriage from all law everywhere, and leaving it entirely out of government purview, the problem of unequal government treatment would be solved.

Thus no one could legally claim married status.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 1:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I believe then that I misunderstood you. By removing marriage from all law everywhere, and leaving it entirely out of government purview, the problem of unequal government treatment would be solved.

Thus no one could legally claim married status.

I think having non-breeding couples with the same rights might even lead to a fairer tax code. I've always thought it unfair to burden single people and those without children for the expense of schooling for those that choose to have seven kids. Getting rid of the tax benefits for having children might also lead to lower reproduction levels and help the environment as a consequence.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 1:54 PM

Kirk, you said earlier that you might have a problem with calling it the "gays-only fountain" - but in fact, what you are trying to do is call the other fountain the "straights-only fountain", and you're saying that gays don't have the right to drink out of it, but that straights DO have the right to drink out of the gay fountain.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 1:59 PM

Quote:

That the bible 'mentioned' these other things, is hardly relevant.

Oh, goodie - now you're going to regale us all with your version of what is and isn't relevant in the bible! I wait with baited breath...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 2:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

A fairness doctrine would mean that Nobody gets marriage or Everyone gets marriage.

Isn't that what removing the term "marriage" from the law means. I wasn't suggesting that separate terms be used for legal purposes, I'm only saying it shouldn't be "marriage". That would mean in the eyes of the law nobody could get "married", all would get "fill in the blank". Outside of the courtroom anyone who whats to pretend that what they are doing is marriage would be free to do so.

Ah, Kirk - I'm still catching up on the latest posts, and now I think I've got a better handle on where you're coming from. I think we may not be that far apart on this issue, after all.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 2:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Kirk, you said earlier that you might have a problem with calling it the "gays-only fountain" - but in fact, what you are trying to do is call the other fountain the "straights-only fountain", and you're saying that gays don't have the right to drink out of it, but that straights DO have the right to drink out of the gay fountain.

Mike

All of the fountains are identical, anyone is free to drink out of any the please. The only difference is the name. You are not free to change the name of the other groups fountain by force of law to get even for a historical injustice.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 2:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I believe then that I misunderstood you. By removing marriage from all law everywhere, and leaving it entirely out of government purview, the problem of unequal government treatment would be solved.

Thus no one could legally claim married status.

I think having non-breeding couples with the same rights might even lead to a fairer tax code. I've always thought it unfair to burden single people and those without children for the expense of schooling for those that choose to have seven kids. Getting rid of the tax benefits for having children might also lead to lower reproduction levels and help the environment as a consequence.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have an agreement!

See the "stealth taxation" thread where I posted just such an idea.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 2:15 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Does anyone know what the sustainment level of reproduction is for a society, and what we're currently at?

I myself have no idea.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 2:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Kirk, you said earlier that you might have a problem with calling it the "gays-only fountain" - but in fact, what you are trying to do is call the other fountain the "straights-only fountain", and you're saying that gays don't have the right to drink out of it, but that straights DO have the right to drink out of the gay fountain.

Mike

All of the fountains are identical, anyone is free to drink out of any the please. The only difference is the name. You are not free to change the name of the other groups fountain by force of law to get even for a historical injustice.

I think I get it now. Sorry it took me so long to catch up and figure out exactly what you were talking about. We're all good now.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 7:10 PM

RIVERDANCER

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
the insane ramblings of RiverDancer

A completely factual statement that you were talking about the subtlety of the language while not being able to spell subtle is an insane rambling now? Mm, okay, you've totally refuted me. Good job.

As to completely ditching the term 'marriage' I'm all for that, but since that's a near-impossible task considering the sheer volume of laws that would have to be rewritten, I also think it would be much more efficient to just stop harping about the word. Really. Please.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 12:05 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Marriage - A patently ridiculous concept caused by improper government sponsorship of a religion bordering on mental illness causing an artificial limitation of personal relationships in a form that is more often than not unsustainable in practice and detrimental to the mental health and well being of all involved.

ILIC.

-F

AgentF,
come on, it's not the concept of marriage that's detrimental, it's the dishonesty and disrespect of people who enter into it. Any relationship can and will be unsustainable if people are incompatible and refuse to communicate. Sexual, parental, friendly relationship... it can all turn to disaster - or go well. It doesn't take an "official" structure like marriage to destroy what people do well on their own.

I do think that monogamy - if that's what you're really arguing against - can and does work. Just not for everyone, and the problem there is people unwilling to admit that or unwilling to face the consequences of honesty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:55 AM

Nah, I got no issue with Monogamy, hell, most of my relationships have been - and most of them have ended on quite civil terms, cause of the other factors...

See, my issue with that is that very level of dishonesty and disrespect you mention, and believe me, that ain't limited to monogamous relationships neither - that comin from someone who nearly had to crack a few mormon skulls to get the message across not all that long ago.

I was speaking of it from the angles of government-sponsored religion, which is bad enough, but also the social and political aspect of favoring one type of relationship, and a single facet thereof, to the point of sanctioning it not only with official language but also special privleges, as anyone who's ever filed taxes would know.

