Prohibition, Inequality take hits by ANTHONYT

America loves a winner!

Agree w/ the legalization of pot, but don't see gay-marriage as a legitimate issue.

Clever words like " inequality " paint a false narrative on the whole marriage issue.

What next, sibling marriage ? Polygamy ? Why end discrimination for one type of marriage, but not others ?

No one wants to seriously address that issue. Simply spouting out such rhetoric as "hater!" seems be the classic, accepted response.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

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

Wednesday, November 7, 2012 6:24 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
What next, sibling marriage ? Polygamy ? Why end discrimination for one type of marriage, but not others ?

Hello,

Yes, if any competent, consenting adults are allowed to marry, then all competent, consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

Any rights for anyone means all rights for everyone.

Not complicated. Freedom and equality.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

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

Wednesday, November 7, 2012 6:35 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I created an instructional diagram.

--Anthony

ETA: My favorite diagram on this topic.

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

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

Wednesday, November 7, 2012 6:47 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Quote:
What next, sibling marriage ? Polygamy ? Why end discrimination for one type of marriage, but not others ?

Hello,

Yes, if any competent, consenting adults are allowed to marry, then all competent, consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

Any rights for anyone means all rights for everyone.

Not complicated. Freedom and equality.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

Damned skippy!

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

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

Wednesday, November 7, 2012 6:48 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Quote:
What next, sibling marriage ? Polygamy ? Why end discrimination for one type of marriage, but not others ?

Hello,

Yes, if any competent, consenting adults are allowed to marry, then all competent, consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

Any rights for anyone means all rights for everyone.

Not complicated. Freedom and equality.

And yet, that's not how 'gay marriage' is being packaged and advertised.

No one is denying anyone to marry. Marriage is between a man and a woman. You want to consent to join into another form of union ? Then have that discussion.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

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

Wednesday, November 7, 2012 6:50 AM

"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:

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

You've never been able to make that case. Simply repeating it as if it were true does not make it true.

By the way, your definition allows for brother to marry sister.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

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

Wednesday, November 7, 2012 6:56 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

No one is denying your right to marry? (They are. Multiple forms of marriage are actually illegal.)

Further, when the government defines incentives/rewards/breaks/rights for marriage, and then defines marriage to exclude you, it's not operating on a principle of Equality.

You either want equality or you don't. It's not a buzzword.
It is the point.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

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

Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:03 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

You've never been able to make that case. Simply repeating it as if it were true does not make it true.

By the way, your definition allows for brother to marry sister.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

Logic doesn't work on him on a normal day.

You think TODAY he'll be receptive to rational thought?

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

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

Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

And yet, that's not how 'gay marriage' is being packaged and advertised.

No one is denying anyone to marry. Marriage is between a man and a woman. You want to consent to join into another form of union ? Then have that discussion.

That definition of marriage is actually relatively recent. It is far from the only definition that exists.

Gay people are persons, and therefore they have been denied the right to marry. I would not force a church to officiate their marriage, as that's for each church to decide. The general community/state, however, is not a church, they are public servants. They also issue marriage certificates and recognize marriages, theoretically without bias and within understanding and interpretation of the application of various consent laws. I'd like to see them do their job on this. And if they won't do that job, I'll put people into office who will.

Previous legislation defined a standard of "separate but equal" for black people and white people. It was decided that designating some things only for black people and some things only for white people leads to an inherent inequality of goods and services provided.

According to this argument, only straight people should have marriage and only gay people should have gay unions. Insisting on a new alternative term before recognizing gay marriage or gay unions, or whatever you want to call them, is not a reasonable compromise. It's Jim Crow for gay people.

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

Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:07 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:

Logic doesn't work on him on a normal day.

You think TODAY he'll be receptive to rational thought?

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

America loves a winner!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

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

Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:17 AM

America loves a winner!

" That's right, gay people can get married, Motherfucker! "

Thanks for the clarification.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

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

Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:19 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

You've never been able to make that case. Simply repeating it as if it were true does not make it true.

