Liberal Arts Major
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Provisional
Liberal Arts Major
Right. What I wrote was the following:
What is interesting is the means by which the State encourages marriage, primarily its tax implications, i.e., a married couple is entitled to a larger share of their property than an unmarried couple. A voter affirming a ban on same-sex marriage affirms also this asymmetry of property rights by placing a limitation on who is permitted to join the special interest - in other words, theft.Because the difference in tax rates is not based on any tangible "service" like airport use or whatever, the difference resolves to a special interest and the additional taxes are plainly theft. The unmarried subsidize the married. By limiting the definition of marriage to a select group of people in the current legal environment, this theft is legitimized.
Proposition 8 is good because it let people practice democracy and democracy is the foundation of our nation.
A good portion of the article was a slam against using democracy as a substitute for a consistent ethic. I think that answers this well.
I also think that it is important to protect the family and letting gays marry destroys the family. Therefore it is a good thing that proposition 8 passed because it was both good for democracy and family values.
That's tops. Does your ethical system exclude the forcible taking of property as a legitimate activity? If so, as I explained, your ethic really isn't a system at all, more a set of principles you happen to like a lot.
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Liberal Arts Major
---
Alestra77: you seem to have glossed over the fact that you treat all women like prostitutes
Alestra77: "k, so, I bought you coffee... when do I get my handjob?"
Goddammit, I hate you so much. ~ Kenri to me (3 times)
Alestra77: who the fuck is porky
Liberal Arts Major
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Liberal Arts Major
Wow. Just wow.
The way I see it, if gays want to get married, it's none of your fucking business.
...Destroys the family. Right. What-the-fuck-ever.
<->
Violence is like duct tape; it fixes everything.
Advanced
That's like saying that a Transgendered person can help that they feel they where born in the wrong body and do what they can to fix there body to match the gender they feel they should have been born as. Plus when i worked for pizza hut both the 2 top mangers where gay and where in a relationship with each other,they where pretty cool to.
---
This space for rent!!!!!!!!
Provisional
That's like saying that a Transgendered person can help that they feel they where born in the wrong body and do what they can to fix there body to match the gender they feel they should have been born as. Plus when i worked for pizza hut both the 2 top mangers where gay and where in a relationship with each other,they where pretty cool to.
You're not saying true things. Gayness is chosen. No one forces gays to fornicate. Gays can get marries like normal people, to a person of the other gender. They should be made normal like other mentally ill people.
I'm sure your bosses were nice people but they were still sinning against god. It is clearly written in the bible that lying with a man as one likes with a woman is a serious sin and is condemned by god. No one forced them to be gay. But hey decided to sin and refuse to get help for their defects. In countries like South America and South Africa this is not a problem because people there live naturally and dont go against gods' ways.
Liberal Arts Major
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Editor
Damn.
---
"I'm not perverted! I'm just immensely fascinated!" ~Lisa Yadomaru, Bleach
"Speed is... weight. Have you ever been kicked at the speed of light?" ~Admiral Kizaru, One Piece
"There's a pony in the shop, but don't buy it. It might do something unfortunate to you." ~from the first Summoner's Seal topic
Message last edited by Kenri of the Yuri on 12/27/2008 at 10:59:04 PM
Liberal Arts Major
Uhh...no, it's actually more like a bunch of pissed off fags bitching about not being able to have sex together while married while in reality wanting marriage benefits.
...it feels fit to delve beyond the moral status of same-sex marriage to the morality of the actors implicated in its prohibition. Particularly, what is the ethical character of a religious voter in favor of the initiative, for whom morality plays a central role?
Why?
Bigotry and fanaticism are common charges leveled against those opposed to same-sex marriage, but these are value-judgments and fall short of describing an actual ethical standpoint.
This alone should be enough to prove that the gays themselves are the self-centered assholes.
To answer this question effectively we must understand the voter's intentions, what the legal category of marriage actually entails, and finally the nature of ballot initiatives.Marriage is a special interest that, supposedly, has been upheld throughout history by the sovereign power as a means to ensure a continuously expanding population/revenue stream (or, as some might put it, to maintain "stability" in societies).
And to prevent people from running around and having sex with different partners every day.
