I had lunch with Lindsey of Theology and Geometry, who was kind enough to eat with me even though she’s still not completely recovered from her illness. We talked about dads and Methodism and whether or not, after this piece of WTF?! we couldn’t find a nice progressive branch of the Klan for Kleinheider to join, so that when he was feeling put upon and beset by people on the left, he could go commiserate with people who really understood where he was coming from*.
Then I went and spent more time contemplating the Oxford American and catching up with a friend I hadn’t seen in years.
Then, for dinner, we went to Huey’s, which is this amazing place on Madison in midtown. Shoot, Hutchmo, if you want some place to try when you’re in town, try there. The food is inexpensive and so delicious and the atmosphere is exactly right. My co-worker ordered two vodka gimlets, a burger, some cheese fries, and some potato soup. Her dinner, which was so much food that the two of us could not eat it all came to less than her two drinks.
And, we broke our rental car… well, just the gas cap, but I think they’re going to have to bring us a new car or I’m not sure how we’re getting home.
And we’ve got to get home. I miss my dog.
*I have to be honest with you and say that I debated long and hard about whether to make a Klan joke at the expense of Kleinheider. I’m still not sure it isn’t a cheap shot. But here it is, Carter: this post you made is ridiculous, but the comment you made in the thread is just about the cruelest thing I believe I’ve ever heard you say. I have had my disagreements with you and lord knows, I’ve thought things you said were misinformed or misguided, but I always have believed you to operate from a position of well-meaning.
I have suspected that most folks’ opposition to gay marriage is based on some kind of fucked up enjoyment of making other people needlessly suffer, but I was holding out hope that maybe that wasn’t always the case, that a person could believe that the state should not expand the definition of marriage to include all loving, consenting, adult couples for some reason other than "Because it’s important to me to be able to do something gay people can’t do."
And I guess that I was kind of hoping that if anyone had a better argument than "Ha ha ha! Fuck you, queers!" as to why gay people cannot marry, it might be you, Kleinheider. But, no. Not only is your argument against gay marriage reducible to "Fuck you, faggot." it’s also got a strong hint of, "Fuck you, faggot, if we’ve got to be stuck with these cunts, so do you."
Seriously, Kleinheider. "Gays are perfectly allowed to marry they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex."
How funny did you think that was the first time you heard that? Now, tell me, who in that little bon mot is above your contempt? Do you not see how that works? That’s only funny because it ridicules not only gays, but love. The assumption at the heart of your witty comment is that all marriage is is some kind of business arrangement between any two people who meet the criteria for eligibility and not a sacred social commitment made by two people who feel differently about each other than they feel about any other people on the planet.
You want to talk about cheapening the definition of marriage? It’s your fucking bullshit removal of love from the equation. YOU. You and your disregard for love, your spitting in the face of that brave and foolish miracle that makes two people believe their fortunes are better tied together, your insinuation that marriage is no more than a man and a woman and a piece of paper. You, Adam Carter Kleinheider do more to fuck up marriage by stripping it of all its mystery and wonder and sacredness and kicking love to the curb, like some inconvenient puppy your kid brought home, than any amount damage done by gay people hoping to be able to be tied together in a legally recognized family could ever do.
You want to know who’s fucking up marriage?
Look in the mirror, my friend.
But that’s not my point.
My point is this: you are being a bully.
Your whole post is devoted to a slightly bullyish bravado, but that comment?
It’s beyond cruel. If you know that someone desperately wants something, even if you think it’s a bad idea for them to have it, it is inexcusable to mock them for wanting it. And that comment? That’s mocking people who desperately want to get married to a particular person that they love.
I just cannot believe you would do that. I’ve thought you were a lot of things, but I never took you for a bully.
Tiny Cat Pants 
I had so much fun at lunch! It was fabulous to finally meet you!And you guys made a good call with Huey’s. They have the best burgers in town.
oh man, I LOVE Hueys..i’ve eaten those burgers many many times.
Next blogger meet up, I’m wearing a shirt that says, "Stuck With These Cunts."
Are you kidding, Sarcastro? I totally got the idea from the huge tattoo on your back that says that.We loved Huey’s.John, the place with the marvelous fries is just a trailer up on the Main Street Mall. It’s someone’s famous fried chicken, and they have the bitchiest girl working out front, but really sweet guys in the trailer cooking up those incredible fries.So, I guess that’s not much help in locating what restaurant they might have originated from. Sorry.
And Lindsey, I had such a good time too. It was really a treat to meet you face to face.
That tatoo isn’t on my back.
Oh, is that one of those tattoos that normally seems to read "stunts"?
Aunt B., I love you like a sister and sometimes do not understand why you try to befriend idiots like Kleinheider. I’m assuming it is to challenge their thinking and to expand your thinking. Obviously you are more brave than Kleinheider because he seems very simple minded. Yes, we can marry as long as we are marrying people of the opposite sex. I’ve had friends that have done it. One because she was in the military and wanted to live off base so she could live with her partner; and one because she wanted custody of her child. Aunt B., you are right! This does remove love from the whole sense of marriage. They didn’t love the guys they married (maybe in a like I love my brother way). They did it to fool the system and the simple minded people who will not allow us to live a "normal" life by allowing us to marry the person who we do love. I’ve wished on several occasions that my sexuality was a choice. That I could choose to be with a man and be in love. Life would be so much easier. I would have all the rights that I deserve. There are many men that are standing in line for the moment when I "give in". But it will never happen. I don’t love men the same way I love women; I’ve tried many times, but it doesn’t work. And I’m sure Kleinheider is one of those fools who supports the building of some gigantic wall to keep Mexicans out. Don’t you think that the billions of dollars that would be spent building that dumb ass wall would be better spent improving their economy so that they don’t have the desire to come there? Have you fucking been to Mexico??? Have you seen the damn one room shacks that they live in with only fucking hammocks as furniture???
Only when it is cold.
Famous fried chicken, you say. Was it Gus’s?
Oh here here! Well said. Marriage should be for any two people who are silly & in love enough to want to travel down that road together. It really is just petty & mean & small minded not to let same sex couples celebrate & declare their wild optimism to their friends, family & the world.
Lindsey, yes, I think it was!Dancingmorganmouse, "wild optimism." What a nice phrase!
Damn, B. I hope Carter reads this, and with more than just a passing glance. I mean I hoppe he REALLY reads it. Because he’s too smart to be that fucking dense.
Should marriage be limited to 2 people? I mean, if marriage is a "right", then shouldn’t anyone(s) be able to marry anyone(s) or anything(s)?If you’re going to allow anyone to get married, I think you should just remove the government from marriage completely, abolish any special legal standings for married people, and go on about your business letting whomever marry whatever.I think it’s curious that gay people think that people who are against gay marriage somehow hate them. Honestly, if they hated gay people, they’d ENCOURAGE them to get married, I would think. Why waste all the misery on the straight people?
I agree. I don’t think marriage should be sanctioned by the state. But I also don’t think it’s fair to gay people for us to sit around and make up hypothetical slippery slope scenarios in order to deny very real, non-hypothetical people legal recognition.We both know that there’s no way that the government will abolish special legal standings for married people and so again, let’s not use some hypothetical solution (abolishing marriage all together) keep us from doing what we can to help real people right now.Also, I assume you’re trying to make a joke, because there’s just no way to read folks’ opposition to gay marriage as anything other than hatred of gay people. It is what it is. Pretending otherwise or hiding that hatred behind a veil of hypotheticals doesn’t change that basic fact.The only reason there is to deny marriage rights to gay people is because we hate them.
I don’t really "hate" anyone. I hate onions. That’s about it.Opposing gay marriage doesn’t have to be based of hatred of gay people. Saying that’s ALL it could be is fairly limited in vision. If I were an insurance company, no WAY would I want gay marriage. It’s way to easy to abuse with regards to coverage. I can see married people now opposing it just for that factor, alone."Hate" is really a word I think is overused . . . like "rape" and "war". It immediately brings out visceral feelings that may or may not be appropriate for the conversation.I oppose lots of things that I don’t "hate". If I do, I figure lots of people do.Marriage is a very unusual legal entity. It’s not a "right", per se. It’s a civil contract for the most part. Using things like "hate" and "rights" in this argument is more for effect than accuracy (to me).Am I making a joke? Maybe . . . sorta’ . . . but if you say marriage is okay for anyone who wants to do it regardless of what, why is it okay for gay people and not people who are "bi" and want a little taste of "both" in their marriage? What about guys who want 3 or 4 wives . . . or wives that want 3 or 4 husbands? Crap, I love my car. I’d like to leave my car some money to keep her running well after I’m gone (that’s actually true). Eventually, you have to draw a line on about everything before it becomes meaningless . . . or you just make it meaningless and move on.
Ed, come now. If you don’t hate gay people, why would you oppose gay marriage? If you didn’t care one way or another about gay people, you wouldn’t care one way or another about whether or not they could marry. Of course in that context it’s the only appropriate word. It should bring out visceral feelings. Why should bigots get to hide behind polite talk?Marriage is a social construct. Its definition has changed repeatedly throughout history. If you are actively seeking to keep it from being redefined again to include consenting gay couples, it’s because you hate them. Trying to broaden the discussion by including insurance companies is ridiculous. Insurance companies are not people. What an insurance company "thinks" about gay marriage has nothing to do with this conversation. Insurance companies don’t vote.I also think it’s crude to reduce other human beings to the status of your car.And as for group marriages? I could give a shit less. If a bunch of folks who are into that want to agitate and try to get their arrangements legally recognized, go for it, I say. I don’t have an opinion on group marriages one way or another.But I do have friends I care about very deeply who want a basic privilege extended to some people in this country redefined to also extend to them. Because it would make them happy and doesn’t hurt anyone else, I think we should extend it to them.There’s no reason other than bigotry not to.All the hypotheticals in the world, all the other things that might come to pass, don’t matter. What we have before us right now is just whether we’re going to cement bigotry into our state constitution.It really is that simple.