Yeah, I have. And while merely repeating it does not make it true, it is true, none the less.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

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

Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:37 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Yeah, I have. And while merely repeating it does not make it true, it is true, none the less.

Nothin' on this entire site is as deeply, purely amusing as your delusions of grandeur, rappy boy.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

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

Wednesday, November 7, 2012 12:47 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.
-Optimus Prime

Locally we nailed one down, having OFFICIALLY made possession of 1oz or less of cannabis the "lowest level of enforcement priority", on paper, anyways...

Unfortunately we got stuck re-electing that asshat Clayton as Sheriff, who is ON THE RECORD as not caring what the law says in regards to legalities of marijuana and has a bad habit of arresting people for its legal use, as well as entrapment and harrassment of medical marijuana users and providers.
I'd like to have seen him out, but the only other candidate for the position was a hostile rightwingnut racist scumbag who's more or less a friggin jackbooted fascist klan wannabe.
I voted for Clayton, so did everyone else - the devil you know....

He didn't get his money though, we totally shot down any notion of budget increases for them cause we're still suspicious of their conduct and it was only AFTER the budget cuts they started behaving - nor do we have any interest in consolidating the Fire/EMT budget with theirs since the only reason they want that is cause folks might be less inclined to swing the budget cut axe if Fire/EMT is also under it... and anything that distances our local police from an accountability we have FORCED upon them isn't gonna go over well here.
Especially since we increased the Fire/EMT budget, but not theirs, and they are a little pissed/jealous about that right now since the seperation prevents them from looting it like the Detroit PD does to their Fire/EMT guys, leaving them unable to do the job, which makes them go begging for more money, which the cops then loot some more, and round and round it goes.
NOT happenin here.

We also punted that fascist Snyders EFM law, which till now allowed him to declare phony financial "emergencies" and then appoint punkass bootlickers to come in, loot the place for his corporate buddies and leave a wasteland in their wake in open defiance of the law, elections, yadda yadda.
ANY time you have an appointed official replacing an elected one by force, it's an act of UnConstitutional Tyranny - and of course Snyders up there moping and whining about it despite getting his way on a lot of other stuff since the party in opposition was allowed to write the exact wording of those proposals on the ballot, using loaded language and doubletalk.
Rumor has it he ordered the Secretary of State (you know, the one always elected by the same exact amount of votes despite polls going completely the other way, and in charge of election scrutiny, how convenient?) to "correct" the numbers and said Sec-State took a dive cause they're on THIN ice already after covering up for Thadpole and his photocopied signatures only to be caught out and bashed by the (also Republican, ironically) State Attorney General about it.

In case anyone wanted to know the average numbers around here.
REGIONS WITH ELECTRONIC VOTING
Democrat 71.43%
Republican 27.57%
Other 1.00%

REGIONS WITHOUT ELECTRONIC VOTING
Democrat 82.63%
Republican 16.37%
Other 1.00%

Interesting bit of variance, isn't it?
Care to guess who owns those machines?
More on THAT tale later, maybe.

-Frem

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

Thursday, November 8, 2012 4:02 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
In case anyone wanted to know the average numbers around here.
REGIONS WITH ELECTRONIC VOTING
Democrat 71.43%
Republican 27.57%
Other 1.00%

REGIONS WITHOUT ELECTRONIC VOTING
Democrat 82.63%
Republican 16.37%
Other 1.00%

Interesting bit of variance, isn't it?
Care to guess who owns those machines?
More on THAT tale later, maybe.

-Frem

Interesting, but without more information, interesting is all. There should be pre-election polling from those regions, and if that shows strong variance with the election results it'd make things more interesting.

Apropos of nothing, how are your printed ballots counted? In our polls, you fill in the dots, and then the ballot is scanned into an electric reader. Seems those would be as easy to gimmick as the machines.

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

Thursday, November 8, 2012 7:22 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Feh, we ain't worth that level of effort, besides which apparently this region is on average 75%+ democratic so it's pointless to even bother with flakery when there are much softer targets.

We have these kinda rickety 2002-era Diebold Accuvote Optical readers, and due to known security concerns once they are certified and tested, they are placed almost 30 feet from the lines and tables, 15 feet from each other, and each guarded by a single security goon whos ENTIRE JOB is to watch that machine and make sure nobody messes with it.