The union between a man and a woman is thought to be the most conducive to child-rearing, whereas homosexuality is charged with negatively impacting childhood development.
Umm, yea. Having 2 moms or 2 dads is worse than having a mom and a dad. And don't go into the bad parent BS where having 2 "good" moms is better than having one drunkard mom and a gangster dad. You know what I mean. And Kenri or that one dude with the sword avatar, don't start on the fucking "oh yea, so should single parents have their kids taken away?" BS. Having 2 moms or 2 dads is worse than having a mom and a dad. Having a single parent is also worse than having 2 parents. Both suck, so stfu.
The religious would add that marriage is a condition ordained by God, excluding homosexuality as sacrilege. Others are concerned that granting marriage to homosexuals "legitimizes" and presents as normal homosexuality or that same-sex marriage leads us down a slippery slope of granting marital status to anyone e.g. polygamists, pedophiles, and so on.
Um...yea? Here's the deal. By having gay marriage allowed, you're allowing for more equality in the marriage matter. Well, what about people who are too n00b to find a girl? They are being discriminated against with tax cuts as well. In that sense, tax cuts to the married is a merit based government handout. And we all know how 'unconstitutional' that is.
The potential validity of these claims is of no interest to this problem. What is interesting is the means by which the State encourages marriage, primarily its tax implications, i.e., a married couple is entitled to a larger share of their property than an unmarried couple. A voter affirming a ban on same-sex marriage affirms also this asymmetry of property rights by placing a limitation on who is permitted to join the special interest - in other words, theft.
No, he's saying that gays can't marry. Imagine a guy got into a car accident where the car was totaled and had his insurance pay up a nice sum. Now imagine a second guy with a shitty ass car wanting money who purposefully wrecks his car for the handout and is then denied payment since he crashed it on purpose. By your logic, that insurance company is robbing the second guy by not paying up and placing a limitation on who is permitted to join the group that receives the money.
This is, as should be noted, not what the average voter intends. The voter acts to support both a moral principle - that homosexuals do not fit the bill for a what is conceived as a divine union - and a political condition - the legal privileges of marriage. Curiously, the political condition is only indirectly supported as a means to a moral end. As the prominent Latter-Day Saints put it (here), the goal is to avoid the establishment of an institution which damages the "integrity of the traditional family" and not to preclude the extension of rights to homosexual couples.
What the fuck is the problem? As much as I hate Mormons, they're not wrong. They're saying that gay couples fuck up families. You don't seem to mind when alcoholics are denied parental rights or when poor families aren't allowed to adopt. This is just another step in the ladder.
But, certainly, there are many voters who aren't ignorant of the immediate political ramifications of their action, perhaps a majority. (Those who are ignorant raise a number of alternate concerns beyond the scope of the present script.) For those individuals indeed cognizant of the coercive implications of affirmation, their task would then be to reconcile the moral prohibition on theft with the moral prohibition on same-sex marriage.
So that big mess up there with your fancy wurds can be summed into: People are dum lolz. K, I agree.
This variety of statist dilemma comes up relatively often and is usually resolved through an appeal to what we can call political exceptionalism. In this view, the State, responsible for ensuring moral principles are obeyed, is above most ethical considerations. That is, so long as the State acts in favor of a particularly valuable moral goal, all but the most atrocious means to achieve it can be tolerated. Deontological imperatives are waived away. Without this framework it is difficult to see how any State action could be morally permissible in an ethic that otherwise unconditionally forbids theft, murder, and so on. Though it is perhaps possible to understand exceptionalism when voters are capable of externalizing the State (of considering it an impersonal force, perhaps established by God), this explanation is unsatisfactory in the case of democratic decision-making, especially when the issue is brought to a vote by popular initiative. Here a number of individuals come together, vote something onto a ballot, and vote it into law; there is no ethical difference whatsoever between this and a number of individuals pooling funds to purchase the services of a master thief. A moral theory that grants ballot initiatives the same moral exception as other political action effectively resolves to a theory that the moral soundness of an action is proportional to the number and/or power of people who support it, a view few of those who voted for Proposition 8 could be accused of embracing.
You...don't really make any points there, so....yea.....
