Married Lesbian Threesome Expects Baby In July
They plan to have three kids -- one for each of them -- and to homeschool them.
Married Lesbian Threesome Expects Baby In July
They plan to have three kids -- one for each of them -- and to homeschool them.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Only if said person is not responsible for the care and well being of another person who might suffer due to neglect.Smoking pot doesn't hurt anyone but the person who does it.
See this old Dragnet episode:
http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi242...?ref_=tt_ov_vi
"It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
If you are saying that no one has suffered repercussions, post-election, for supporting Prop 8; or that prominent voices in the No on Prop 8 community have not called for retribution against supporters, you have a very weak case. Anyway, I think the goal of the statement I linked to is laudable. In the political arena this is not a battle between good and evil; it's a huge disagreement over an issue of great importance to both sides.
I agree that is a very weak argument and I don't think anyone here is making it. I'm not.
Last edited by LA Ute; 04-24-2014 at 03:52 PM.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Just thought I'd point out that I am not affiliated in any way with the username Mac.
"This culture doesn't sell modesty. It sells "I am more modest than you" modesty." -- Two Utes
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Just for clarification, this increase in the number of married gay people would come at the expense of what demographic?
A) Single gay people
B) Single asexual people
C) Married asexual people
D) Single straight people
E) Married straight people
Also, for the demographic(s) which will decline, how do you quantify their current contribution (or lack thereof) to the world's happiness?
We're going to have to agree to disagree. I meant "punished" as a political term, in the sense that people exact some kind of retribution on their opponents whom they have defeated in a political battle. That has happened in the context of Prop 8, and many people have publicly cheered such actions and characterized them as just retribution. It's all over the Internet. I'm also aware of plenty of anecdotal examples. The point is that such acts, although not as serious as fines or imprisonment, etc., do chill civil dialogue and are illiberal. That's the point made in the statement I linked to earlier. I encourage you to read it. the authors are all gay marriage supporters, I think.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Ostracism is not punishment?
"It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant
There was once a member at my history group who took on the self-appointed role of being the arbiter of what he called the "rules of logic." He did not bring civility to the group but, rather, the opposite.
"It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant
That is only true if there is a population of people who want to do something but are prevented from doing it due to the difficulty. Do you really believe that there is a large population of people who want to be gay but aren't because saving themselves from marriage is more important than having sex with someone they find attractive?
Has this conversation ever happened:
Joe: "Hey Steve, you're hot"
Steve: "Thanks Joe, you're pretty smokin yourself. Want to go back to my place?"
Joe: "I so do, but I'm saving myself for marriage. Once the law changes and we can get married, I'd love to get it on. Until then, I might as well just settle down with a female, please her sexually despite my distaste, and raise a family of well adjusted children who never catch on that I'm denying myself true happiness because a ballot referendum was upheld."
Steve: "Why are the good ones always gays living happy lives as straights in sham marriages?"
First of all, gay is not a behavior. It's a phenomenon of attraction not action. More people who used to be called "confirmed bachelors", "spinsters", "old maids" or "special friends" are now openly gay. That doesn't mean there are more gay people. It's not like the lady you carpool with who lives with her "special friend" was living a hetero life of celibacy until gay marriage was legalized.
Last edited by jrj84105; 04-24-2014 at 06:58 PM.
Bullshit. The more we learn about "hardwiring", the more we learn that genotype/environment interactions produce ingrained traits such as temperment, gender identification, and sexual orientation very early in development.
The worst part of your position is that you repeatedly use the term legitimacy or some variant. Your entire stance is based not on marriage rights but specifically on deligitimizing a group of people. Does delegitimizing any group of people, making their lives worse for nothing more than some vague concept of increased goodness in the world defined by your limited code of morality with no basis in observation or demonstrable events, make you a good person or even a good Christian?
I think time and science will prove most of your beliefs incorrect.
The average gay person was born that way, I believe, a belief that I do not find ridiculous. I never chose to be straight. I just remember Susan Granger's hands were really super soft one day in 5th grade, and that was that. No one nurtured my heterosexuality. I don't believe that you could've taken the gay men I know, have shown them lots of glamour porn in their pubescence and made them straight. How exactly does one nurture heterosexuality?
I also don't accept that there are 'more gay people today than in the past.' People are willing to come out now since the former stigma is diminishing. Much like extramarital sex, it was always there, but it used to be more hidden.
There are certainly some nurture situations. Prisoners certainly are example.....but, they don't consider themselves gay, usually. Perhaps some Svengalis have nurtured naive boys into homosexual relationships. But, by and large, I believe that gay people are gay due to innate things in their bodies, things beyond their control. Denying them the right to marry and find lasting happiness in their sexual attraction is to deny them the ability to find gratification in one of the absolutely fundamental parts of humanity.
"This culture doesn't sell modesty. It sells "I am more modest than you" modesty." -- Two Utes
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
In the age old nature vs nurture debate, generally speaking, I have found that it is usually a mixture of both. That's certainly the case in my own life.
"It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant
I had my first crush in the first grade, because the girl I liked had long brown hair.I just remember Susan Granger's hands were really super soft one day in 5th grade, and that was that.
"It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant
I don't think that social science will show this as much as genetic research will (like jrj84105 mentioned). I do however think that there will always be a nature vs nurture debate about human behavior. But really, should it even matter whether people are gay because of nature or nurture? It is the way they are.
The genetic angle is really interesting to me, though. I have a sibling with down syndrome. With the sophistication of in utero indicators, the down syndrome population is shrinking. Can you imagine if there was a way to genetically determine the likelyhood that a fetus would be born gay? It makes me cringe to think of the implications.
Morality/ethics of society is an ever-changing landscape and that change is being accelerated by technology. I worry whether mankind can keep up.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
There are some smart philosophers here who know these things, but distinctions between morality, ethics, and ideology are pretty tenuous. I still think morality more strongly connotes a value judgement of goodness versus evil within a specific belief system. When all policy is derived from morality, and therefore derived from specific belief systems, it turns a policy debate into a debate about whose belief system is more correct. If a person frames a policy debate strictly in terms of morality, then that person opens up his her morality and belief system to criticism, or more correctly being shit upon. That's not generally productive and is why one might try, when considering policies that apply to people both inside and outside his/her belief system, to form opinions that are not exclusively defined by his/her personal moral code.
Last edited by jrj84105; 04-25-2014 at 03:23 PM.
This journalist disagrees with you: Sterling vs. Eich
sounds like the 4th Circuit arguments went about like the 10th. From the questioning, one judge on each side, and the third mostly silent and inscrutable.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z1
I clerked in the Fourth Circuit years and years ago. It was really conservative then (although my judge wasn't.) Dont know any of the current judges, excdpt JHWIII by reputation. Sounds like the Circuit has become more moderate than it was then.
Fifth Sixth or Ninth could be next; not sure.