While there are vulnerabilities to those machines, access ports, pathetic key locks, and so forth, the physical security aspect removes much of that and the real vulnerability would be a man-in-the-middle exploit between the machine and the central tabulator - even so, most of the people around here, including a large percentage of the poll workers, have no bloody idea how the things even work, so little to fear on that part.

Funny thing about it though, these machines are based on the ones they used to use back in school for standardised testing, and I *was* sorta notorious for pranking those, it was all too easy to swap the compare template leading to completely screwball results, but I suppose much more difficult to actually change results in a specific direction, all I did was substitute a different tests answer key in order to scramble the results cause I felt standardised testing was asinine - they more or less knew I did it, but couldn't never prove it, so they let it slide... being the only kid who could keep the overhead and reel projectors functioning, and could makee-workee their ancient Tandy computers had a lil something to do with them not pushing the issue, I suspect.

Anyhows, I'd be less concerned about the whole matter if the results didn't ALWAYS skew in a single direction - if a machine is dropping votes, which does happen cause even the old optical scans would drop 1-2% without any interference, it should happen on an equal break, and that it doesn't is what particularly bothers me about this.

-Frem

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

Thursday, November 8, 2012 1:24 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Raptor, remember how a while ago everyone said "allowing same sex marriage isn't a slippery slope thing, allowing that won't allow other things"? Now they're saying, "Of course siblings should be allowed to get married!".Need I say more? Slippery slope has officially slid.

In OR the legalization of recreational use failed, I'm pretty surprised about that actually. But people here can just cross the river and get them some mk in Vancouver (WA) once it all works out up there. This is an issue that I'm pretty neutral about honestly. Having legal pot isn't my favorite thing, but having it illegal has flaws too, see Prohibition, we all know what the 20s are known for, getting plastered that's what, and cute haircuts and funny dances ... while getting plastered. I figure whatever people vote on is fine by me regarding this one. It really doesn't effect my life either way since I don't use it.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

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

Thursday, November 8, 2012 1:33 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Next they'll want to lower the age of concent so we can be like Pakistan, where 12 year olds marry 50 year olds. Need I say more? Slippery slope has officially slid.

Hello,

Who are the 'they' who want to have sex with children?

I think you have 'them' confused.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

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

Thursday, November 8, 2012 2:06 PM

Because two consenting gays is exactly the same as having sex with children.

Riona, that's one of the more ignorant things you've posted here.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

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

Thursday, November 8, 2012 2:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

You've never been able to make that case. Simply repeating it as if it were true does not make it true.

Yeah, I have. And while merely repeating it does not make it true, it is true, none the less.

You've made the CLAIM before, but you've never once been able to make your case. Provide evidence, provide cites for your claims that aren't based in any religion or on any religious texts or tenets.

You've claimed before that "for thousands of years" marriage has been defined as "one man and one woman", and you've been shown repeatedly that that claim is false and has no basis in reality.

I completely understand if you want to keep making the claim, but that foolish notion that you've ever made a case for why you think this way is completely unfounded.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

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

Thursday, November 8, 2012 2:19 PM

OONJERAH

Riona: "they'll want to lower the age of concent"

Did you hear them say that?

My great grandmas:
Martha m 1861, age 14, to be 15 in less than a month,
10 children; Rachel m 1958, age 16, 11 children;
Ellen m 1853, 19 almost 20, 8 children;
Jane m 1867, age 15, to be 16 in 2 months, 7 children.

I don't believe I found any gals in my own line married
at 12 or 13. Married at 14 was pretty common in the 1800's,
they were old enough to bear children and do house work.

In movies & novels, we hear of all the poor pioneering
women who died in childbirth or shortly after. I always
figured that was for dramatic effect. But no. It was far
more common than I care to know.

Riona, different times and places have different customs,
often for good reasons.