Ed, come now. If you don’t hate gay people, why would you oppose gay marriage? If you didn’t care one way or another about gay people, you wouldn’t care one way or another about whether or not they could marry. -You’re assuming that opposition to something equates to hate. That’s not the case at all.I don’t really care if someone goes home every night and gets stoned off their butts in the privacy of their own home. HOWEVER, I don’t think that legalizing drugs is good for society. I don’t HATE people who do drugs. I DO hate how drugs screw up the world for everyone else.I don’t care if people want to have sex with people of the opposite sex, the same sex, or fuits and vegetables. I think they should be free to live their lives as they see fit as long as they don’t hurt anyone else. I don’t agree that gay people should be able to marry because, by definition (common definition), marriage is between a male and a female. It is AT LEAST viewed that way by the law. A gay couple can have a "wedding" ceremony and live as a married couple for the most part. However, LEGALLY, they’re not married under that civil contract. In my opinion, legally, there’s no reason to have a gay marriage AS LONG AS legally, they can form a legal entity.No hate is involved. I find people say things like "you hate gay people" because it’s meant to intimidate the other person or put them on the defensive. That’s really the only reason to use words like "hate" unless hate is blatantly expressed. I don’t think I’ve done that, have I?—Of course in that context it’s the only appropriate word. It should bring out visceral feelings. Why should bigots get to hide behind polite talk?—So, it’s okay to lie as long as it advances your argument? I haven’t expressed the least amount of hate. Honestly, throwing around words like that IMMEDIATELY for effect hurts your argument. It’s like a being called a racist two sentences into the debate. It hurts the other side more to sling buzz words more than the side targeted.—-Marriage is a social construct. Its definition has changed repeatedly throughout history. If you are actively seeking to keep it from being redefined again to include consenting gay couples, it’s because you hate them. —-By your logic, the reason you want it changed is because you hate hetrosexual couples, right? Same logic (or lack thereof).Social marriage, of course, has changed. But we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about marriage as it is defined by the legal system of the United States. LEGALLY, you can go to a church an marry whomever you want. The police won’t stop you. It just won’t be a LEGAL wedding.—-Trying to broaden the discussion by including insurance companies is ridiculous. Insurance companies are not people. What an insurance company "thinks" about gay marriage has nothing to do with this conversation. Insurance companies don’t vote.—-OF COURSE insurance companies vote. Do some research on their lobbying group. I assure you that AllState, State Farm, and AIG swing a much bigger stick than NOW or ACLJ. You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think insurance companies and the like are fighting to keep gay marriage illegal.—-I also think it’s crude to reduce other human beings to the status of your car.—-Evidently, you don’t know my car. I trust it a lot more than most humans. It’s been a lot more loyal and trustworthy than most humans. It’s never lied or stolen from me, and it’s taken a beating from 7 drunk drivers to keep me alive and well.You know, for a person who deals out words like "hate" and "rape" like you bought them 100 for a dime, it’s really funny that you get offended by something like that. If you want to play the offensive game, I find it offensive that someone who thinks it’s a great idea to kill children, um, feti, or blastocysts . . . whatever . . . to point a nasty finger and my affinity for my car. I like my car more than most people, but I don’t recommend killing people I don’t really want around at the time.And as for group marriages? I could give a shit less. If a bunch of folks who are into that want to agitate and try to get their arrangements legally recognized, go for it, I say. I don’t have an opinion on group marriages one way or another.Then I recommend we just abolish legal marriage completely. There’s no point in having a contract or agreement with no rules, boundaries, or point for that matter.—-But I do have friends I care about very deeply who want a basic privilege extended to some people in this country redefined to also extend to them. Because it would make them happy and doesn’t hurt anyone else, I think we should extend it to them.—-It’s a perfectly understandable feeling. It’s just not shared by everyone else.—-There’s no reason other than bigotry not to.—-No, but it makes for a nice "I feel like I’m better than you" argument. I’ll grant you that. It’s like saying "banning guns will keep people from using guns to kill children and cute puppies." Sounds good, but it’s not quite factual or even remotely accurate.—-All the hypotheticals in the world, all the other things that might come to pass, don’t matter. What we have before us right now is just whether we’re going to cement bigotry into our state constitution.It really is that simple. Bigotry is like corruption. It’s only bad if it’s against you. Affirmative Action is legal bigotry, but you don’t hear many minorities or females complaining about it. I think placing labels like bigot, rapist, and, for most of the females in here, "male" makes things easier to be against . . . "hate" if you will. If someone doesn’t agree with you, you call thema bigot, racist, rapist, or some other really painful but probably inaccurate term. It’s mental masturbation. It doesn’t help your argument. It just makes you feel better about arguing it.
Ed, I DID call everyone racist two sentences into a post once. It went poorly, but what can you do? I mention that because you seem very hung up on the fact that you don’t think I’m being very nice. I’m not nice.I try to be respectful and thoughtful, but if you want to throw ideas out here, they’re going to get pulled apart and fought about and the discussion is bound to get raucous. That’s how things go here. If you don’t like that, I don’t know what to tell you.You can’t come into my space and expect to set the rules for how you’re treated.You hang out here, you’re going to find flashes of brilliance, a lot of argument, but very little in the way of nice.I think that’s very clear. If you mistake people arguing about what you’re saying for personal attacks, you’re bound to be unhappy here. Because how it works here is that we don’t all sit around and listen politely to each other and pretend that everyone’s point of view is equally valid. We fight and insist on nuance and demand clarification.In other words, sir, people are going to say things you perceive as hostile. It’s nothing personal against you as no one knows who you are. It’s just how things work. I want to make that clear, because you seem to be under the misguided assumption that, if only you can get me to see how I’m being mean and unreasonable, I will behave better.But we’re not having an argument about me. We’re talking about what could possibly motivate a person to take gay folks’ desire to marry as such a personal affront that he would go to the effort to try to enshrine in the state consitution an amendment forbidding it, when it is already illegal in the state of Tennessee for gay people to get married.How is that little extra turn of the knife not based on bigotry?You haven’t proven to me that you have an argument against that.And here’s the reason I don’t think you have a very good argument, because you’re getting upset and losing focus. You’re talking about people having sex with fruit or the insurance lobby or your inability to marry your car or abortion or what you think of other commenters here.None of which have anything to do with helping me understand how someone can oppose gay marriage and not hate gay people.If someone wants to do something and it doesn’t affect you or harm anyone else, what reason other than hatred could there be for you to oppose it?That’s the question. Which you’ve yet to answer.If you don’t hate gay people, then it seems to me to be pretty fucked up that you’d vote to amend the state constitution to forbid something the law already forbids.
Ed, I DID call everyone racist two sentences into a post once. It went poorly, but what can you do? I mention that because you seem very hung up on the fact that you don’t think I’m being very nice. I’m not nice.—-I could care less if you’re nice. To be honest, I like this site because you seem to be one of the few feminists site that is able to go three rounds of discussion without insulting my penis or pulling their dress over their head in fear. So, that being said, being "nice" isn’t even relevant. The only thing I don’t really like is that personal insults and the rest of the “fluff” really doesn’t contribute much to the discussion at hand.You’re not nice. We all understand that now. You can cease and desist with the efforts to convey that. I so note it on your record. Back to the discussion now?—-I try to be respectful and thoughtful, but if you want to throw ideas out here, they’re going to get pulled apart and fought about and the discussion is bound to get raucous. That’s how things go here. If you don’t like that, I don’t know what to tell you.—-I really don’t see where that’s bothered me in the least?—-You can’t come into my space and expect to set the rules for how you’re treated.—-And I’ve tried to do that where?—-You hang out here, you’re going to find flashes of brilliance, a lot of argument, but very little in the way of nice.I think that’s very clear. If you mistake people arguing about what you’re saying for personal attacks, you’re bound to be unhappy here. Because how it works here is that we don’t all sit around and listen politely to each other and pretend that everyone’s point of view is equally valid. We fight and insist on nuance and demand clarification.—-Are you trying to say you’re not nice . . . again? LOL!—-In other words, sir, people are going to say things you perceive as hostile. It’s nothing personal against you as no one knows who you are.—-Of course it’s personal. I’ve never made a blanket, impersonal insult. Have you? I’m not aware of that even being possible, you know? It’s just something you’re comfortable with and choose to allow/encourage on your site.However, just the fact that I acknowledge that and am still here would seem to imply that I’m okay with that, no?—-It’s just how things work. I want to make that clear, because you seem to be under the misguided assumption that, if only you can get me to see how I’m being mean and unreasonable, I will behave better.—-You’re a woman. There’s no changing you. That’s generally what women try to do to men. I come here because I like the discussion. I couldn’t change your mind with a sledgehammer and a chainsaw. This is just a forum where we can discuss.—-But we’re not having an argument about me. We’re talking about what could possibly motivate a person to take gay folks’ desire to marry as such a personal affront that he would go to the effort to try to enshrine in the state constitution an amendment forbidding it, when it is already illegal in the state of Tennessee for gay people to get married.—-I can address the amendment thing. People who don’t agree with gay marriage want an amendment to the State Constitution that explicitly denies it without a legal loophole. They don’t want a judge somewhere circumventing the process. Right, wrong, or indifferent, REGARDLESS of the subject, this isn’t a bad idea.There are PLENTY of examples of this happening all over the country (not just gay marriage). It’s a wise move for either side.—-How is that little extra turn of the knife not based on bigotry?—-It’s not bigotry. It’s legal thoroughness.I see it like this. When Tennessee came up with their handgun carry permit, they amended the law to cover the “going armed” clause from existing law. If you just made the permit the way it is without fixing other laws or accounting for them, then you could have a situation like this: you could legally carry a firearm, but if you touch it, you could be guilty of a felony count of “going armed”. It makes no sense because the permit, by definition, says it’s okay to BE armed. But, LEGALLY, one could be charged. So they fixed the law to be thorough even though, on its face, the change seems pointless. However, depending on the judge, it could really be a nasty legal sticking point.It’s the same thing here from a legal aspect.—-You haven’t proven to me that you have an argument against that.—-Ask yourself this: Is it POSSIBLE for you to EVER consider ANY resistance to accepting gay ANYTHING as anything other than utter hatred for gay people? If the answer is “no”, then let’s just put this forum where it belongs: it’s a debate for others to read and digest. It’s a false façade to present that either of us are really trying to change the other.—-And here’s the reason I don’t think you have a very good argument, because you’re getting upset and losing focus.—-Hmmmm . . . really? Where? After your multi-paragraph dissertation explaining that you’re “not nice”, how do you discuss someone else losing focus?—-You’re talking about people having sex with fruit or the insurance lobby or your inability to marry your car or abortion or what you think of other commenters here.—-Well, if you don’t like insults and the like, I don’t know what you’re doing on this site. I mean, I’m not a nice per . . . ooops, sorry, it’s your site. Nevermind. :DWhat I’m saying is that if you say marriage is okay for anyone(s) to do, then why bother having it? Also, it may not be nearly as much about hate as it is about possible financial complications in the future.Do this. Ponder an anything goes marriage law in the US. Anyone can marry anyone or ones they want. How do you administer that with regards to Social Security, insurance, and other things? It’s simple. You can’t. You’d turn the already confusing probate legal world upside down and then shake it.None of that even borders on “hate”.—-None of which have anything to do with helping me understand how someone can oppose gay marriage and not hate gay people.—-Fair enough. How about this: I oppose gay marriage partly because I believe the financial burden placed on society would eventually force companies and the government to remove ALL married benefits. It has nothing really to do with hate. It’s more about protecting myself and my family financially. No hate there. It’s just about money that I could lose.It would also so over-burden our legal system that we’d have some courts LITERALLY stop up like a person who’d eaten 10 pounds of cheese.No hate there, is there?—-If someone wants to do something and it doesn’t affect you or harm anyone else, what reason other than hatred could there be for you to oppose it?—-I guess you have to define “harm”. Does it physically affect me? No. Could it financially affect me? Very much so. Could it financially affect my government? MOST DEFINITELY! Could it affect generations to come? MOST CERTAINLY! No hatred there, either, is there?—-That’s the question. Which you’ve yet to answer.—-I think I just gave you an answer we can explore if you’d like?—-If you don’t hate gay people, then it seems to me to be pretty fucked up that you’d vote to amend the state constitution to forbid something the law already forbids.—-Nope. I just want it to be 100% clear legally either way. I don’t want an activist judge ON EITHER SIDE to make law from the bench. I don’t see anything wrong with that at all.If nothing else, doesn’t this vote give gay activists a clear public forum for people to show support for gay people? Honestly, I figure they would welcome something like this. Think about it. If the move to clarify the law FAILS, what message does that send?
