Rocky

I have no idea... I've not been invited to their meetings. I'm neither gay nor republican.

" TARGET=_blank>http://www.adrianplass.com/articles/chainsaw_fellowship.htm Oh come on Cynic, don't forget your pals in the Log Cabin Republicans.

In terms of the sovereignty of the individual citizen, Trefor, your argument made complete sense.

Incest definition and laws have nothing to do with the age of the participants. Therefore, incest does not necessarily include minors. There are older people (past child bearing years) with legitimate concerns about societal limitations on this.

Holy S***, Zixar! Common ground!!! Actually, I think the list would be too big for me to even get started... but one of the biggest problems I see is such tragic portrayal of fathers.

TS, did you see what your buddy Pudge did? Signed a multi-year with Detroit! Well, I guess he got his ring, so he can afford to gamble on the prospect of rebuilding?

ok. you're probably correct on that. if I recall correctly, that was Scalia's point in his dissent on the big ruling last year. However, at this point, incest can be outlawed (still or again) on the citizenship argument because we are generally talking about at least one of the participants being a child. Children do not have ALL of the rights or responsibilities of citizenship, and therefore are not capable of granting legal consent. (which takes us back to Jonny's concern, I know). And on polygamy, it may be true that such a thing would be difficult or impossible to keep outlawed, but there are plenty of other problems associated with the closed subcultures currently practicing polygamy in the US, and those include (but may not be limited to...) forced compliance (which is not valid consent), child sexual abuse, and welfare fraud. Those items are being used to prosecute polygamists now, but it is still difficult.

anyone know why the 100th day is so special? (hint, I do)... niKa, it sounds like a whole bunch of fun!

zix, thanks for clarifying. however, the reason two same-sex heteros can't is because the sex is "assumed". And as to your challenge to Trefor, I gave you the reason when I explained about the sovereignty of the individual in the founding documents.

Tell me, what is preventing this from happening now? How do we know it is NOT happening now?

I have to agree with Trefor, as his argument makes sense. Here's why: America was NOT founded on any principle even remotely related to any argument for the furtherance of "society". America WAS founded on the fundamental concept of the sovereignty of the individual citizen. Now, what we face in this debate on gay marriage probably would like much like debates in the 1700s and 1800s regarding slavery and women's rights. You see, blacks were denied the freedoms (why should they have special treatment, after all) by denying them the dignity to be considered citizens. I'm not sure how they worded or justified denial of voting rights to women, other than the original notion that a citizen was a white property owner... but the fact is that the commonly understood applicability of the rights of citizenship as spelled out in the founding documents is where the limits were made. So, any application of limitations of freedoms today (which is the real issue) must be put in terms of clarifying that gays apparently are not worth being considered citizens in our society. And that seems downright silly. Arguments about basing current societal rules on the issue based on "what's 'good' for society" or whether this would be to grant "special" rights to a "special interest group" quietly but most definitely deny the fundamental sovereignty of the individual citizen, and deny the validity of America's founding philosophy.

In search of sno-cones?

Jonny, I was concerned with my spelling of the name of the state in question, not yours. I don't criticize spelling here. But I still don't see the connection between your concern and the issue at hand in the discussion of gay marriage. Even IF such a scenario could reasonably be expected (which may be possible, I'm not challenging you on it), there are NOW laws related to underage marriage and sex. Granted some states allow a 16 year old to marry with consent, and maybe 14, but there are still, and currently, even limits to that. AND, there are laws (though difficult to enforce) related to FORCING children to get married. THIS is not an issue of gay marriage, but IS an issue related to closed societies as offshoot to the mormon church in southern Utah/Northern Arizona. Officials in both states for about 50 years "winked" at, or allowed, knowingly but not officially endorsing, polygamy in a very closed culture around Colorado City, which is on the border of Arizona and Utah. But as, in the last couple of years, more horror stories of young girls being forced into plural marriages at ages as young as 13, efforts have stepped up to try to get the problems dealt with. That community is run by religious zealots, politically and commercially. They have intimidated state law enforcement and witnesses with impunity, for years. Such a thing would take a heck of a lot of intense effort to set up with same sex underage marriage. I just don't see the connection you make as being a reasonable fear. by all means, lets make sure children cannot be subject to such situations, however.

Don't expect a retraction. That would not apply in the case of a paid ad. The BEST we could hope for is to have it NOT run again. I can't imagine they only intended to air it once. That wouldn't make sense. Also, from the earlier explanations, the $29K was to produce the spot. The air time would be a different story, and the one time, on Imus probably did NOT cost as much. Paris Hilton, cleavage? The only cleavage she has is on the back side. -->

Jonny, Granted you are entitled to your opinion. However, you appeared to have presented it as a topic for discussion. And you used the court rulings in Massachusetts (spelling?) as a logical segue into the gloom and doom "inevitability" that we will be forced to accept "legalized pedophilia". We have common ground on this issue, at minimum, in concern about children being exploited. However, you don't make any logical sense in connecting the point, and I can't see any relationship between the issues. So, we agree we don't want children exploited. We don't agree that what the MASS. court ruled will lead to that happening. Further, while I can't deal with imagining the notion of two guys having sex, I cope by not imagining it. I'm not convinced, however, that allowing consenting adults privacy in their homes will be harmful to society. But even if it is, I am strongly against amending Constitutions for religious purposes.

16 days until pitchers and catchers report to Tucson for Diamondbacks spring training. Are the other teams dates the same?

Gosh, I'm sorry I didn't see this thread earlier. Too bad noone has Tivo (that saw it)! Tony Collins problems were not just with the league office, he had a cocaine problem. Irving Fryar, as a poster earlier correctly described, had domestic abuse problems. I doubt Bradshaw knew anything about TWI before or since, but probably will learn. If the guy at the agency that produced the spot is a "Spirit-filled" Christian, he probably also heard from regular churches with knowledge of TWI about how they are a cult... While I believe Corrydj's insight is correct, that doesn't preclude Imus taking an interest in a scandalous situation from a spot that aired, but because of concerns was immediately pulled. So, I wouldn't discourage contacting Imus, but don't expect him to be concerned about it, but he MIGHT. And on the issue of using TV, yes, as PamSD says, how "corporate". But don't forget that the mormon church as used TV extensively, especially at Christmas time, to get people to call in and ask for a "free copy of the Book of Mormon." And they've done so in more than one year, so they've probably gotten some results from it.

My advice: next time stock up the day before! :D-->

My vote is "Bush for president of Mars" and has been cast!

You're not the only one to hurt like that. If you don't have any support systems (friends/family) close by to where you live, you can get some support here... Don't be worried about sounding like a dumb***, like you said, it's not unique. You are also not the only GSer who has suffered depression. There are several, including me. We are here because we understand. Let us know how we can help you out.

though I was gung ho for twi, i would not have considered physically hurting someone for the cause, except in self-defense.

Well, we could ROCK around the clock!

Well... sounds good. Hopefully summer 2004 won't be as bad as last year. And hopefully, there will be more rain this spring... then it sounds really good.

ouch! feel better. (lo shanta)

we've actually had rain the last several days here. not hard, steady rain, but enough to find driveway puddles nevertheless. it's not as much of an oxymoron as some people we meet at GS... (present company excluded, of course) :D-->