=========================

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

Thursday, November 8, 2012 2:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Raptor, remember how a while ago everyone said "allowing same sex marriage isn't a slippery slope thing, allowing that won't allow other things"? Now they're saying, "well go for it guys, no holds barred!". Next they'll want to lower the age of concent so we can be like Pakistan, where 12 year olds marry 50 year olds. Need I say more? Slippery slope has officially slid.

You have now lost any respect I might have had for you, and no holds barred in the future.

Why is it that only the so-called "moral" Bible-thumpers are the only ones who can't tell consensual sex between two adults from pedophilia?

Are you really this stupid Riona? And yes, I just called you stupid. You earned it.

You are fucking STUPID. Deal with it.

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

Thursday, November 8, 2012 6:02 PM

>_>

I think she might be teasing. I totally got a teasing Riona voice vibe from that. It's like when she and I have trash talking email slams on each other. Same tone of voice.

I mean, you guys, I sometimes go "ugh public kissing bluh get a room" but if I started saying that heterosexual relationships are the same thing as pedophilia, I'd like to hope you'd all realize I'm screwing with you guys.

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

Thursday, November 8, 2012 6:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
>_>

I think she might be teasing. I totally got a teasing Riona voice vibe from that. It's like when she and I have trash talking email slams on each other. Same tone of voice.

I mean, you guys, I sometimes go "ugh public kissing bluh get a room" but if I started saying that heterosexual relationships are the same thing as pedophilia, I'd like to hope you'd all realize I'm screwing with you guys.

She ought to maybe maybe make that clear, because I'm balanced on the edge of ripping her a big, gaping new one over this.

I'm particularly sensitive, I admit it.

If she didn't mean this literally, I will be HUGELY relieved. I will forgive her and adjust my irony meter accordingly. (Ha - but you should see the post I was ready to cut loose with Woooo-hoooooooo!)

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

Thursday, November 8, 2012 7:18 PM

Hey, I edited my own post because I was about to go off, too.

Riona, do you think every man that would fuck a woman doggy-style would just as soon fuck a dog? Do you think any woman who wants it doggy-style wants to be fucked by a dog?

Do those seem like absurd statements to you? They should, but they're really no different than comparing gay sex to pedophilia.

Gay sex is like pedophilia in exactly the same way that straight sex is like bestiality.

Sorry to be so blunt about it, but like I said about Jack, some folks need to hear the hard word.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 1:57 AM

Riona, if you were not serious please let me know. I don't like calling someone names when they don't deserve it, and I'm ready with an apology. When I think it through, it does seem like a statement you wouldn't make. You don't seem a hateful person.

Now, if you meant it... well, I'll just really hope not!

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 4:43 AM

Well, shoot. Might be too late to get an explanation, she could be out of contact for the weekend. I'll let you guys know if I hear from her.

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 9:00 AM

CAVETROLL

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Quote:
What next, sibling marriage ? Polygamy ? Why end discrimination for one type of marriage, but not others ?

Hello,

Yes, if any competent, consenting adults are allowed to marry, then all competent, consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

Any rights for anyone means all rights for everyone.

Not complicated. Freedom and equality.

--Anthony

ALL STOP!

Anthony, I think you are confused. And I believe Kiki can speak with more knowledge on this than I can. Sibling marriage is NOT a good idea. Unrelated consenting adults, sure, rock on. Do your thing where I don't have to see it. Don't involve kids, animals and the incompetent (and I mean the legal definition, not those who are bad at sex) and I've got no beef with you.

But when marriage involves a member of opposite sexes and presumably, sexual relations. When the married are too closely related, it's bad. The offspring can suffer from a variety of maladies and disorders caused by the closely related reproducing. There are issues with long term medical and social care. Incest is a bad idea.

And to address the original post, legalize it, tax it, watch the drug cartel problem disappear.

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 9:07 AM

OONJERAH

How about incest with birth control?

=========================

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 9:26 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Anthony, I think you are confused. And I believe Kiki can speak with more knowledge on this than I can. Sibling marriage is NOT a good idea.

Hello,

No, it's not a good idea. Though I assume you are referring to them making offspring, and not getting married. Assuming you have a genetic concern?

Because people can have sex and children without getting married, and people can get married without having children.