I don’t see what’s wrong with letting it go to a vote and letting the people of Tennessee decide? It will either pass or it will fail. The majority rules. It’s pretty simple and then we’ll see how accepted alternative lifestyles really are in Tennessee. Pretty simple.
Ah, legal thoroughness. The old belt and suspenders argument. Because we all must keep our pants up, for some undetermined reason known only to Ed. The federal trumps the state, Ed. Federal judges can and have set aside state constitutional provisions that were discriminatory, just as they can overturn state laws that are discriminatory. That’s how the cookie crumbles in our political system — states doesn’t have the last word on matters of interstate interest or Alabama would still have segregated restrooms. Your idea that getting a state constitutional amendment in place would serve as a failsafe is therefore misguided. A stronger argument would be that you want to take a straw poll to judge the strength of popular bigotry against gays and thus determine whether there exists sufficient popular will to resist federal anti-discrimination mandates if and as they come. I think that sort of stuff belongs on a Focus on the Family website or in a TN Citizens’ Council forum, but why waste tax dollars on it?
Barbie, here in the United States, the majority does not rule. We don’t live in a democracy. We live in a republic. The point of a republic is to strike a balance between respecting the will of the people and protecting the rights of individuals. Hence, also, the reason we have three branches of the government, again, to have a balance of power in order to protect the rights of the individual against the will of the people and the overreach of the government.But, hey, I appreciate your willingness to admit that this is a mandate on how accepted "alternative lifestyles" are here in Tennessee and not actually about justice or fair play.Which, Ed, I think actually leads right into the point you’re trying to make. Aren’t the economic costs you’re concerned about outweighed by the potential economic and social costs to the state as we lose bright and creative people?There are 2,650,000 of us in the workforce here in Tennessee but only 732,000 of us have a bachelor’s degree or higher.The two biggest industries in the state are manufacturing (just over 500,000 of us) and education/healthcare/social services (just under 500,000).Do you see what I’m saying? We’ve barely got enough folks with enough education to do the jobs we need in order to keep our economy thriving. We’re going to make sure that a group of people who tend to be well-educated know they’re not welcome here? Well, then, who’s going to do those jobs?Tennessee’s economy depends a great deal on gay people and people who tend to be sympathetic towards gay people, even if those people aren’t a majority of the people in the state.Why risk alienating them?As for your larger points, I just don’t see it. Sorry. All you’ve succeeded in doing is proving to me that you clearly believe you don’t hate gay people and yet the result of your position is the suffering of gay people specifically because they’re gay.To me, that’s clearly a hateful act.Maybe you don’t have any malice in your heart, but your actions speak for themselves.
Ah, legal thoroughness. The old belt and suspenders argument. Because we all must keep our pants up, for some undetermined reason known only to Ed.-I don’t believe it’s undetermined, is it? Judges find loopholes other excuses to "make law" all the time. Why not make it clear one way or the other?Let’s face it. Judges on both sides make law all the time. Why not take that away from them?-The federal trumps the state, Ed. Federal judges can and have set aside state constitutional provisions that were discriminatory, just as they can overturn state laws that are discriminatory. That’s how the cookie crumbles in our political system — states doesn’t have the last word on matters of interstate interest or Alabama would still have segregated restrooms.-I agree completely which is why I think any discussion on gay marriage on a state level is simply a thermometer or litmus test on what the Federal Government should look at doing. I’m not of the inclination to believe that somehow this vote is going to have sweeping legal power. However, as I said, it will be a litmus test on how our state and others feel on the matter. That’s its real value.-Your idea that getting a state constitutional amendment in place would serve as a failsafe is therefore misguided.-Neh. It’s perfectly appropriate when discussing the law on a state level. You can’t really discuss constitutional law on the state level by saying that "it really doesn’t matter because the Federal government will just override us". You could use that argument for almost any law, couldn’t you? And if you take that stance, why even have a local or state government?-A stronger argument would be that you want to take a straw poll to judge the strength of popular bigotry against gays and thus determine whether there exists sufficient popular will to resist federal anti-discrimination mandates if and as they come.-Drop out the bigotry word, and I pretty much agree with what you say. I think that saying it can ONLY be about bigotry is like saying that if you’re against Affirmative Action, you hate black people. However, to your credit, using the word "bigot" in your observation does give you the illusion of a moral high ground. It’s a cheap but, I must admit, often times useful tactic.-I think that sort of stuff belongs on a Focus on the Family website or in a TN Citizens’ Council forum, but why waste tax dollars on it?-I think the reason it’s coming to a vote is that people are tired of hearing about it . . . from either side. I think people, both pro and con, want their day to speak their minds. There’s nothing really wrong with that, honestly. I don’t have a problem with it.The REAL impact any change in the marriage law is going to have will be at the Federal level, though, so these state arguments are simply sparring matches to see how each side fairs politically. That’s really all there is to it.
Which, Ed, I think actually leads right into the point you’re trying to make. Aren’t the economic costs you’re concerned about outweighed by the potential economic and social costs to the state as we lose bright and creative people?How does gay marriage "save" bright and creative people? We’re going to make sure that a group of people who tend to be well-educated know they’re not welcome here? Well, then, who’s going to do those jobs?So, what you’re saying is that gay people are generally smarter than everyone else, and we need them to "save our state"?Maybe you can prove that gay people are more educated than straight people. I don’t know. However, what kind of statistics are we talking about? What percentage of degree-holders are gay? Ten percent? Fifteen? Five?Also, you’re assuming that gay people hold degrees that are marketable in Tennessee. What are your statistics on how many gay people have degrees in medicine, engineering, and other MARKETABLE degrees.I DO like where you’re going with the argument economically, though. It’s an excellent direction to explore. Shall we look further?Let’s say Tennessee says whomever can marry whomever(s), and if an insurance company gives married benefits in Tennessee, they must recognize ANY legally married people. Do you think insurance companies are going to capitulate or do you think they’re going to just simply drop married benefits? Simple. They’ll drop married benefits. So, what you’d be risking is losing the hetrosexual families already here because the benefits would be MUCH better in another state. I DO ADMIT that the influx of gay couples into a state that would recognize gay marriage would be quite sizeable, I’m not sure they would effectively replace the hetrosexual couples that would leave because of it.Then again, they may simply come here, get married, figure out there’s no real legal benefit in Tennessee, and leave. That would SIGNIFICANTLY impair Tennessee’s ability to compete on a national job market . . . ESPECIALLY for high-paying jobs where one spouse is the major or sole breadwinner. "Hello Dr. Welby. We’d like you to take this research job at St. Jude. Naturally, it pays well, but your wife and kids will have to find their own insurance somewhere else."Tennessee’s economy depends a great deal on gay people and people who tend to be sympathetic towards gay people, even if those people aren’t a majority of the people in the state.Why risk alienating them?Fair enough, but will they leave if gay marriage isn’t embraced? Probably not. They’re here already. From a, I admit, cold standpoint, why would you put everyone else at possible risk to embrace a people who are here, anyway?As for your larger points, I just don’t see it. Sorry. All you’ve succeeded in doing is proving to me that you clearly believe you don’t hate gay people and yet the result of your position is the suffering of gay people specifically because they’re gay.I don’t wish suffering on anyone. I think ANYONE should be able to assign a legal medical power of attorney. I think ANYONE should be allowed to purchase land together and all that good stuff.Marriage, though, eh, I think that’s for a man and a woman as the law implies. I think the mechanisms are adept at dealing with wives and husbands as well as the traditional family. I’m afraid that if we stretch marriage out to be an all inclusive thing that any number of people can associate themselves with any number of other people, legal marriage either becomes too unweildy to handle or simply completely meaningless.It’s not about making people suffer because they’re gay. It’s about being practical legally and trying to adopt an already taxed system to an utterly open-ended amount of possibilities.To me, that’s clearly a hateful act.To me, it’s a completely practical act. I wouldn’t expect a huge amount of people to put their legal status and benefits in peril because I wanted to do something that I may or may not need to do. That’s what I see gay marriage as doing. Basically, gay people want to jeopardize the legal status of heterosexual couples because they want to get a legal marriage. There no more or less hate on either side, I suppose, depending on what side you land on.Maybe you don’t have any malice in your heart, but your actions speak for themselves.No, you put your own self-serving narrative into a story you don’t like.I could just as easily weave the tale of "gay people just hate straight people, so they’re all trying to destroy the church and marriage to force everyone to accept them or destroy their institutions in the process", but I don’t think that all the gay people in America are trying to do that.Hate, like corruption, is only bad if it’s against you. It’s wonderful to make the other guy into the one who hates. It gives one permission to hate back . . . only yours is the justified hate of justice. LOL!
