Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

I think you are missing the difference between "big dick" and "needs to be completely redecorated."

Like a living room.  You know--drapes, carpet, color treatment, smell, size, everything you can possibly think of.  Really.  Everything.

[GlyphGryph]

I'd like to take issue with TheCurvature article.

The man was not found guilty of any crime, and there was no evidence apart form the claim. I don't see how the school could have justified removing him. He was investigated, and no evidence was found of wrongdoing. It's a tough situation - do we want a child's accusation, alone, to be enough to ruin a persons life? On the same hand, what evidence can a child provide that they were sexually assaulted?

I don't think it's anywhere near as straightforward as this article seems to suggest it should be i.e. if someone is accused, they should instantly be banned from the career they spent their life training for (at last, that's what their argument seems to be).

Schools are not hesitant about removing teachers, in my experience, as long as they have evidence of impropriety. The impropriety doesn't even usually need to be that bad! But without any real evidence at all, what do you do?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

On an unrelated note:
"His proposed bill would require a birth certificate to prove which restroom a person would be required to use."

A warning: listening to this guy talk might make you angry! He legitimately makes the "people will try to marry their dogs next" comparison.

"I'm just sick and tired of society having to adjust to every little alternate life style, or little whim or someone who thinks they're different," said Floyd.

You mean like me being sick of having to carry my fucking birth certificate if I need to take a piss on in the state of Tennessee? Yes, let's keep from having to adjust to accomodate others (by doing nothing) by making a hugely overcomplicated fix that forces everyone to make unreasonable accomodations. </insanetrolllogic> 

I don't even know why we still bother with sex-segregated bathrooms, really. It seems to cause more problems than it alleviates. The only issue I can think of is what to do about limited space accommodation for difference facilities. 

[Truean]

The next logical step after same sex marriage is polygamous and group marriage. That is the end of the chain of consensual marriages that are currently being oppressed by law based on specific religious doctrines.

It is the only one that actually adds new issues and complexity to marriage.
In the event of disability which spouse has legal and medical priority?
How does legal guardianship of children work?
Is there an option for partial divorce in group marriages?
How is property and custody handled in the event of a divorce/death?

I do believe I've already gone into how Poliamorous marriages won't work under our current legal system without a massive overhaul I have no idea where to begin on....

A couple times at least, actually.

Actually, the modern jeweled wedding ring was started by a catalog in the 1920's as a way for them to make money selling said rings, and it was so successful it got embedded in people's cultural norms. The practice of the rings themselves is quite older, but I don't think they're that valuable without diamonds or whatnot.

And the diamonds are only valuable because their price is artificially inflated.

Nonsense. They're valuable because of their utility! I mean, they're really, really hard! And shiny! These are valuable traits in our society.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go open my factory where we glue rhinestones to chunks of granite. Shit will be so cash.

On an unrelated note:
"His proposed bill would require a birth certificate to prove which restroom a person would be required to use."

A warning: listening to this guy talk might make you angry! He legitimately makes the "people will try to marry their dogs next" comparison.

"I'm just sick and tired of society having to adjust to every little alternate life style, or little whim or someone who thinks they're different," said Floyd.

You mean like me being sick of having to carry my fucking birth certificate if I need to take a piss on in the state of Tennessee? Yes, let's keep from having to adjust to accomodate others (by doing nothing) by making a hugely overcomplicated fix that forces everyone to make unreasonable accomodations. </insanetrolllogic> 

The logic here seems to be that TG women are actually men who want to be women in order to perv on women. Rep. Floyd saw one too many episodes of Bosom Buddies, methinks. I'm not denying that some men could abuse such a privilege, but abuse of a privilege by a few is not sufficient grounds to deny the privilege outright. Otherwise, we'd have repealed the 2nd Amendment a long time ago.

To take that to the logical consequence, lesbians shouldn't be allowed in ladys' rooms, nor should gays be allowed in mens'.... His criterion is attraction (his false perception thereof). Never mind the fact that MtF transsexuals would find it difficult to "perv on women" without male genitalia, or at least that would be a hell of a price for doing so, he's a complete moron with an unworkable plan. Unless of course that plan is to remove anyone who isn't strictly straight from society, because otherwise you couldn't maintain his nutjob vision....Basically he wants things to never change. He doesn't like that he only has the overwhelming majority of the power in society rather than all of it. Fuck... him.

Society as a whole, could really do with focusing on the person, rather than the shell.... Failure to do so has resulted in a world of appearances, false ones as a rule, rather than substance. Those who have, via actions, preached that it doesn't matter who you really are, as long as you look like what society wants, have achieved the full, exact consequences of the theories they sermonized....

[kaijyuu]

Re: Polygamy. Just because it's hard to implement doesn't mean you shouldn't shoot for it. All those complications just means it's reasonably a long term goal, rather than something implemented overnight.

[Frumple]

Truean, those first two links go to the same place

As for all that complication, while I'd definitely rather folks just figure out a way to make all forms of partnership work, it definitely seems more to me like really strong support for just doing away with civil unions entirely. You want to be treated as a single entity? Incorporate, I guess. Want to sign a contract of continued support? Sign the bloody contract. Etc., so forth.

Just seems more and more like domestic partnership on a legal level isn't worth the hassle and legal complication. Only thing I personally know of that it gives you is legal permission to visit your partner in the hospital, really (and I'm fairly sure you could get around that elseways), and some degree of taxation consideration.