And in neither case is it any of my damn business. I'm not prepared to authorize the government to genetically screen applicants for marriage.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 1:46 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Raptor, remember how a while ago everyone said "allowing same sex marriage isn't a slippery slope thing, allowing that won't allow other things"? Now they're saying, "well go for it guys, no holds barred!". Next they'll want to lower the age of concent so we can be like Pakistan, where 12 year olds marry 50 year olds. Need I say more? Slippery slope has officially slid.

You know, it's kinda funny, speaking of all that,and the 'age of consent' thingy. WAY back, in the dark ages ( 1975 ) Albert Brooks did a short film ' The Impossible Truth ', for SNL. It was a spoof, of course, a few stories, one of which was about Oregon ( shocker ) lowering the age of consent for sex to 7!

Narrator: In a sweeping majority vote, this progressive state has decided to lower the age of consent from eighteen to seven. Businesses of all types report a surge in activity. [Music out.]

Ad Man: [to the girl] Actually, uh, I'm in - I'm in advertising. Here, I'll show ya, this is my company here. [shows girl his business card]

Girl: I can't read yet.

Ad Man: Oh, well, this says that I'm in charge of casting. I cast a lot of people, you know, like yourself.

Girl: Mm hm.

Ad Man: You have very nice cheekbones.

Interviewer: [off screen] Excuse me, sir. I'm with "The Impossible Truth" -- do you live in this area?

Ad Man: No, I'm from L.A.

Interviewer: Ah! Who's your date?

Ad Man: It's just someone I'm talking to here.

Interviewer: Let me ask you something--

Ad Man: Why don't you just leave us for a little while, huh?

Interviewer: All right.

Ad Man: [to the girl] Uh, I'm staying, uh, at the Inn, you know, out by the airport there.

Girl: Yeah?

Ad Man: Maybe, I don't know if you have time ...

First thing I thought of, when you brought up the 'age of consent' stuff.

Quote:
In OR the legalization of recreational use failed, I'm pretty surprised about that actually. But people here can just cross the river and get them some mk in Vancouver (WA) once it all works out up there. This is an issue that I'm pretty neutral about honestly. Having legal pot isn't my favorite thing, but having it illegal has flaws too, see Prohibition, we all know what the 20s are known for, getting plastered that's what, and cute haircuts and funny dances ... while getting plastered. I figure whatever people vote on is fine by me regarding this one. It really doesn't effect my life either way since I don't use it.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

Yeah, how'd Oregon NOT pass the weed law ? As I hear it , the Oregon Ducks football team are all toasted anyways, and they're playing pretty good.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 4:42 PM

Someone brings up age of consent, and Rappy's mind goes to 7-year-old girls.

Why am I not the least bit surprised?

Rappy, do you cruise the neighborhood in an ice cream truck trying to pick up dates, ya creepy perv?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 4:52 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Someone brings up age of consent, and Rappy's mind goes to 7-year-old girls.

Why am I not the least bit surprised?

Rappy, do you cruise the neighborhood in an ice cream truck trying to pick up dates, ya creepy perv?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

Hello,

I've never heard Mr. Raptor say anything to suggest he has such tendencies.

While he is highly disrespectful of adult women, I don't think that translates into a craving for children.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 5:11 PM

America loves a winner!

ice cream truck ?

Damn... that's a great idea!

keywords ' age of consent ' were clearly and prominently mentioned, at the start of my post.

It lead me to think of the old SNL skit, by Albert Brooks. It was a comedy, as that's what SNL was known for. Still is, even today, or so I'm told.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Brooks#Early_career

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

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

Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:52 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Uh oh, I'm really really really so sosorry that that came out in that way. I was just so "I told you so" about my sliding slope theory coming to fruition that I didn't explain what I meant very well. I certainly don't think that raping children is the same thing as same sex sex. One involves consenting adults and the other absolutely doesn't. I know that having nethers that react to the same sex is totally not about wanting to rut with (rape) under aged individuals.