"Barbie, here in the United States, the majority does not rule. We don’t live in a democracy. We live in a republic. The point of a republic is to strike a balance between respecting the will of the people and protecting the rights of individuals." Effectively, the majority does rule, like it or not. Either directly, as in this case with the issue going on the ballot, or through their elected leaders. And that IS how a republic works. If not, why bother putting anything to a vote? There are lots of things I’d like to be able to do, but I can’t and don’t do them because the law mandates that they’re not legal. The majority of the people have voted that it would not be in the best interest of the majority for these things to be allowed, so they’re not. "Hence, also, the reason we have three branches of the government, again, to have a balance of power in order to protect the rights of the individual against the will of the people and the overreach of the government." Regardless of the three branches of government, we have a system that relies on the vote of the majority of the people as I described above. "But, hey, I appreciate your willingness to admit that this is a mandate on how accepted "alternative lifestyles" are here in Tennessee and not actually about justice or fair play." What has it got to do with justice or fair play? Just because I would choose to be different or live differently than the majority, it shouldn’t mean that the rest of the country should have to adjust or compromise commonly held beliefs or tradition to accommodate me. Where is the justice or fair play for them?
Barbie, look at what you’re saying here–"Effectively, the majority does rule, like it or not. Either directly, as in this case with the issue going on the ballot, or through their elected leaders. And that IS how a republic works. If not, why bother putting anything to a vote? There are lots of things I’d like to be able to do, but I can’t and don’t do them because the law mandates that they’re not legal. The majority of the people have voted that it would not be in the best interest of the majority for these things to be allowed, so they’re not."Yes, effectively, the majority does rule, most of the time. But the system, as you clearly articulate, is set up so that that’s not always the case. We don’t vote on every law. We elect officials in the hopes that they will vote the way we’d like them to, but they’re not required to get a consensus from their constituents before voting. They ought to keep in mind what their constituents want if they want to be voted back into office, but they’re not bound to follow the will of the people. They can vote their conscience, even if it goes against the will of the people.Look here, you and I have the right to vote only because Harry Burns voted against the will of his constituents.So to equate what the government does with the will of the people, when you so clearly have benenfitted from the government defying the will of the people, is odd to me.Plus, sweet Jesus, so the majority of people in the state hate gay people. That doesn’t make it right.
Plus, sweet Jesus, so the majority of people in the state hate gay people. That doesn’t make it right.—LOL! So, if you vote against A.A., you hate black people? Or if you vote FOR gay marriage, you hate straight people?
I don’t think you really have any way to know what the will of the majority of the people is on this issue until it’s put to a vote. I certainly don’t, so I don’t know if government has defied, or will defy, the will of the people…or not. Additionally, if elected officials are not voting the way you would want them to, vote against them and try to get them out of office. I am a strong believer in term limits, and that’s the main reason why. There does need to be an avenue to remove bad seeds and keep politicians from acquiring too much power. On the other hand, if they’re getting re-elected, then their actions must be acceptable to the majority of their constituents. Didn’t your mommy ever tell you that "life is not fair". There is no way to make everything equally fair to, and for, everybody. Again that brings us back to the system that is in place and is designed to be the most beneficial to the majority.
So, if I’m reading Ed right, if the state of Tennessee passed a law stating that Presbyterians were to be enslaved, and then put on the ballot a constitutional amendment to tie up the loose ends (conflicts with existing clauses of the state constitution, conflicts with the federal constitution, conflicts with any existing state/federal/local laws, etc.), supporting the amendment would just be a neatness/good government action, and wouldn’t exhibit any animus against Presbyterians, or any acceptance of slavery. OK, got it. And I get that you’re afraid you’ll lose a set of economic benefits that are available only to certain qualified people, but that your attempt to keep those benefits by preventing others from sharing them is motivated only by human greed which is such a natural thing that by definition it precludes any callousness towards those unlucky few you’re willing to screw to keep them.But this: "if you say marriage is okay for anyone(s) to do, then why bother having it?" puzzles me. I should not bother getting married because other people get married? Huh? If I can’t be part of the only couple, I shouldn’t care about being part of a couple? If others make commitments to each other, there’s no point in me committing to my spouse? I’m lost here. Oh, and BarbieMePlease, one of the points of having a constitution (a foundational document that says how the law will work and what it can and can’t do) is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority in certain cases. Changes to constitutions often spell out rights, sometimes enlarge them, but rarely remove them. Amendments that remove rights tend to be overturned–remember the Volstead Act?
So, if I’m reading Ed right, if the state of Tennessee passed a law stating that Presbyterians were to be enslaved, and then put on the ballot a constitutional amendment to tie up the loose ends (conflicts with existing clauses of the state constitution, conflicts with the federal constitution, conflicts with any existing state/federal/local laws, etc.), supporting the amendment would just be a neatness/good government action, and wouldn’t exhibit any animus against Presbyterians, or any acceptance of slavery. OK, got it.–I don’t see where I said anything like that. What I said was that it’s prudent legal action to clear up any possible ambiguity in the law if there’s a chance an activist judge could use his/her seat to “make” law that is against the spirit of any existing law. Your example isn’t really related to anything that’s been said here.Passing the amendment in discussion wouldn’t violate ANY federal or state law . . . yet. Neither would voting it down. Enslaving ANYONE would violate a plethora of laws that would not require intense legal scrutiny to detect. Your statement can only be taken as a dramatic attempt at shock and awe . . . failing poorly.–And I get that you’re afraid you’ll lose a set of economic benefits that are available only to certain qualified people, but that your attempt to keep those benefits by preventing others from sharing them is motivated only by human greed which is such a natural thing that by definition it precludes any callousness towards those unlucky few you’re willing to screw to keep them.–So be it. As it stands, many of us have a perceived benefit of marriage. By legal definition, that’s for a male and a female to share. If other people want that to be open ended and open to anyone to make a “marriage club”, why bother having it?It’s no less callous for a group to demand marriage be modified so THEY can get a piece of the pie even if it jeopardizes everyone else. Greed is greed, I suppose. Why is it evil for me but perfectly lovely for other people?–But this: "if you say marriage is okay for anyone(s) to do, then why bother having it?" puzzles me. I should not bother getting married because other people get married? Huh? If I can’t be part of the only couple, I shouldn’t care about being part of a couple? If others make commitments to each other, there’s no point in me committing to my spouse? I’m lost here. –Okay, this is what I’m saying. If you’re going to have a legal contract called “marriage”, but you make the contract open to any people in any number without any qualifications short of “they signed the bloody paper”, then why bother having it? It would be like having a special club with no membership dues, no roll, and no requirements. What’s the point? I’m not saying “why even have marriage” on an individual basis. I’m saying “why have a legally recognized marriage” on a legalistic basis. Why bother? Why should the government dive into that quagmire that would result?
Ed, those are good questions, but no one is disagreeing with you about them. I haven’t seen anyone here say that we simply must keep marriage a legal arrangement.All we’re saying is that if marriage is a legal arrangement, we’d like for gay couples to also be eligable for that arrangement.I’d be more than happy to see marriage revert to a private arrangment, but I don’t think that’s going to happen any time soon, and in the meantime, these folks would like in and I’m in favor of letting them.If that leads to the destruction of marriage as a legal construct, oh well.Barbie, what’s this? "Didn’t your mommy ever tell you that ‘life is not fair’." Are you flirting with me? Because usually, around here, when conservatives start being contrary just for the sake of being contrary, it’s because they’re flirting with me.I don’t mind. I just don’t know if I should respond in seriousness or tease you in kind.
"I don’t see where I said anything like that."I guess all the times that you said that you support a constitutional ban on gay marriage not because of any opinion on gay marriage but in order to close loopholes and preclude confusion don’t count.And I’m still in the dark about why the possibility that marriages not between one man and one woman would get legal recognition means, for you, that there might as well not be any legalized marriage at all. Because it would create initial confusion? The 40-hour work week did that, but I notice that we managed to get past it. I also notice that all the threatened economic disasters that were predicted by opponents of that pice of labor law didn’t come to pass, and I suspect that your predictions are just as foolish, but that’s another question.
And now we have the 21st Amendment,which repealed the 18th. Ultimately, the power to pass and repeal alcohol statutes is with the locality. In different areas of the U.S., I’ve lived in counties that were completely ‘dry’ as to the purchase or even possession of alcohol, and I’ve lived in New Orleans where some of the bars operate 24/7. In most cases, the issue was put on the ballot and the people in those areas voted that they do, or do not, want the sale, purchase, or public consumption of alcohol in their town/city/county. Same principle should apply here. Put the issue on the ballot and let the people vote on it. If you find you happen to be in an area where the majority of the people don’t believe like you do and you can’t deal with that, then move. If you happen to be a person who likes to drink and party, then you probably won’t be happy living in Mendenhall Mississippi, but would be perfectly happy in Kenner Louisiana which is an area where you can purchase and consume alcohol. But for the majority of the people in an area who feel differently than you do, why should they have to adjust to be ‘fair’ to a small percentage who has to dare to be different and disruptive to the environment they feel comfortable in?
