"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
Maine passes marriage equality.
Washington passes marriage equality.
Maryland passes marriage equality.
Minnesota denies a bigotry amendment.
If this upsets you, you are part of an ever-dwindling population on the wrong side of history. It's not too late to acknowledge your bigotry and join the equal rights party. I'll save seats for you.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
Those states have done it the right way and congrats to them.
Doing it the wrong way is having a judge tell you that you cannot amend your own constitution and other forms of absurd reasoning.
So I'm glad those states have found the votes to make the change. I'm hoping the stupid legal reasoning that tried to bring this about in states like California doesn't stick around and cause more harm than good.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell


Yes, so when you don't feel the love anymore, you simply walk away.
SSM is just a further consumering of marriage, by a society that has broken down so much it values personal greed and consumerism above all else.
He called him a name. Not his reasoning. That was personal. There's no spinning that.![]()
Good news everyone! Mexico is well on its way toward marriage equality after a tribunal in Oaxaca struck down a ban on same-sex marriage.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
Big news in the coming months...
Prop 8 and DOMA are both up for USSC review.
I'll probably blow your mind here, but:
1. I think both are likely to be overturned.
2. I think both probably should be overturned on Equal Protection grounds.
That being said, I still don't favor same sex marriage--I prefer civil unions as the solution (even if that means civil unions for hetero couples as well). My problem is that I think government redefining the institution (which is cultural and religious in nature) could have all sorts of unintended consequences (could churches eventually be sued for discrimination? Could someone argue for the right to marry more than one person? On what grounds do we prevent the latter, having already changed the definition once? Should government be redefining societal/cultural/religious institutions that pre-date its very existence?).
If "marriage" ends up being allowed, I hope that it at least gets done legislatively. The default position for most states is that marriage is between a man and woman, so it would require a law to change that. I oppose judges ordering the legislature to make same sex marriage legal.
Is the government redefining it or rather acknowledging that the old cultural norms are outdated and the current laws do not fit the new paradigm?
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
Uh, that's the same thing, BR. And what gives the government the authority to redefine societal institutions that go back millennia? What about the unintended consequences? Let me guess...they'll be dismissed with a wave of the hand. Don't worry, people won't push to marry more than one person. Don't worry, churches won't be sued for discrimination (and if they are, they deserve it, right?). These are but minor and hypothetical problems. Let's just pass this b*** now and worry about it later.
Yeah, this seems to be the point (while it may or may not specifically be about churches.) I've argued that the point of the state giving same-gender couples a permission slip to marry is actually about compelling various others to recognize and accommodate these "marriages."
I've stated before that:
1) Every consenting adult has a natural right to marry whomever they wish. Period. They have it. No one is stopping them from living together, from arranging their personal financial and property affairs in a way that shares, splits, conveys ownership, etc. however they desire.
2) What same-gender couples are looking for are two things: a) A permission slip from the state, and b) the "right" to use that permission slip to compel others to do things they want them to do.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
No, it's not. First, marriage has not been uniform in practice and form worldwide for millennia. Second, the government isn't redefining anything--the people already have evolved and the government is just recognizing what is the new reality.
Why shouldn't they? They are consenting adults. Oh, right, you want to deny others rights because you don't like it.
Churches shouldn't get sued for discrimination. They can marry whomever they want. If they do get sued, the cases should be dismissed.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”

Yeah, this seems to be the point (while it may or may not specifically be about churches.) I've argued that the point of the state giving same-gender couples a permission slip to marry is actually about compelling various others to recognize and accommodate these "marriages."
I've stated before that:
1) Every consenting adult has a natural right to marry whomever they wish. Period. They have it. No one is stopping them from living together, from arranging their personal financial and property affairs in a way that shares, splits, conveys ownership, etc. however they desire.
2) What same-gender couples are looking for are two things: a) A permission slip from the state, and b) the "right" to use that permission slip to compel others to do things they want them to do.
You want to allow hospitals to continue denying soon-to-be widows from saying goodbye to their spouses. That's what's despicable. You think that's just fine and that it's the hospital's choice. Well, **** that.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”

Yeah, this seems to be the point (while it may or may not specifically be about churches.) I've argued that the point of the state giving same-gender couples a permission slip to marry is actually about compelling various others to recognize and accommodate these "marriages."
I've stated before that:
1) Every consenting adult has a natural right to marry whomever they wish. Period. They have it. No one is stopping them from living together, from arranging their personal financial and property affairs in a way that shares, splits, conveys ownership, etc. however they desire.
I was about to totally agree, but it should be noted that it is easier to accomplish these things with a recognized marriage. It doesn't apply to things like hospital visitation rights, (I don't think) and taxes, though.
I agree. This is where I get off the bus with many gay rights advocates. It has been my experience that they (in general...there are certainly exceptions) want more than just tolerance and equal legal rights. They want our society to change to the point where being gay is given 100% equal status (socially) to being straight. This includes teaching young children not just about "non-traditional" families and couples (which is fine and probably a good idea), but that "it's OK to be gay" from a moral perspective. This is why some people feel that school are, at the behest of the gay rights community, participating in indoctrination. They are making what some see as moral judgements, which is not the place of the State to say the least.
While I disagree with a hospital denying visitation to whomever a patient wishes visitation, I don't have a right to force anyone else to submit to my own values.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