But I will put good money on that once same sex marriage and first cousin marriage and sibling marriage are officially allowed, there will be people who start fighting to lower the age of consent, (obviously not to 7, Raptor that post, in detail, was grotty)I don't however think those people will be the same people who hope to marry their partners, I'm thinking of a totally different segment of the population. But most of humanity, though they do have a moral compass, are like sheep, they just do what's fashionable so I just am concerned that they'll give in if that small minority scream loud enough. They'll use the above point about how people used to marry at 14 so why not now? Just because something used to be allowed doesn't mean its okay, people used to go to public hangings, they used to lock people up and not take care of them if they were different, they used to blood let and burn people at the stake and not allow women to vote. "They used to do it" is the worst argument I've heard for anything in a long long time. I'm rather apalled that anyone would use that argument for justifying anything.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

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

Sunday, November 11, 2012 10:13 PM

Quote:
I was just so "I told you so" about my sliding slope theory coming to fruition that I didn't explain what I meant very well.

Yeah, I thought the equivalency thing wasn't quite there, and there was teasing. It didn't seem like you meant it that way.

Quote:
"They used to do it" is the worst argument I've heard for anything in a long long time. I'm rather apalled that anyone would use that argument for justifying anything.

That, however, is true. In fact, not only is "They used to do it this way" a bad argument, but it's a logical fallacy. It's called the appeal to authority.

I explained though that I don't think opinions have changed in my email to you, so, here's hoping this can get cleared up.

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

Monday, November 12, 2012 2:15 AM

Quote:
"They used to do it" is the worst argument I've heard for anything in a long long time. I'm rather apalled that anyone would use that argument for justifying anything.

I find it an especially bad argument for defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I keep hearing that argument made, though - "That's the way it's always been!"; "It's been this way for thousands of years!"; "That's how we used to do it!"

It's not only a bad argument, it's not even a true one.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

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

Monday, November 12, 2012 9:53 AM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Since marriages have historically included more than two people in many cultures I never use Raptor's "Its only involved two people always for thousands of years" argument, because it doesn't hold water. I do however subscribe to the idea that has always involved male componant(s) and female componant(s). 5 plus 5 doesn't equal 70 no matter how you slice it, words mean something and it doesn't make since to change their meanings, or the meanings of concepts, willy nilly.

But to reitterate, though I think same sex rutting is wrong I don't think its at all the same thing as harming underaged individuals. Its like the difference between stealing a candy from the store and robbing a bank at gunpoint, they're not the same at all and I'm sorry I misspoke in the way I did. The fact that I go away on weekends has caused trouble more than once, I write something on Thurs. and can't change it in time before it gets all out of control, and I have no way of knowing that its happened until Sun. night when I get back here. But there's no way I'm changing my schedule for a bunch of maybe-friends that I've never met in real life. Maybe I should be more careful what I write on Thurs. though in future because this has happened before and it will probably happen again.

Also to be clear, I would NEVER support a backward law that would try to ban same sex relations, that's just whacked, because concentual adults can do whatever they want in their own space on their own time.

Also to be clear, I would fully support the following solutions: Any kind of civil unionesque arrangement being allowed with equal protections as "marriage". Or the removal of the word "marriage" from all government documents and an arrangement of sharingstuff in which any two adults, lovers, cousins, bloodbrothers, close neighbors, siblings, parent and offspring, etc. could share things and have all the legal rights of "marriage regarding taxes, hospitals, inherritance, sharing health insurance etc. Why should sexin' be required for sharing things? It shouldn't.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

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

Monday, November 12, 2012 10:19 AM

Five plus five in base twenty is 'A'. I would like that noted.

Quote:
arrangement of sharingstuff in which any two adults, lovers, cousins, bloodbrothers, close neighbors, siblings, parent and offspring, etc. could share things and have all the legal rights of "marriage regarding taxes, hospitals, inherritance, sharing health insurance etc. Why should sexin' be required for sharing things? It shouldn't.

I've mentioned before that I actually do like that idea.

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

Monday, November 12, 2012 10:27 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I don't however think those people will be the same people who hope to marry their partners, I'm thinking of a totally different segment of the population."