Ed, those are good questions, but no one is disagreeing with you about them. I haven’t seen anyone here say that we simply must keep marriage a legal arrangement.All we’re saying is that if marriage is a legal arrangement, we’d like for gay couples to also be eligable for that arrangement.—-Okay, I see what you’re saying, but let me ask this. Why does it have to be two people who "love" each other? I mean, if you open marriage up to any two (or more) people, as Tina said, "What’s love got to do with it?"What I mean is let’s say I’m 19 years old and working at WalMart. I’m going to college part time and working full time. While the money isn’t that good, I DO have full benefits. My best friend Mark moves in with me, and he’s going to school full-time. He’s got the money to support his school, but he has asthma and no health benefits. He tells me he’ll pay me an extra $50/month if I’ll "marry him" and get him on my health plan since his prescriptions and doctor visits cost him $300/month. Maybe he’s even diabetic. That get’s REALLY expensive, right? This makes marriage pretty lucrative for both parties even though there’s NO WAY marriage benefits were inteded for such a situation. However, it could easily happen. In four years, a $200 divorce ends things and everyone is free to go. Sadly, the person with benefits could claim his roommate as a dependent if he didn’t make enough money. Sweet deal on a small scale, you know?This may SOUND outlandish, but it’s really not. Now, what happens when 3, 4, or 10 people can get married? You think that won’t happen? Of COURSE it will. There are already lawyers in Utah and Nevada chomping at the bit to get that lawsuit rolling IF gay marriage is accepted.So, as I’ve said, if you open marriage up to ANYONE(S), I think you just drop it completely. It doesn’t make sense to have it if there are no logical restrictions on marriage while we use the institute to qualify benefits and legal status for people.—-I’d be more than happy to see marriage revert to a private arrangment, but I don’t think that’s going to happen any time soon, and in the meantime, these folks would like in and I’m in favor of letting them.—-I’d like in on disability and social security RIGHT NOW, too. I mean, I’ve already put in LOTS MORE money that many people already drawing out of the system. It isn’t really fair that THEY get benefits before me, is it?Honestly, I think the benefits associated with legal marriage were designed to help with reproducing families. If not, there’s no real practical reason to have marriage. While you can’t legislate procreation i.e. you can’t only let people who will have kids get married, you CAN recognize that gay people can’t have children with each other. That being the case, it doesn’t seem logical to offer gay couples benefits designed to be given to people who want to have children together. NO HATE THERE! It’s just kinda’ how the whole institute of legal marriage is written.—-If that leads to the destruction of marriage as a legal construct, oh well.—-It’s fine that you don’t care about legal marriage. Some of us do. That’s why it should come to a vote . . . whether the vote has any bite or not.—-Barbie, what’s this? "Didn’t your mommy ever tell you that ‘life is not fair’." Are you flirting with me? Because usually, around here, when conservatives start being contrary just for the sake of being contrary, it’s because they’re flirting with me.—-LOL! Sorry, that’s just funny right there. And I thought the whole time you were typing so much to me because you needed some good conservative "discipline", too. I mean, that’s what liberal feminists want, right? A real man to teach them how to make biscuits so they can realize the complete self-fulfillment of serving the obviously superior man. LMAO!!!!
I guess all the times that you said that you support a constitutional ban on gay marriage not because of any opinion on gay marriage but in order to close loopholes and preclude confusion don’t count.Actually, I think what I’m saying is that he amendment makes legal sense that it COULD close the loophole. I think I also said that the "solution", regardless of the decision, is really going to be determined at the Federal level. Any vote in Tennessee (or any other state) is just a litmus test to see where the people stand on the matter.And I’m still in the dark about why the possibility that marriages not between one man and one woman would get legal recognition means, for you, that there might as well not be any legalized marriage at all. Because it would create initial confusion? The 40-hour work week did that, but I notice that we managed to get past it. I also notice that all the threatened economic disasters that were predicted by opponents of that pice of labor law didn’t come to pass, and I suspect that your predictions are just as foolish, but that’s another question.Okay. I’ll clarify what I’m saying.Let’s say that we just open marriage up to anyone who wants to start a "family club". We get me, my girlfriend, her girlfriend (yeah baby . . . yeah! um . . . sorry), this dude named Earl (he’s got a van . . . we need him), my great-grandfather (he’s got a big house for us, and he’s not cutting into my action ;)), and these three Mexican guys to do the lawn. We all get married.SOMEBODY gets pregnant . . . and leaves after a divorce from the rest of us. What’s she entitled to? Does she get a percentage of the ACTUAL father’s check, a percentage of all the POSSIBLE father’s check, or just a percentage of EVERYBODY’S check? And what part of the family property does she get?What happens if she leaves with one kid, but she leaves 2 other kids that belong to someone else in the marriage? Does that mean that we all have to pay her some, and then she has to pay us twice that back . . . or what?And what does a "family insurance plan" cost? Does it cost the same to insure all 15 of us as opposed to a traditional family of 4?Can I marry a family member? I mean, maybe we don’t have sex and all, but he’s a cool dude, and my insurance is MUCH better than his . . . and he makes a LOT of money in his own business. Besides, my kid is sick (previous couple), and I could REALLY use the money. And he’s dying of cancer, so I could add him to my family life insurance policy because my spouse can’t be declined. Then I’ll get HIS Social Security benefit and inherit everything he has, too. It’s a great deal all around, you know?Now, closer to the gay thing. We make gay marriage okay. I decide I’m going to marry other gay men with advanced HIV/AIDs because my insurance is GREAT. The only catch is that my "husband" has to pay his own insurance bills AND I get to claim him on my life insurance policy (which he can’t be denied for). So, I marry a guy with 9 months to live, and I let my insurance company pay a few hundred thousand on his hospital bill. When he dies, I collect six figures in life insurance (which my partner may or MAY NOT know about . . . after all, I don’t need him to know to get him on the policy), and then marry the next guy in line. Legal? You bet. Ethical . . . it helps some sick people, so why not? Is it "dirty"? Yeah . . . sort of. Would most single guys do it for a six figure check in a year of so. *sigh* Probably. Why not? Heck, I’m not even gay so hatred isn’t really a point, eh?EVentually, you’re going to see the death of marriage benefits if you open marriage up to anyone and everyone. You really CAN’T have marriage in its current form to be defined by "anyone who can sign this paper".I guess the 40 hour work week is okay. I don’t know many people that work only forty hours, honestly, but I see what you’re saying. HOWEVER, I don’t think you’re giving this the proper weight with regards to "what if we open this up to everyone". Forget the gay thing. Remember, if you open marriage up to ANYONE, people are going to get married left and right when it’s financially beneficial and then divorce when the benefit is gone. Eventually, there will be NO benefit at all. That’s going to happen if you open it up.
Aunt B, don’t flatter yourself. It was a perfectly serious statement. I have no propensity to flirt with women. Life is not always ‘fair’. It’s a fact. People need to learn to get over it and be happy for the things they do have! I want a $1,000,000 Shelby Cobra. Really badly. You can’t imagine how happy I’d be, how much my life would improve, if I had one. But in reality, I’m probably not going to be able to own one. It just ain’t fair! On the other hand, I DO HAVE a nice Mustang GT and I think I’ll just try to have fun driving it! Now think about that? It’s all about the ‘material’ isn’t it? Isn’t that the same thing this whole gay-marriage push is about. Gay’s are free to call themselves whatever they want. Life partners, spouses, married. But the truth is, it’s the ‘material’ or ‘monetary’ aspect they’re pushing for. I say, "A Shelby in every pot, er, I mean garage!"
Yeah, but I’m awfully cute, so I could see how you’d make an exception for me. Especially with the awesome necklace I’m wearing today. That’s why I had to check.It’s true that life isn’t fair, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for justice. The first suffragists didn’t live to see women get the vote, but that doesn’t mean their work was in vain. As early as Bartolome de las Casas, we knew that the types of slavery practiced in the "new world" were especially pernicious and should be done away with. Were his efforts in vain just because he was 300 years ahead of his time?Giving gay people the rights and benefits of being married–including easy inheritance and power of attorney–is about material goods in some regard, but so what? That’s why some straight people get married. Do gay people have to be better than straight people in order to be granted the same privileges?Which then links to my question to you, Ed. How are any of the things you worry about not already happening? Straight people can and do those things already.(Also, does your wife know you’re running around sharing your BSDM fantasies on-line with liberal chicks?)
"What I mean is let’s say I’m 19 years old and working at WalMart. I’m going to college part time and working full time. While the money isn’t that good, I DO have full benefits. My best friend Mark moves in with me, and he’s going to school full-time. He’s got the money to support his school, but he has asthma and no health benefits. He tells me he’ll pay me an extra $50/month if I’ll "marry him" and get him on my health plan since his prescriptions and doctor visits cost him $300/month. Maybe he’s even diabetic. That get’s REALLY expensive, right? "OK, I give up. Clearly, no heterosexual couple who wasn’t really romantically linked ever will take or has taken advantage of marriage benefits in a situation like this. The only people who could possibly marry fraudulently are homosexuals or people pretending to be homosexuals. Clearly, we’d better prevent all homosexuals from marrying in order to prevent some folks from cheating.
Oh, and Ed? I don’t care whether there are any financial benefits to marriage. I care that people not have to go through extra legal hoops to visit each other in the hospital, be accepted as parents to each others’ children, and stuff like that. I care that the meaning and dignity of the institution of marriage be accorded to all those who, in loving commitment, wish seriously to enter into it. Maybe if we got rid of the financial benefits, only people who really meant it would get married. How would that be bad?
That is silly. You are the only person who can give your relationship meaning and dignity. Nobody outside of my marriage gives it meaning and dignity. That comes from the commitment my husband and I share with each other.Also, if you wamt to live an alternative lifestyle, is it not worth the alternate measures you might have to take to be financially responsible to your partner? I mean really, it’s legally possible NOW to have all the things you’re asking for. You just might have to go to some extra effort arrange matters in an alternate situation. As far as heteros taking advantage of the situation with marriages in the same way that Ed suggested a man-man union or woman-woman union could, it’s a rare occasion when a male and a female can live together as ‘friends’ for any extended period of time without one or the other beginning to expect something more out of the relationship. I’ve seen this tried, and failed, over and over again. Men and women do not have a good record at being platonic roommates. Three’s Company was only good on TV.