A more accurate explanation begins with the moral principles themselves. Instead of blanket exceptionalism, the voter partakes in selectivism, ranking ethical imperatives on a consequentialist scale. That is, the voter is wary of a number of conflicting moral duties and must elect the most pressing to shape his actions. The process is sequential. The individual is initially faced with a moral obligation to act - in this case, the obligation to defend the sanctity of marriage. As he pursues this course, all competing morals are weighed (independently or cumulatively) against the initial value: if they are thought more important, the initial value is discarded, but if not, these intermittent ethical dilemmas are, to borrow a word from Kierkegaard, suspended; they cease to be relevant. The weight of each value is derived from a number of criteria, including the cost of upholding each principle, the perceived immediate impact of discarded values, and the consequences of abandoning the original principle. Notably, the values calculated do not maintain any of their original deontological weight, e.g. murder becomes less a sin and more a "necessary evil". Whatever otherwise inviolable moral principles the individual holds dear become mere candidates in the calculatory activity. Duty degenerates into desirability. Though this phenomenon is arguably common, it flourishes in a political context, where the costs and impacts of suspended morals are often remote and intangible while the consequences of the immediate concern are made to appear real and imminent. In effect, the political sphere reduces the threshold at which point a suspension of ethics is deemed reasonable, occasionally allowing even the most unlikely and unassuming issues to explode all other ethical considerations.
Why are you not going into math when you somehow managed to make a mathematical equation out of voting for gay marriage? Impressive. And gay.
The practical effect of this state of affairs has no better example than war. Consider, for instance, the war in Iraq.
So now we're talking about Iraq. Damn that war can be applied to anything these days. It'll be showing up in our TV remote instructions soon.
A handful of motives is usually provided in support of this nightmare, usually the preservation of national security and the promotion of democracy (or nation-building or something called freedom). Even the tangible benefits of these aren't easily measured. How many American lives have been saved by the war? How many Iraqi lives have been improved by the advent of their very rudimentary democratic system (versus how many harmed by it)? Nor do we know exactly what it means to "help" or "harm" in this case, not to mention the impossibility of determining the magnitude of either. It is impossible to weigh either of these values against the material and ethical costs of the war for the same reason it's impossible to compare subjective preferences among individuals: the entities involved cannot be standardized and quantified so that comparisons can be made. But what does a voter lose by electing a representative in favor of the war? He isn't murdering anyone, after all, nor is he paying but a tiny portion of the costs - and, for his efforts, the Iraqis get to experience the joy of democracy (or freedom, as the case may be).
dot dot fucking dot...
Notably, this ethical position is internally inconsistent. To support security, prohibitions on violence are suspended. Military occupation is proposed as a path to political liberation. In the case of Proposition 8, the suspension of ethics was facilitated by a discontinuity between the religious understanding of marriage and its political form. Voters rejected the extension of marriage rights, but many were not against the extension of certain of those rights to homosexual couples - that option just wasn't on the ballot. Any ethical concerns with the denial of property rights were dismissed as temporary inconveniences placed upon homosexuals to be resolved later, dwarfed by the necessity that the sanctity of marriage be preserved immediately - and the presumed social consequences of failure. This logic, too, is seriously flawed: in order to fulfill one's duty to God, the religious commandment against theft must be cast aside. In effect, religious voters are empowered by the ethical shelter of the democratic State to pick and choose precisely which of God's orders to obey. Divine command gives way to social expediency.
Because that takes too much work. Imagine if every bill was cut up into tiny chunks for approval on each separate chunk. Nothing would ever get done. All or nothing baby - and they seem to have gotten nothing. Which is funny.
Further, should this line of reasoning be examined more closely, the distinctions between this ethical position and ethics-by-majority-vote become sparse. The problem is that - unlike representative democracy, where elected officials act as a barrier between the will of their constituency and political reality, for better or for worse - ballot initiatives cut to the chase, permitting a majority of voters to employ the State in any way voted fit with none of the hurdles of political capital and the like. The willingness to use this power to contract the continuation of the disproportionate exploitation of a disfavored class amounts to a rejection of any natural laws or innate rights, a rejection of the concept of moral imperatives, and ultimately a rejection of deontology itself, which is especially troublesome for the religious. Though voters this time supported a relatively narrow principle and are unlikely to support more egregious violations of rights, both this ethic and the machinery of its implementation have been legitimized as functions of individual desire. The result is that no principle possesses any persistent value: not property, not freedom, not even life itself. It is a philosophy incompatible with human liberty.
k, so? Why do we care?