I think an argument can be made that the legal age of consent for sex should be the same as the legal age for marriage, the same as the legal age to enter into contracts, the same as the legal age to join the military, the legal age to hold a full-time job, the legal age to leave school etc. I find that these things can be grouped into the same category of life-changing choices and responsibilities involving other people and/or society, and that there would be good reason to align these to the same age.

ETA: I would probably make an exception for gyn care, birth control and abortion, in deference to our effed up society. While one would HOPE that responsible parents would be minding these vital services in the best interests of their children, the fact is many youngsters have not only been abandoned in place by their parents, but also that for a portion of those children the parents are the health risk that the child needs to deal with.

Considering that, I think I would have to consider effective emancipation measures for children who need legal autonomy, and perhaps social protection, as individuals instead of as minors.

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

Monday, November 12, 2012 1:08 PM

OONJERAH

Quote Riona, ""They used to do it" is the worst argument
I've heard for anything in a long long time. I'm rather
apalled that anyone would use that argument for justifying
anything."

That doesn't sound like you, Riona. Did you actually compose
that line? -- No. You did not!

Quote Oonjerah: "Different times and places have different
customs, often for good reasons."
That was my point.

"If married at 14 was good enough for Martha, it's good enough
for me. In fact, married at 12 is just a great idea."
I didn't say that.

You read about people living in a different time or place.
You see that they have done something of which you disapprove,
and instead of trying to understand why they did it, you just
call them "grotty."

I know you well enough to say you are both shallow & ignorant.
Let me add petty to that.

=========================

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

Monday, November 12, 2012 1:38 PM

Riona, I just don't get you. Where is a slippery slope? Who is saying that legalizing gay marriage has ANYTHING to do with marrying 12 year olds?

You sure are grouping the two issues together. You have made it very clear that you were serious when you predicted this "slippery slope". Yes, you did, and that means that YOU are the one conflating the two situations. Sure, you say you know they are different, but at the same time you believe that some mysterious big scary "they" out there will take gay marriage rights as a stepping stone to 12 year old marriage rights.

OMG! Please, please think about this forward and backward and left and right until you GROK it good: you are not the only one in the universe who can tell sex/marriage between consenting adults from every other conceivable situation that does not involve two consenting adults. It actually is not very hard. 12 year getting married: not a consenting adult, so no go. See? Done! No slippery slope at all.

I find this incredibly frustrating, that gay rights opponents think that there's some "they" out there who are so stupid that "they" can't tell two consenting men from a man and a dog or a man and a little girl. Jesus. Really?

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

Monday, November 12, 2012 4:30 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Hi Oonj, I did really compose that line, I'm way too lazy to go look up quotes, I find it unnecessary and tiresome, so I really did write that line, it doesn't seem monumental though so I'm sure someone else has said it, probably with the same words at some point.

Kiki, everything you said there made total sense, and I still don't know why some things are 21, if you're old enough to go fight a war then you should be able to vote, rut with others, drink, enter legal agreements/contracts and all other legally allowed things.

Mal4, I just know that six months ago when we were talking about this no one was announcing being for sibling marriage being allowed, now all of a sudden someone is talking about that, so something is happening. But even sibling marriage, yucky as it may be, is not anywhere as bad as 12 year olds getting married, its good we all agree that 12 year olds getting married isn't ever okay and that none of us will ever support that idea, no matter what others say.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

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

Monday, November 12, 2012 5:28 PM

MAL
Petty.

INARA
(backtracking)
I didn't mean petty.

MAL
What did you mean?

INARA
(meekly)
[Suo-SHEE?]

MAL
That's Chinese for petty.

I watched Firefly yesterday, I'm pretty much useless for arguments for a while.

(I didn't write this post)

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

Monday, November 12, 2012 5:28 PM

And why the hell did I have to log in yet AGAIN today? I never lost connection, or even went into hibernation! It's annoying...

A-hem. Anyhow.

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Mal4, I just know that six months ago when we were talking about this no one was announcing being for sibling marriage being allowed, now all of a sudden someone is talking about that, so something is happening. But even sibling marriage, yucky as it may be, is not anywhere as bad as 12 year olds getting married, its good we all agree that 12 year olds getting married isn't ever okay and that none of us will ever support that idea, no matter what others say.