"Also, if you wamt to live an alternative lifestyle, is it not worth the alternate measures you might have to take to be financially responsible to your partner?"Take that up with Ed–he’s the one who’s getting all upset because he’s afraid marriage might lose its legal and financial perks. And if I’m the only one who can give my relationship meaning and dignity, I guess I shouldn’t have bothered with a rabbi, or a license –but then I wouldn’t be married, would I?Come on — you can’t argue that the good stuff about marriage is beside the point when you’re trying so hard to make sure it doesn’t get shared with others.
I’m not trying hard. I’m going to go to the polls and place my one vote. Just like you will. Then everybody else can do the same and we’ll see how it goes. Honestly, I think it’s way less about financial perks than it is about people worrying that their children are being raised in a society that equates gay with normal behavior. And that is not what I belive most people want their children to be led to believe. Already, if you go on MySpace or any other similar webiste, most of the girls on there have sexual preference set as bi. I don’t belive for a minute that all those girls are truly bi or lesbian, but I do think it’s chic or cool right now to be.
Yeah, but I’m awfully cute, so I could see how you’d make an exception for me. Especially with the awesome necklace I’m wearing today. That’s why I had to check.–Cute ALWAYS counts! LOL–Giving gay people the rights and benefits of being married–including easy inheritance and power of attorney–is about material goods in some regard, but so what? That’s why some straight people get married. Do gay people have to be better than straight people in order to be granted the same privileges?–I think EVERYONE should be able to easily decide how their resources are distributed after they die. I wouldn’t use marriage, though, as the fix. Another legal mechanism is probably better suited.–Which then links to my question to you, Ed. How are any of the things you worry about not already happening? Straight people can and do those things already.–Sure they do. Marriage is abused as it is now. Open it up to anyone and everyone with no restrictions, and you don’t really improve things with regards to misuse. All you’ll do is destroy legal marriage and marriage benefits for everyone.–(Also, does your wife know you’re running around sharing your BSDM fantasies on-line with liberal chicks?) –Sure she does! She’s reading the whole conversation. She’s not the jealous type. She knows that most liberal feminists are 300 pounds and have less hair on the head than me . . . but WAY more on their face and back. :DWhat, you think I don’t let her put on shoes and come out of the kitchen 2 or 3 times a day or something??LMAO! (yes, that’s a joke!)
OK, I give up. Clearly, no heterosexual couple who wasn’t really romantically linked ever will take or has taken advantage of marriage benefits in a situation like this. The only people who could possibly marry fraudulently are homosexuals or people pretending to be homosexuals. Clearly, we’d better prevent all homosexuals from marrying in order to prevent some folks from cheating. Nope. As I said, it has nothing to do with being gay. If you open up marriage to ANYONE, you can’t just say "well, not just ANYONE . . . you have to be straight hetro or gay . . . and we want proof, so get those clothes off . . .". If you open marriage up, you have to open it up to ANYONE and any number of people. That pretty much nullifies any real legal marriage as there is no real qualification. It has nothing to do with gay people or straight people. You just make it easy for ANYONE to get married and take adavantage of any financial advantage. In other words, you’ll make it to where businesses will immediately stop granting married benefits completely.Open marriage, gay or not, will ruin things for the people in traditional marriages now. If that sounds ugly and selfish, so be it. One could argue that about ANY government "perk", though. Honestly, I don’t really consider marriage a perk, per se.Oh, and Ed? I don’t care whether there are any financial benefits to marriage. I care that people not have to go through extra legal hoops to visit each other in the hospital, be accepted as parents to each others’ children, and stuff like that.I agree with the medical stuff. It’s called medical power of attorney. You can give that to about anyone.As far as the parents thing, I think that’s something that individuals must deal with as individuals. However, I don’t think the State should have to "bless" Heather’s "other mommy" to make Heather accept her other mommy. If she does, that’s wonderful. If not, it’s up to Heather. My step-daughter calls me "dad" now and again, but it’s not because she has to or I had the state do up some paperwork. It’s because she loves me and she knows I love her and see her as MY DAUGHTER. I don’t like the step word.I think if someone has kids and wants to bring them up in a "gay" home, that’s their choice. The state shouldn’t have to force the issue for EITHER side.I care that the meaning and dignity of the institution of marriage be accorded to all those who, in loving commitment, wish seriously to enter into it.If it’s about love and dignity, why in the HELL do you want the government involved!!?? If people love each other, the LAST THING IN THE WORLD they want around them should be the government.Maybe if we got rid of the financial benefits, only people who really meant it would get married. How would that be bad? Then there’s no argument at all. People are free to do whatever with whomever however long they want to. I DO think you’ll put another nail in the coffin of the traditional family, though. But, hey, we’re doing GREAT with it on the decline, anyway. Who needs it? What we REALLY need is another generation of traditional GRANDPARENTS to raise another generation of kids. LOL!Take that up with Ed–he’s the one who’s getting all upset because he’s afraid marriage might lose its legal and financial perks. I seriously doubt there’s much "might" to it.And if I’m the only one who can give my relationship meaning and dignity, I guess I shouldn’t have bothered with a rabbi, or a license –but then I wouldn’t be married, would I?There are tons of people that will perform a marriage ceremony. It may not be recognized by the government, but you’re "married" with regards to personal commitment. What’s more important, anyway? A government license or a good partner who’ll be "married" regardless?Come on — you can’t argue that the good stuff about marriage is beside the point when you’re trying so hard to make sure it doesn’t get shared with others. I’m not sure what that means, but honestly, I don’t care who else gets legally married besides me. That’s up to them. I just think legal MARRIAGE should remain between a man and a woman (one of each!). I believe that’s the intention and spirit of marriage envisioned by the people who wrote the law.Barbie, you forgot something. Most claim "bi", but are really "bi-curious" which, in today’s time means "I’m CURIOUS to see how many guys will buy me free drinks if me and my girlfriend act ‘bi’ and suck face on top of the bar." LOL!
"it is about people worrying that their children are being raised in a society that equates gay with normal behavior"Thanks, Barbie, for making it clear that for you, it’s all about wanting to deny rights to minorities. That it’s all about behavior which, if it was directed against you, you would define as hateful."I don’t care who else gets legally married besides me. That’s up to them. I just think legal MARRIAGE should remain between a man and a woman (one of each!)"And thank you, Ed, for making the irrationality at the core of your argument so clear. You don’t care who else gets married, you just want to be sure that you can say who else gets married.I think that’s going to have to be my last comment on this thread.
NM, excellent technique in twisting and turning things. You must be a long term liberal.By your own logic, you’d also argue that it’s okay for adults to have sex with children (hey, who are YOU to say who can do what?), public schools can teach religion (hey, who are YOU to tell other people what they can teach), anyone can work for the police, fire department, or military (hey, who are YOU to tell a convicted felon he can’t wear a badge and carry a gun) . . .Eventually, whether you like it or not, in an organized society, you MUST put some rules and restrictions on legal entities with legal status. You can scream hate and bigotry all you want. It’s a smoke screen to scare people off. The smoke, however, is pretty thin on this one.
Ed. That’s enough. You’ve read here long enough to get a sense of who I am and who my readers are.It is incredibly disrespectful to come into a space and repeatedly tell the people there that the things that hurt them are not actually hurtful.You want to be judged solely by your intent. If you don’t intend for your actions to be harmful to others, you seem to be angry that other people are hurt.Well, shoot. That’s the most fucked up thing I’ve ever heard, that we should judge you by your intentions not by the results of your actions.But a man is his deeds. That’s the only way to know a man, is by what he does and what results from it.Anyway, you have been a welcome guest here and treated by everyone who engaged with you with the same level of respect shown every other guest.And yet you’ve repeatedly made cracks about "most feminists" and "most liberals" and "most women" and so on, as if it’s anyone here’s job to figure out what you believe to be true about whatever group you’ve concocted stereotypes about and to dissuade you of those notions before you’ll take them seriously.It’s insulting. You know this is a liberal feminist space full of women. And yet you repeatedly disrespect the space and hide behind this bullshit notion that your intentions are good.Why would you do that?You’ve been made welcome here and treated well. Your refusal to treat others the same way, to engage them as individuals, is disrespectful of them.A guest that would disrespect other guests is an insult to the host.You’ve obviously got good ideas and strong opinions. Those are welcome here. But you’ve got to be willing to stop it with the bullshit insistance that everyone treat you with more respect than you’ve shown anyone else or you’re not going to get anything out of your time here.
"Thanks, Barbie, for making it clear that for you, it’s all about wanting to deny rights to minorities. That it’s all about behavior which, if it was directed against you, you would define as hateful." How have I made that clear? This has nothing to do with ‘hate’ or wanting to deny rights to minorities. And I think Ed’s intent is being intentionally misconstrued. Also, I agree that the first reaction is to throw up words and phrases like "hate" and "deny rights to minorities". Yeah, it’s real dramatic and all, but that’s not the the only reasons people ever have for being in oppositin to something. How about considering some alternate possible motivation that’s not so imbedded in evil? So, Ed might be concerned about the potention to lose the legal benefits he, and millions of others, have in a traditionl marriage. Is that selfish? Possibly, probably, but no more selfish than a small percentage of the population being willing to put at risk the benefit to the MAJORITY of the population so that they can also benefit. Isn’t this basically the same behavior that the liberals/progressives claim that the rich neo-cons exhibit? I don’t see where any one has better intentions than the other. I think you guys are way off base about why people who would vote to deny gays the right to marry would do so. When my children were growing up, they did a lot of things that I didn’t like, didn’t agree with, wouldn’t support them in or help them do. I loved them just the same but I wasn’t going to help, or encourage, them to do what I thought were the wrong things. This is because I have a set of core beliefs and there are behaviors and/or actions I would not condone from my children, or assist them in, for any reason, regardless of how much they wanted to do them or how happy they would have been if they could have. This is simply because I was doing what I believed to be the right thing to do as a responsible parent. Other parents may have viewed particular instances differently, but it wouldn’t have meant that they loved their kids any more, or less, than I loved mine. I think people feel a similar obligation to vote responsibly (as is their opinion based on their core beliefs). By expecting conservative voters, Christian voters, or even others who are against gays marrying for their own reason, to go to the polls and vote against the amendment, you’re effectively asking them to vote against their core beliefs. You’re asking them to back down from the principles they stand on. And when it comes down to it, I don’t think people are going to vote to allow gay marriage if, in their hearts, they believe that homosexual behavior is sin or just plain wrong. I don’t believe these people hate gays, I believe it’s more about them not being able to support what they perceive as sinful, or perhaps just simply wrong behavior. That’s what I meant when I said let it go to a vote and then we’ll really see what the majority of the people in Tennessee feel about gay marriage. It was not a hate mongering statement. It was pretty simply a ‘lets see what happens
I think you guys can figure out what my typos were intended to be.