This, and religion (Oh I can tell some horror stories here*) tends to lead folk into marrying when they shouldn't, or people that they shouldn't, don't really-truly want to, and all manner of other ills, from men (mostly formerly, but still on many an occasion today) using it as an exploitive contract, to the other end and marriage baiting by girls in high school/college using shotgun weddings to ensnare a guy into supporting them, their lifestyle, and a child they pay not a mind to cause they're busy clubbing while he slaves at two jobs to keep the bills paid - that's happened to a couple friends, and would easily lead down the path to misogynism were I the type of moron to not look at the social structure which rewards and encourages (often even accepts!) that behavior as the root cause.

It's a special kind of lunacy, at least from my viewpoint, to sanction just ONE kind of relationship out of infinite possibility, you see ?

*And instead of a horror story, lemme give you a happy ending for once.

Young girl, forced into an early marriage at an early age to a man with serious "problems" by an overbearing fire-n-brimstone church which was itself extremely exploitive and manipulative - and being that said church didn't believe in marriage counselling, psychiatry, or any other kind of mediation, and I can see why given that I myself consider that belief system and much of it's practices somewhat disturbing from a mental health viewpoint myself...

Spends almost a decade getting roughed up by a violent tempered dude while the church intimidates her into staying with him with threats of the firey pit and hells torments, yadda yadda.

Finally takes a header, eventually landing in the ghetto due to a lack of life/job skills and any real kind of assertiveness, since developing such was extremely discouraged.

Enter a dude so cold-blooded (at the time) he bordered on robotic, nearly devoid of empathy and burned out on the violence of his own life to the point of almost complete apathy - tripping over a girl so pathetic, so NEEDING to be cared about, and responding in the way two folks cling to a life preserver in a shipwreck.

Fast forward about seven years later, as they've grown and headed their seperate ways before being each others crutch sours what they shared, and her ex showing up all down on his luck trying to crawl his way back into her life.

Fast forward a few days to him losing his temper over some minor, petty thing - and her stepping into him and telling him flat out if that hand came at her, his ass was NOT leaving the room alive, and meaning every damn word of it.

At that moment I felt a pride in her that I'd never felt for a human being before, and it helped light the fuse of destiny, as it were, that one can BE the positive change in other peoples lives, if they only care enough to be.

As for bully boy, he grabbed his duffel and hauled his carcass out the door and ain't been seen since, meh.

Marriage can be a positive or negative force, it's all in what folks put in it.

But any kind of FORCED dependancy, whether it be social, religious, or legal in the nature of that "encouragement" or "sanction" (which amounts to a form of force) is destructive to the very ends it was enacted to preserve, in the end of it.

Anyhow, that's where I was comin from on that.

-Frem

PS- Yes, admittedly, the post you're quoting was mostly sarcasm and snark, mind you - I figured most folk would catch that out, but at times my "subtle" borders on WTF-cryptic.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:55 AM

AGENTROUKA

Frem,

I misunderstood, then. Primarily because I don't think that it's all about sponsorship of religion, so I didn't quite catch that angle of social pressure. It wasn't just Christianity that looked down on, say, homosexuality in ancient times, and sexual self-determination was the exception rather than the rule for women throughout history.

To me, the oppressive nature of marriage (until recent history) and the suppression of alternative lifestyles are utterly a cultural development rather than a religiously motivated one. Religion is just a handy tool these days and became involved in the legal aspects of marrage after the middle ages.

I agree that government sponsorship of marriage is a muddy, unhelpful issue, though. It rightfully angers those who are excluded (visitation rights, medical rights, inheritance, taxes, etc.) and sometimes unpleasantly ties together those who would prefer not to be (especially financially), and I'm sure that the world would be a better place if that were cleaned up.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

PS- Yes, admittedly, the post you're quoting was mostly sarcasm and snark, mind you - I figured most folk would catch that out, but at times my "subtle" borders on WTF-cryptic.

A deadly force, combining subtle sarcasm with my infamously dysfunctional sarcasm detector... Mea culpa.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 8:33 AM

BYTEMITE

Heck, I say get religion and government both out of it. The institution promises a ridiculous amount and doesn't really deliver. I see too many shiny-eyed kids who think their whole purpose in life is to get married to someone, for forever "and eternity," and procreate until past doomsday. And yes, they're Mormon. But it's a big problem in the rest of society too, this belief that finding someone else and getting married can solve all your problems. Laughable. Cruel, even, for everyone involved.

I think people should come together and separate as needed without some social control over the whole thing. It should be a natural occurrence, a consequence of living among people in a community, not some... vaunted ideal spewing propaganda in everyone's ears.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think people should come together and separate as needed without some social control over the whole thing. It should be a natural occurrence, a consequence of living among people in a community, not some... vaunted ideal spewing propaganda in everyone's ears.

Amen to that.
(pun very much intended!)
And all the ones you see starin and twitchin in shocked horror at the very thought ?

Thems the folk you wanna stay AWAY from, cause they obviously got 'problems' somewhere upstairs.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 4:59 PM

BYTEMITE

Yeah. *Sigh* those are the people it's so much fun being me around.

"Never marry and have children? How sad for you! Well I'm sure it's just a phase and you'll find someone just PERFECT! (hearts, little sparklies, * <3 ** <3 * hugs and kisses)"

And then I smile, walk away, and try not to pull my hair out from the frustration.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:06 PM