Ultimately, the piecewise expansion of marriage is not a solution. Those unable to be married in any way will find themselves subsidizing those who can. The proper solution, whatever it might be, requires as a matter of course that taxation rates be reduced to marriage levels (or, even better, eliminated altogether) for everyone along with the elimination of marriage as a public matter.
This is the most logical thing you've said so far.
Regardless, allowing same-sex marriage is a step in the right direction.
And you blew it. How the hell is it a step in the right direction? That's like saying that we should start giving random people aids to not discriminate against virgins so everyone can join in on the fun of dying.
Proposition 8 may have been a stunning victory for morality, but it was a terrible defeat for humanity.
Prop 8 was the only sane thing that happened in CA in the past 50 years.
---
Alestra77: you seem to have glossed over the fact that you treat all women like prostitutes
Alestra77: "k, so, I bought you coffee... when do I get my handjob?"
Goddammit, I hate you so much. ~ Kenri to me (3 times)
Alestra77: who the fuck is porky
Advanced
---
This space for rent!!!!!!!!
Liberal Arts Major
The fags in question aren't bitching about not being able to have sex together, they're bitching about not getting marriage benefits. Which is presumably what they're being covert about. You know, in the world where your statement reflects reality.
Regardless, there is clearly a moral question at hand, especially when religious institutions get involved, and there's always an ethical question, so we can continue.
Why?
Because of:
This logic, too, is seriously flawed: in order to fulfill one's duty to God, the religious commandment against theft must be cast aside. In effect, religious voters are empowered by the ethical shelter of the democratic State to pick and choose precisely which of God's orders to obey. Divine command gives way to social expediency.And:
The result is that no principle possesses any persistent value: not property, not freedom, not even life itself. It is a philosophy incompatible with human liberty.This alone should be enough to prove that the gays themselves are the self-centered assholes.
Those charges aren't leveled exclusively by gays.
And to prevent people from running around and having sex with different partners every day.
That's not a benefit of or reason for marriage, that's a component of its definition.
Both suck, so stfu.
OK. It really has no impact on my argument.
Um...yea? Here's the deal. By having gay marriage allowed, you're allowing for more equality in the marriage matter. Well, what about people who are too n00b to find a girl? They are being discriminated against with tax cuts as well. In that sense, tax cuts to the married is a merit based government handout. And we all know how 'unconstitutional' that is.
This is essentially what I say here, minus the blurb on that Constitutionality business:
Ultimately, the piecewise expansion of marriage is not a solution. Those unable to be married in any way will find themselves subsidizing those who can. The proper solution, whatever it might be, requires as a matter of course that taxation rates be reduced to marriage levels (or, even better, eliminated altogether) for everyone along with the elimination of marriage as a public matter.No, he's saying that gays can't marry. Imagine a guy got into a car accident where the car was totaled and had his insurance pay up a nice sum. Now imagine a second guy with a shitty ass car wanting money who purposefully wrecks his car for the handout and is then denied payment since he crashed it on purpose. By your logic, that insurance company is robbing the second guy by not paying up and placing a limitation on who is permitted to join the group that receives the money.
This counterexample doesn't make any sense. Taxation is not an insurance premium - you can't opt out - marriage isn't wrecking your car and insurance payouts are not the same as reduced tax relief. "My logic" can be iterated in four steps:
1. Taxation can only be justified in any way when it corresponds exactly to services received.
2. The difference in tax rates for married and nonmarried groups does not correspond to any additional service for the unmarried.
3. Therefore, the difference in rates constitutes plain theft.
4. Therefore, by voting to bar gays from marriage benefits, the voter indirectly supports this form of theft.
It's really quite simple. Your example consists of two individuals with identical contracts, namely, that for a certain monthly premium a firm will pay out some quantity of money should the car get totaled accidentally. The former driver's condition fulfills the contractual requirements whereas the latter does not. The limitation on money claims is not imposed on the latter; it was in the contract he agreed to. This example has no bearing on "my logic" - the question of marriage tax rates has nothing to do with contractual obligations.