Ed. That’s enough. You’ve read here long enough to get a sense of who I am and who my readers are.It is incredibly disrespectful to come into a space and repeatedly tell the people there that the things that hurt them are not actually hurtful.Um, weren’t you the one who romanticized about how "not nice" you are and how conflict, insults, and attacks were going to happen here? Honestly, I’ve attacked no one particularly, and you accuse me of hatred, bigotry, and the rest of the card. How do you, on one hand, criticize me for getting upset because someone said something I didn’t agree with and then, on the other, criticize me for upsetting others? It makes no sense.You want to be judged solely by your intent. If you don’t intend for your actions to be harmful to others, you seem to be angry that other people are hurt.Oh, I never said that things I believe in or would support are friendly and lovely and are completely endorsed by the ACLU, NOW, the Urban League, the UN, the NRA, and the Care Bears. Some things in life just are what they are. You can’t make everyone rich. Not everyone is going to be happy. Not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy against whomever. And sometimes things just don’t work. Having a LEGALLY RECOGNIZED state of marriage that includes anyone and everyone that can agree to be called "married" simply won’t work in its current form as a legal status for benefits and consequences. It just simply CAN’T function that way. How can it? Basically, you’ve called me names and compartentmentalized my opinions, but you’ve offered no counterpoints to my legal arguments i.e. HOW do you make it work legally with regards to benefits and contractual law.Hey, it all "feels good" to say ANYONE CAN GET MARRIED!!! LOVE LOVE LOVE!!!! But, when it comes to insurance packages, child support, aliminoy (in the states that still have it), property custody, and medical decisions (which husband/wife has the final decision), it gets a lot more complicated.Well, shoot. That’s the most fucked up thing I’ve ever heard, that we should judge you by your intentions not by the results of your actions.Okay, a parent spanks their child. Judge him by the results of his actions and not his intentions. Basically, you have a child beater. He inflicted pain on his child. The fact that his child was sticking forks in an electrical socket for the third time, and the father is trying to punish his child to avoid similar behaviour isn’t factored in, though. So, the father is terrible.Sometimes, whether you like it or not, something that SOUNDS GREAT simply won’t work. This is one of those occasions. Please tell me how LEGALLY you’d handle open-ended marriages with regards to the factors I just listed. Seriously. How do you do it?But a man is his deeds. That’s the only way to know a man, is by what he does and what results from it.I’d happily stand by what I’ve said. I don’t think there’s anything illogical or "pointed" about it. I’ll take the same stand to Christians who want more than one wife. The Bible is full of instances where men had other wives, and it was "okay", but, from a legal standpoint, I don’t think it would work in the US. From the "right-wing conservative Christian" standpoint, there’s no reason to oppose it. From a practical legal standpoint, it would be a disaster.I’m fine with these deeds.Anyway, you have been a welcome guest here and treated by everyone who engaged with you with the same level of respect shown every other guest.And yet you’ve repeatedly made cracks about "most feminists" and "most liberals" and "most women" and so on, as if it’s anyone here’s job to figure out what you believe to be true about whatever group you’ve concocted stereotypes about and to dissuade you of those notions before you’ll take them seriously.I think it’s really funny that you point fingers at me and claim I hate this and I hate that while proclaiming how "not nice" you and your site are and THEN get mad at me for stating some of my own opinions. I think it’s even more humorous that you seem to fling out expletives left and right while complaining about everyone else. It’s like going to a KKK meeting and hearing the members complain that the ACLU is vulgar and mean. LOL!It’s insulting. You know this is a liberal feminist space full of women. And yet you repeatedly disrespect the space and hide behind this bullshit notion that your intentions are good.I hide behind nothing. I state what I feel and understand, and you don’t like it. That’s fine, but there’s nothing sinister or hidden about what I am. You WANT me to oppose gay marriage because I hate gay people. I don’t, and I think that REALLY bothers you. It screws up your argument because, in truth, I hate no one. And that’s really bad for your side because basically "hate" is all you have to work with. In practical terms, open legally recognized marriage can’t work. Anyone who thinks it can is deluding themselves with emotion. And when you have nothing more than emotion, you have to fight with hate . . . and projected hate. I don’t have any hate, so you don’t like dealing with me.This type of strategy doesn’t work, does it? If you want people to support your beliefs in a political system, you have to come up with something better than "they hate us!" to persuade the voters. Some people hate gay people. Some gay people hate straight people. Most of us just want to live our lives without having either side forced down our throats.Why would you do that?I enjoy the debate. It’s nothing personal. This is one of the few sites . . . strike that, the ONLY feminist site that has engaged in any reasonable discussion. Most make one response that’s an attempt followed by 23 replies with more four letter words than a Redd Foxx/Don Rickles feud. I figured it might be constructive for me to challenge my thoughts with someone who actually seemed to want to talk. I figured it might be good for you to be able to get further into your beliefs here if you got responses and comments that amounted to something more than "uh, YEAH!! YOU TELL ‘EM!!! I AGREE!".You’ve been made welcome here and treated well. Your refusal to treat others the same way, to engage them as individuals, is disrespectful of them.Who have I mistreated?A guest that would disrespect other guests is an insult to the host.You’ve obviously got good ideas and strong opinions. Those are welcome here. But you’ve got to be willing to stop it with the bullshit insistance that everyone treat you with more respect than you’ve shown anyone else or you’re not going to get anything out of your time here.Who here have I insulted? I think I understand the law here, and as illogical as I find it, I’ll abide by it. But, if you’re going to level charges, could you kindly stop telling me what the crime is and, instead, WHEN AND WHERE I did it.
Preach it, Brother Ed!!
Oh, hush up, Sarcastro.Ed, god damn it. Listen. I’m going to be completely honest with you. I can’t get past when you said, "I can be having sex with my wife, everything happy hunky dory, screaming orgasms all around, and the SECOND she wants to stop, I’m a rapist. The second she decides in her mind she doesn’t want me there, legally, I’m a rapist."I’m still stuck on it. I just don’t know men who wouldn’t stop. I’ve never been with a man who hasn’t stopped if I needed to stop for whatever reason. I don’t even know how to understand this as a problem men have.Of course it’s rape if she says stop and you don’t. That’s what rape is.Am I missing something in what you’re saying here?Because, I’ve got to be honest with you, it really has colored my every interaction with you. I see your name pop up and I think, "Shit, it’s that guy who thinks it’s okay to continue having sex with a woman after she’s told him to stop."And I think of myself begging and screaming and crying and some guy not stopping and there you go. Why would I want to have long, meaningful, thoughtful conversations with someone who thinks it’s okay to hurt a woman that way?If I’m misunderstanding you, please, tell me so, because you seem to want to hang out here and I’d like to see your name and not feel grossed out.You perceive me as being hostile towards you because I am hostile towards you because I really don’t want to have to play nice with a guy who thinks that some kinds of rape are justifiable. And it makes it impossible for me to take anything you say seriously and to treat it with any respect.