I clearly missed the talk about brother and sister. I'm not so comfy with that for the health dangers, but I will concede that these are consenting adults and discussion of the issue has NOTHING to do with 12 year olds. Not a thing. Not even a tiny bit, other than it's all stuff that you seem group together as "perverse."

My theory: anti-gay marriage folks have to "give in to the perverse" a bit to be at all accepting of gay marriage. So, to them, it's not a far step to move on to "other perverse acts" such as a man marrying a horse. (I believe Rappy has brought that one up, though I may be confusing him with one of our other resident RWAs. Yeah, they blend.)

This is what I mean when I say that the only people confusing consenting adults with non-consenting non-adults are the religiously righteous. It seems to be all the same to them. Certain (not all) of these folks group everything not-them, not-Bible, not-wholesome and pure, (cue the choir!) as one big clump of sinful baaaaad behavior. Like: if you're going to let your kid ride a tricycle, why not a 10-speed, why not a Harley! Duh! Only a complete paranoid bike-illiterate would say that.

And you know what, Riona, it's a little insulting that you need assurance that gay rights supporters really aren't out to marry off children. You're still operating on that flawed assumption that atheists can't be moral. Hell, I'm quite solid with my morals, even without a bossy Father/God/Ultimate Power telling me what to think and what to fear.

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

Monday, November 12, 2012 5:40 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I for one have never said that Atheists can't be moral. Everyone in the world has a moral code, no matter what they believe in. So of course I think Atheists have a moral code. There are a myriad of different moral codes out there though, as many as there are people in the world, no one's moral code is the same as that of another person. Every moral code is different so assuming that other people's moral codes aren't the same as mine doesn't assume that they don't have one. I just happen to have one that is stricter about certain things than others, there are probably things in my moral code that others would think aren't strict enough, so many facets of life to look at. So just because someone doesn't have the same moral code as me doesn't mean I think they haven't got one. It just looks different and thus I find it to be different than mine, meaning I can't be totally sure what they'll include in theirs, its up to them after all. And honestly I see a decent chunk of humanity as highly flexible in what they will believe if told repeatedly to believe it, sheeple etc.

Petty isn't the worst thing I've been called, I guess if Mal is petty its good enough for me.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

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

Monday, November 12, 2012 5:44 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
But I will put good money on that once same sex marriage and first cousin marriage and sibling marriage are officially allowed, there will be people who start fighting to lower the age of consent,

Hello,

People fight for this already, and have for a long time. They are called pedophiles. They even have organizations, like NAMBLA.

And they have nothing whatsoever to do with the decisions consenting adults make or the freedoms they crave and deserve to have.

Pakistan has more in common with your preferred state of affairs than the U.S. with same-sex marriage does. They don't tolerate that yucky homosexual stuff there.

The fact that you endorse 'Separate but Equal' unions or abolishing Marriage altogether, but not letting same-sex people Marry is remarkable to me. There is a Xenophobia there which is interfering with your perception of Liberty.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

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

Monday, November 12, 2012 5:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
The fact that you endorse 'Separate but Equal' unions or abolishing Marriage altogether, but not letting same-sex people Marry is remarkable to me. There is a Xenophobia there which is interfering with your perception of Liberty.

As always, thank you Anthony. For saying what I'm thinking but with more gentility and clarity.

There is definitely a perception issue happening with Riona, and it's completely unnecessary. It's a prime example of why I find religion to be oppressive and sad.

One of my oldest friends (who was het when I met her nearly 20 years ago) is now married - to a woman *gasp* - and they just had twin babies last week. It is all cuteness and joy and new beginnings for them. Like any new parents, they're all about the future that just began in their lives.

It's such a shame that more than one True Believer would destroy this joy because they - not my friends, but "they the religiousities" - must force a connection between this beautiful family and the depraved exploitation of children.

It's ridiculous. It would be laughable if it wasn't so damned hurtful.

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

Monday, November 12, 2012 6:15 PM