What the fuck is the problem? As much as I hate Mormons, they're not wrong. They're saying that gay couples fuck up families. You don't seem to mind when alcoholics are denied parental rights or when poor families aren't allowed to adopt. This is just another step in the ladder.
That was a descriptive, not a normative series of observations. I have no opinion (in this piece) on what same-sex marriage does to the family. As for alcoholics and the poor, you shouldn't be so quick to assume I have no concerns there; those concerns however are irrelevant to the question of the ethics of voting for Proposition 8.
So that big mess up there with your fancy wurds can be summed into: People are dum lolz. K, I agree.
Actually that was an introduction to the ethical problem I intended to address.
You...don't really make any points there, so....yea.....
Again, that was all descriptive. I'm glad you agree with my observations.
Why are you not going into math when you somehow managed to make a mathematical equation out of voting for gay marriage? Impressive. And gay.
This is the heart of my argument, and it's not a question of mathematics. As I say later:
Nor do we know exactly what it means to "help" or "harm" in this case, not to mention the impossibility of determining the magnitude of either. It is impossible to weigh either of these values against the material and ethical costs of the war for the same reason it's impossible to compare subjective preferences among individuals: the entities involved cannot be standardized and quantified so that comparisons can be made.In other words, the problem with "ethical calculation" is that it doesn't make any sense, devalues all moral imperatives, and essentially means that anything is ethically permissible so long as it sounds cool.
So now we're talking about Iraq. Damn that war can be applied to anything these days. It'll be showing up in our TV remote instructions soon.
I could have picked Vietnam, Korea, and several others and written essentially the same paragraph but this is the most recent example.
dot dot fucking dot...
It's not surprising that you have no response to this other than "ridiculous!" when you failed to understand the contentions it's based on above.
Because that takes too much work. Imagine if every bill was cut up into tiny chunks for approval on each separate chunk. Nothing would ever get done. All or nothing baby - and they seem to have gotten nothing. Which is funny.
Wait, what? You're saying the inconsistencies caused by the form of consequentialism I discuss here are OK because without that framework it'd take too long to pass laws... that support that framework? That's quite the non-argument.
k, so? Why do we care?
Maybe it's this:
The willingness to use this power to contract the continuation of the disproportionate exploitation of a disfavored class amounts to a rejection of any natural laws or innate rights, a rejection of the concept of moral imperatives, and ultimately a rejection of deontology itself... The result is that no principle possesses any persistent value: not property, not freedom, not even life itself. It is a philosophy incompatible with human liberty.Or maybe it's the fact that it equates your ethical/moral character with the number of guns you've got. Which is basically the blockquote means.
And you blew it. How the hell is it a step in the right direction? That's like saying that we should start giving random people aids to not discriminate against virgins so everyone can join in on the fun of dying.
The tax breaks you're in favor of are like AIDS? Otherwise I can't make sense of what appears to be a very inept metaphor.
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Liberal Arts Major
This host doesn't allow porn. -_-
Lesbians irl:
---
Alestra77: you seem to have glossed over the fact that you treat all women like prostitutes
Alestra77: "k, so, I bought you coffee... when do I get my handjob?"
Goddammit, I hate you so much. ~ Kenri to me (3 times)
Alestra77: who the fuck is porky
Message last edited by Ogordemir99 on 12/28/2008 at 12:13:04 AM
Editor
Can you provide a source that backs this up?
---
"I'm not perverted! I'm just immensely fascinated!" ~Lisa Yadomaru, Bleach
"Speed is... weight. Have you ever been kicked at the speed of light?" ~Admiral Kizaru, One Piece
"There's a pony in the shop, but don't buy it. It might do something unfortunate to you." ~from the first Summoner's Seal topic
Liberal Arts Major
Assume a boy: Here you'd have both the manly influence from the father, teaching him about sports, girls, ways a man should behave, etc and the love and shit from the mother, perhaps also teaching him cleanliness/neatness, cooking and whatnot, etc.