Ed, god damn it. Listen. I’m going to be completely honest with you. I can’t get past when you said, "I can be having sex with my wife, everything happy hunky dory, screaming orgasms all around, and the SECOND she wants to stop, I’m a rapist. The second she decides in her mind she doesn’t want me there, legally, I’m a rapist."I’m still stuck on it. I just don’t know men who wouldn’t stop. I’ve never been with a man who hasn’t stopped if I needed to stop for whatever reason. I don’t even know how to understand this as a problem men have.Okay, you’re missing it like nothing has ever been missed before.It’s not about being willing to stop. It’s the ability to go from fun sex to rape with the flick of a switch that I’m talking about. It’s not about the man going "heck with that, I’m going to finish up". It’s about the man saying "Huh? What? Okay, sure!" when, at the 1/100000000 of a second after she said stop, it’s rape. It’s rape at the "h" of "huh?". Why is that difficult to grasp?Okay, a lighter but similar example. You and I are happily in love holding hands walking down the street. We pass a police officer and I stop him and say "I’d like to press charges on ‘B’ here for assault. I don’t want her holding my hand, anymore." Granted, that sounds stupid, BUT you’re guilty the INSTANT I decide it’s not holding hands BUT instead, it’s assault.Even better, and I like this one because I heard it debated by some lawyers.Two people are having fun sex . . . both completely willing partners. The female, 20 minutes into it says "WAIT!!! WE SHOULDN’T BE DOING THIS!!! STOP!!!" She’s on top so he can’t immediately withdraw. Two seconds later she says "Oh, heck with it . . . LET’S SCREW!!" And 4 hours later they pass out from the passion and lack of energy.The next day, can she throw him in jail for rape? Legally, YES, because she was well within her right to agree to sex at anytime AS WELL AS not to. So, for 2 seconds, this guy’s a rapist . . . legally.Even funnier, he could get 3 or 4 counts of rape if she would have done that 3 or 4 times. In a matter of 5 minutes, a woman can make a man into a serial rapist . . . PER THE LAW. THAT’S what I was saying. You really need to try and grasp that and get off the whole rape thing. It’s a simple point I’m making. You’re twisting it into a "SO YOU WOULDN’T STOP??? RAPIST!!!!!" thing. I’d stop, but I couldn’t stop fast enough and withdraw BEFORE I was legally a rapist. How many seconds do you have to be in penetration to be a rapist, right?—-Of course it’s rape if she says stop and you don’t. That’s what rape is.—-Exactly, but can’t you agree that suddenly saying stop INSTANTLY making the partner a rapist is somewhat lopsided. Also, can we also agree that it’s not rape if she decides that she DIDN’T want to have sex an hour AFTER she had sex . . . or 24 hours later? Forget drugs or crap like that. I mean "gosh, I feel guilty about what I did . . . but if it were RAPE, then it wouldn’t be so bad." Like it or not, that last thing happens. It happens more than people want to believe . . . especially people who like to claim that basically ANY sex with a man constitutes rape (not saying you, but there are plenty out there that believe that).—-Am I missing something in what you’re saying here?—-Yes . . . completely. Maybe what I said here cleared it up.—-Because, I’ve got to be honest with you, it really has colored my every interaction with you. I see your name pop up and I think, "Shit, it’s that guy who thinks it’s okay to continue having sex with a woman after she’s told him to stop."—-You’re on Eastbound I-40 headed to Memphis . . . and you just passed Nashville.—-And I think of myself begging and screaming and crying and some guy not stopping and there you go. Why would I want to have long, meaningful, thoughtful conversations with someone who thinks it’s okay to hurt a woman that way?—-You just passed Cookeville.—-If I’m misunderstanding you, please, tell me so, because you seem to want to hang out here and I’d like to see your name and not feel grossed out.—-Okay, I THINK maybe perhaps the "10 Miles to Knoxville" sign is making you wonder if perhaps I-40W might be the right road.—-You perceive me as being hostile towards you because I am hostile towards you because I really don’t want to have to play nice with a guy who thinks that some kinds of rape are justifiable. And it makes it impossible for me to take anything you say seriously and to treat it with any respect. —-Okay, while we’re playing honest injun, I think you throw "rape", "hate", and "bigot" around like a cop waves his gun. These words normally make people cower, and I’m not cowering. I’m not raping anyone. Never have . . . never will. I don’t hate anyone, and I’m not bigoted against anyone (save for stupid people and lots of UT fans . . . sorry). So, all that being said, this constant attempt at making me into some kind of hypothetical rapist, bigot, and "hater" is really kinda’ pathetic. I’m none of the above. I think rape is awful, BUT I don’t think that every man is a rapist any more than I think every woman is a prostitute. I don’t think that 50% of all woman have been raped, and that 40% of all fathers rape their daughters (like you’ll hear on LOTS of feminists sites). It’s really funny. My wife is considering going to therapy because her daddy never raped her. No man has raped her, so she’s having self-esteem issues. LOL! My 21 year old daughter hasn’t been raped, either, and she’s kinda’ feeling left out, too.No, rape isn’t funny, but cripes guys, enough is enough. Why can’t we just discuss issues without having to turn each other into demons and succubi? This is as nice as I can say it. READ WHAT I WROTE AGAIN AND AGAIN TILL IT GETS THROUGH. I’m saying that a woman can turn a man into a rapist with a word. She doesn’t even have to MEAN IT, and he’s a rapist. Think about this the next time you’re having sex with a man, and he’s on top. If HE decides he doesn’t want to have sex with you, HE can say you’re raping him, and you have to get out from under him the MILLISECOND he declares this or, hey, YOU’RE a rapist . . . just like he would be if the roles were reversed. And all he has to do is just decide you are all of the sudden.Then again, it doesn’t work nearly as well for a guy, but LEGALLY, that’s the case.
Ed, how could those scenarios ever result in convictions? Is a woman’s word enough to get a man arrested? Yes, but that doesn’t mean that you’ve legally done anything wrong. You’re not legally a rapist until you’re convicted. Before that you’ve just been accused of rape. Does being accused of rape when you haven’t raped someone suck? Yes it does. But you’re not legally a rapist.I now see why I misunderstood you in the first place, because it never occured to me that you were talking about willingly going to bed with someone fucked up enough to consent to having sex with you, change her mind for a millisecond, change her mind back, and then hours later re-change her mind again and then go to the police and have you charged with rape. That’s so ridiculous to me that I just assumed you were talking about a normal woman who says "no, stop" for some reason.Because, seriously, who in the world disagrees with you that it’s fucked up and sucks when women falsely accuse men of rape?***** BUT I don’t think that every man is a rapist any more than I think every woman is a prostitute. *****Yes, but I don’t think those things either. So what?*****I don’t think that 50% of all woman have been raped, and that 40% of all fathers rape their daughters (like you’ll hear on LOTS of feminists sites).*****I don’t think those things either. I’ve never perpetuated those false statistics. I’ve never knowingly linked to sites that perpetuated those statistics. I’ve never even read those statistics on any sites. So, again, so what? How am I responsible for what other feminists I’ve never even heard of do or say?You say I’m throwing around words in order to make people cower, but your rhetorical strategy is very similar, attempting to make me answer for the behavior of women I don’t know, before you’ll concede my legitimate points.
Ed, how could those scenarios ever result in convictions? Is a woman’s word enough to get a man arrested? Yes, but that doesn’t mean that you’ve legally done anything wrong. You’re not legally a rapist until you’re convicted.—-Okay, I never said conviction. I said LEGALLY, you’re a rapist. Conviction doesn’t make you a rapist. You’re a rapist when you violate the law. A conviction simply means that everyone followed the rules, and a jury or judge agrees that you did it.But, to heck with conviction. Think about how much distress you’re putting the alleged rapist through IF he or she REALLY had no intention of being a rapist i.e. the charge is crap. First, you probably WILL be arrested ALTHOUGH, I will say, my police friends tell me now that they’re not so quickly to arrest people just on the word of another person like they used to.If you get charged, you’re going to be out a few thousand bucks for a lawyer REGARDLESS of how crappy the charges are.Then, no matter what, the rest of your life you’re the rapist that they couldn’t convict. And many times, your record still shows you were CHARGED with a felony. You’ll find this out when you interview about 100 times, and never get a job. It happens.Anyway, the point is that making love and rape can be simply a mindset, and I think that’s an incredibly vulnerable legality. That’s what I was pointing out.—-Before that you’ve just been accused of rape. Does being accused of rape when you haven’t raped someone suck? Yes it does. But you’re not legally a rapist.—-Ever been accused of rape? I GOOD friend of mine was. He was destroyed. He could have been REALLY destroyed if the "victim" wouldn’t have come forth and recanted. It didn’t hurt that 15 witnesses including the "victims"’s sister stepped forward to say it wasn’t rape. If he would have been alone, though, he might be in prison right now. He would probably AT LEAST have made a plea deal, but he would have been on the sexual predator’s list forever.—-I now see why I misunderstood you in the first place, because it never occured to me that you were talking about willingly going to bed with someone fucked up enough to consent to having sex with you, change her mind for a millisecond, change her mind back, and then hours later re-change her mind again and then go to the police and have you charged with rape. That’s so ridiculous to me that I just assumed you were talking about a normal woman who says "no, stop" for some reason.—-THANK YOU!!!! That’s exactly it. While I have no experience with a woman saying no or being unwilling to have sex with me (JOKES!!! JOKES!!!!), I do understand it happens!—-Because, seriously, who in the world disagrees with you that it’s fucked up and sucks when women falsely accuse men of rape?—-It’s more than just that, but I think we’re within a few pages of each other.—-Yes, but I don’t think those things either. So what?—-I was actually making a compliment to both of us. Lots of men now think women are whores and lots of feminists now consider all men rapists. Neither of us thinks either way.—-I don’t think those things either. I’ve never perpetuated those false statistics. I’ve never knowingly linked to sites that perpetuated those statistics. I’ve never even read those statistics on any sites. So, again, so what? How am I responsible for what other feminists I’ve never even heard of do or say?—-Once again, it’s a compliment. That’s just another reason I come here.—-You say I’m throwing around words in order to make people cower, but your rhetorical strategy is very similar, attempting to make me answer for the behavior of women I don’t know, before you’ll concede my legitimate points.—-Well, when you make a legitimate point, eventually I’ll . . . JOKES JOKES!!! :DYou’re completely right about me expecting you to respond to the stereotypical net-fem actions. Honestly, I hear things like "patriarch" in any sentence, and I start grabbing hip boots. I say that on one hand, and then, on the other, I tell you I’m hear because you don’t seem to be of that ilk.Tell you what. From what I’ve seen of you, I’m perfectly willing to say that you’re not the typical "it’s all men’s fault" net-fem. You’re no, dare I say it, gorilla. :D Like I said, it’s one of the reasons I’m here.Now, that being said, I DO want you to understand this about me. I don’t hate ANYONE. I DO have, as it has been said, "core" beliefs, but that doesn’t always force me politically one way or the other. Like I told an anti-gun friend of mine, "I’ll defend your right to say guns should be confiscated with my life . . . and my guns." I think there are government rules and principles that should be closely followed.HOWEVER, I don’t kid myself to believe that everything we do is going to be wonderful and fun. Some things just won’t work. Open marriage WON’T work regardless of how you feel about homosexuality or poligamy. There are lots of "sounds good but won’t work" ideas out there. Affirmative Action, "diversity", and things like that just haven’t worked particularly well. It is the way of things.Some things are true that people don’t like. I said on another discussion at another blog that "Mexicans are having more babies over here than in Mexico!" The response was like I had killed a bus load of nuns. Then I posted our own government numbers that said the birthrate in Mexico is something like 2.3 per person in Mexico and 2.7 for Mexicans in America. For some reason, I was still a racist. Go figure.But the world is full of things we don’t LIKE to acknowledge that I really don’t mind acknowledging because we can’t deal with it otherwise.Anyway, I really hope that I cleared up what I was trying to say. Maybe that will soften things up so we can get back to some good discussion. I enjoy the exchange here.
Fair enough. Let’s move on.
C’mon, lets have a big group hug.
Any excuse to get close enough to look down my shirt, huh?
Looking at what is down your shirt is only a mouse click away.