There's probably some bias on my part, though; even if I do end up in a long-term (or even permanent) relationship, there's no way in hell I'm entering into a legally binding contract in relation to it, beyond, perhaps, a will. If I'm going to support and be interdependent with someone, it's going to be solely by my own free will, not with a specter of legal coercion haunting it.

[Truean]

Truean, those first two links go to the same place

Hum, one is supposed to go to page 222 of the thread and the other 223..... Fixed I think. Feh, it's been a hell of a day.

As for all that complication, while I'd definitely rather folks just figure out a way to make all forms of partnership work, it definitely seems more to me like really strong support for just doing away with civil unions entirely. You want to be treated as a single entity? Incorporate, I guess. Want to sign a contract of continued support? Sign the bloody contract. Etc., so forth.

Just seems more and more like domestic partnership on a legal level isn't worth the hassle and legal complication. Only thing I personally know of that it gives you is legal permission to visit your partner in the hospital, really (and I'm fairly sure you could get around that elseways), and some degree of taxation consideration.

There's probably some bias on my part, though; even if I do end up in a long-term (or even permanent) relationship, there's no way in hell I'm entering into a legally binding contract in relation to it, beyond, perhaps, a will. If I'm going to support and be interdependent with someone, it's going to be solely by my own free will, not with a specter of legal coercion haunting it.

A corporation, bastardized legal construct that it is which is deserving of death, is meant to be eternal and outlive its members. This is fundamentally against what a "marriage" is and why its referred to as a "partnership." The legal notion of a "corporation" being applied to professions (like investment banking) that were traditionally partnerships has played a large hand towards destroying our economy and I would seriously make it a political platform that all investment banking institutions have their corporate charters nullified and revoked by statute and forced to become partnerships again, under threat of a $100,000/day fine. They were partnerships run by professionals before this mess and they should be again. With a partnership for professions, YOU as owner are personally responsible and thus you won't make those mistakes knowing it is your hide on the line. Shareholders have no business telling professionals what to do. Shareholders seem to think their wallets equal their IQ, it doesn't, get out. The corporate construct is an undead vampire; we need some wooden stakes.... You want to have a say in how the business is run? Put some of your own skin in the game.... Personal liability....

There are exceptions where it DOES work, but even then... personal liability = less massive risks taken that endanger the entire economy....

Concerning tax benefits, there are well over 1000 to marriage in the US. Hospital visitation can sort of be gotten around with  POA (Power of attorney), but even a limited power of attorney specifically tailored to that is messy as hell. Trying to backdoor in marriage via legal services not intended for this purpose is difficult at best and will not be the same.

Then of course let's not forget the social implications: "O you two aren't 'really' married...." [middle finger directly in the face of person saying this]. Thank you, we enjoy being reminded you consider us second third class citizens.

I think you are missing the difference between "big dick" and "needs to be completely redecorated."

Like a living room.  You know--drapes, carpet, color treatment, smell, size, everything you can possibly think of.  Really.  Everything.

Yeah, agreed. Sorta being subjected to both; there's really no comparison.

[Frumple]

Yeah, all that rotterdamn nonsense is why it seems more attractive to just ditch the junk. Y'want the legalsocial trappings or moral obligations of civil unions, then do it yer own bloody self without getting the courts or law involved.

Won't happen, but hell, a person can dream

[Truean]

I wrote my college thesis on the housing market (focused on rentals) even before these meetings took place. While I won a competitive cash prize award for my equation modeling, I was called an "alarmist." I was predicting a massive housing crash due to over extension of credit causing what I called then an "overheated housing market...." They thought it was funny.

The fed didn't get it in 2006 and I saw this crap coming well before then as a student doing dedicated research but was sorta told not to worry about it....

I dunno, did I just get lucky? Was it merely a gut instinct of "these houses aren't worth that?" Who knows....

[Euld]

The lovely things said by homophobic folks.  The quote from Marcus Bachmann is especially... ... ... >_o;

[trees]

The lovely things said by homophobic folks.

I always have trouble with things like this because I'm never certain if I should laugh at how ridiculous people are or get angry about how ridiculous people are (and how many of them are involved in the government).

[Pnx]

The lovely things said by homophobic folks.

I always have trouble with things like this because I'm never certain if I should laugh at how ridiculous people are or get angry about how ridiculous people are (and how many of them are involved in the government).

I do both, but out of the two I mostly just laugh, because there's not much else I can do.

[MaximumZero]

I wrote my college thesis on the housing market (focused on rentals) even before these meetings took place. While I won a competitive cash prize award for my equation modeling, I was called an "alarmist." I was predicting a massive housing crash due to over extension of credit causing what I called then an "overheated housing market...." They thought it was funny.

The fed didn't get it in 2006 and I saw this crap coming well before then as a student doing dedicated research but was sorta told not to worry about it....

I dunno, did I just get lucky? Was it merely a gut instinct of "these houses aren't worth that?" Who knows....

It could be that you had a legitimately intelligent outlook on the situation.

[justinlee999]

My dad used to say that I should make myself feel disgusted of gays, because homosexuality is unnatural, and it's a "moral" thing to do.

I'm not sure how he didn't see the flaw in his reasoning. What benefit will it bring to feel disgusted of gays?

All it did was make me fear gays back then, hardly beneficial. 

[Descan]

Yep, we're so disgusting, and unnatural, and immoral. But who cares, it's fun~