I agree. This is where I get off the bus with many gay rights advocates. It has been my experience that they (in general...there are certainly exceptions) want more than just tolerance and equal legal rights. They want our society to change to the point where being gay is given 100% equal status (socially) to being straight. This includes teaching young children not just about "non-traditional" families and couples (which is fine and probably a good idea), but that "it's OK to be gay" from a moral perspective. This is why some people feel that school are, at the behest of the gay rights community, participating in indoctrination. They are making what some see as moral judgements, which is not the place of the State to say the least.
Let me try to be more clear. I have no problem with homosexual people (and their supporters) from attempting to make the case and argue for 100% equality and status in all things. The thing I object to is using force to achieve their objectives.
Morally speaking, I believe that homosexual behavior and conduct is wrong, and is wrong in the eyes of God. But, again, I don't intend to impose this moral value onto anyone.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
So, in other words, a hospital's freedom to be a giant dick is more important than a spouse's freedom to say goodbye.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”

Let me try to be more clear. I have no problem with homosexual people (and their supporters) from attempting to make the case and argue for 100% equality and status in all things. The thing I object to is using force to achieve their objectives.
Morally speaking, I believe that homosexual behavior and conduct is wrong, and is wrong in the eyes of God. But, again, I don't intend to impose this moral value onto anyone.
No, but you are totally fine with others (hospitals) imposing their values on homosexuals.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
In other words, I don't have a right to stop someone from being a dick. That's part of what freedom requires sometimes...putting up with things we don't like or agree with.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
You are a bit confused. Owners have the right to determine what can or can't be done on their property. It's that simple. While I might not agree with what those rules are, I have no right to dictate what they should be. You clearly want to dictate to others. I don't or, even if I do want to, I chose restrain thus urge.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

You are a bit confused. Owners have the right to determine what can or can't be done on their property. It's that simple. While I might not agree with what those rules are, I have no right to dictate what they should be. You clearly want to dictate to others. I don't or, even if I do want to, I chose restrain thus urge.
Which is why hospitals should be publicly owned. You don't always get to determine which hospital you are going to in an emergency situation. Knowing the management's policy on being heartless assholes ahead of time isn't always feasible--nor is it possible to avoid if they are the only one in network in the area. Society absolutely does have a right to tell those ignorant twats running the hospital to **** off and be humane.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
And, indeed, government-owned facilities have no such right.
As to whether all such facilities should be government owned, that's a different debate.
Tell me, does this reasoning of yours also apply to restaurants? Hotels? Apartment buildings? Etc.? Or only things that require imminent, emergency decision-making?

You don't always get to determine which hospital you are going to in an emergency situation. Knowing the management's policy on being heartless assholes ahead of time isn't always feasible--nor is it possible to avoid if they are the only one in network in the area. Society absolutely does have a right to tell those ignorant twats running the hospital to **** off and be humane.
Society? Who is "society?" Can I write him a letter? Can I go visit with him and have a chat? Buy him a beer?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I know you are being flippant, but it is quite telling that you scoff at the idea of society doing what's going for its people.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
I'm raising a serious question in a flippant manner. It's a subtle but important distinction.
One issue is that you appear to believe that this problem among others) can only be solved in society by the use of force. I believe you're wrong.
Ultimately though you seem to be conflating "society" and "state." This is an error.
Again there are deeper questions and issues here that you don't really care to discuss, because you'd rather froth at the mouth, dismiss those you disagree with in a profane way and simply dec;are what you think is the ultimately right thing to do as the only thing to do without much regard (if any) for any other factors immediate or long term,
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Actually, not necessarily. You committed a fallacy when you drew that conclusion from what I wrote above.
But, generally, yes, I do. And I find it scary that you find the state to be more trustworthy. So there we are. We both see things very differently and neither of us can see how and why the other sees it they way they do. Whodda thunk it?!
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

I'd love to hear your definition that creates a distinction between the state and "elected government." Sounds like you're playing a word game.
That said, I'm sorry to hear where you lay your trust. But I'm not surprised.
Interesting. It seems you have the same perspective on businesses.
We clearly see things differently on this. That's cool. We can disagree. Of course, your view allows you to force your values onto me and others. That's an important difference. Oh well.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.