The other way, you remove one of those. Examples are those of kids being raised by single parents. I site several examples (Ogor will know who these are, to the rest of you, these are just people I know):
24: Early divorce-lived with dad. He's now a sexaholic alcoholic. He gets dangerously wasted all the time and has one night stands with random girls.
58: Mom died when he was 17. (Note the late age) This caused him to like dancing. A lot. He now spends all his free time dancing. I'm trying to man him up by forcing him to workout and he's making good progress, but he hasn't given up the dancing.
Perhaps the best example, Andrea (Ogor's ex): If you know who I'm talking about, I don't need to explain any further. <_< For others, as a quick overview, she lived with her dad and was a tomboy up until Junior High. She had a gender crisis in like 11th grade and began to act like a very estrogen-filled girl, imitating her friends (something that would have happened much much earlier with a mother). She was also insane and had no idea how to handle a relationship. Her dad forbade it and she apparently was embarrassed about it in front of others too, so she forced Ogor to keep it a secret and randomly threw tantrums. One example of her insanity was when Ogor told me about it and she got so pissed off that she took all his shit and smashed it with a hammer and dumped it on his driveway. There are many stories like this. In the end, a religion identity crisis made her break up with Ogor.
So Kenri, there are 3 first-hand accounts for ya.
---
Alestra77: you seem to have glossed over the fact that you treat all women like prostitutes
Alestra77: "k, so, I bought you coffee... when do I get my handjob?"
Goddammit, I hate you so much. ~ Kenri to me (3 times)
Alestra77: who the fuck is porky
Message last edited by The Tiger on 12/28/2008 at 01:33:21 AM
Liberal Arts Major
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Liberal Arts Major
---
Alestra77: you seem to have glossed over the fact that you treat all women like prostitutes
Alestra77: "k, so, I bought you coffee... when do I get my handjob?"
Goddammit, I hate you so much. ~ Kenri to me (3 times)
Alestra77: who the fuck is porky
Liberal Arts Major
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Liberal Arts Major
---
Alestra77: you seem to have glossed over the fact that you treat all women like prostitutes
Alestra77: "k, so, I bought you coffee... when do I get my handjob?"
Goddammit, I hate you so much. ~ Kenri to me (3 times)
Alestra77: who the fuck is porky
Editor
I was actually looking for sources, preferably from professionals in this field, about the effect two same-sex parents in a non-broken home has on a child.
But, you know.
Providing the complete opposite of that is fine too.
---
"I'm not perverted! I'm just immensely fascinated!" ~Lisa Yadomaru, Bleach
"Speed is... weight. Have you ever been kicked at the speed of light?" ~Admiral Kizaru, One Piece
"There's a pony in the shop, but don't buy it. It might do something unfortunate to you." ~from the first Summoner's Seal topic
Liberal Arts Major
Can YOU provide sources that say that homosexual families are perfectly fine for kids?
---
Alestra77: you seem to have glossed over the fact that you treat all women like prostitutes
Alestra77: "k, so, I bought you coffee... when do I get my handjob?"
Goddammit, I hate you so much. ~ Kenri to me (3 times)
Alestra77: who the fuck is porky
Liberal Arts Major
<_<
---
Alestra77: you seem to have glossed over the fact that you treat all women like prostitutes
Alestra77: "k, so, I bought you coffee... when do I get my handjob?"
Goddammit, I hate you so much. ~ Kenri to me (3 times)
Alestra77: who the fuck is porky
Editor
You're giving examples of something else entirely that is irrelevant to this conversation.
Also, you are correct, bogus sources wouldn't change my mind.
Legitimate sources might make me at least consider it, but I'm fairly confident none actually exist.
Can YOU provide sources that say that homosexual families are perfectly fine for kids?
I'm not obligated to, since I never claimed that. In this topic, at least. <_<
---
"I'm not perverted! I'm just immensely fascinated!" ~Lisa Yadomaru, Bleach
"Speed is... weight. Have you ever been kicked at the speed of light?" ~Admiral Kizaru, One Piece
"There's a pony in the shop, but don't buy it. It might do something unfortunate to you." ~from the first Summoner's Seal topic